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

Is Male dominance still present in society? Patriarchy Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Whilst yours has been brainwashed by misogyny :rolleyes:
    And yours by misandry (thanks for letting me know, google chrome, that misandry is not a word saved in your dictionary - surprise, surprise).
    Also, I adore women.
    I have many women in my life and I go out every day to bring in more - research, "day game" for details - but I do hate feminism - not feminists, but feminism.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Ace)
    And yours by misandry (thanks for letting me know, google chrome, that misandry is not a word saved in your dictionary - surprise, surprise).
    Also, I adore women.
    I have many women in my life and I go out every day to bring in more - research, "day game" for details - but I do hate feminism - not feminists, but feminism.
    Please tell me how feminism/feminists are oppressing you, I'd be real interested in hearing it. Also since daygame appears to be a bog standard "how to make women like you!" pick up website, I see no relevance for it to be mentioned here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Please tell me how feminism/feminists are oppressing you, I'd be real interested in hearing it. Also since daygame appears to be a bog standard "how to make women like you!" pick up website, I see no relevance for it to be mentioned here.
    He's a tory, and he hates the idea of a egalitarian social hierarchy.

    His closest relative is probably a violently patriarchal right winged immature chimpanzees instead of the non-violent sexually liberal socialist egalitarian matriarchal bonobos. Both of which humans are equally closely related to.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Please tell me how feminism/feminists are oppressing you, I'd be real interested in hearing it. Also since daygame appears to be a bog standard "how to make women like you!" pick up website, I see no relevance for it to be mentioned here.
    No no, not one day game website.
    Research the entire concept - it's about understanding women and how to attract them, I bring it up because whenever I say to a girl, "actually I love women and have plenty in my life."
    They simply say that I am lying, so to combat this I bring up day game.
    And I will get to the how feminists oppress men, but I'm super busy with uni stuff.
    If you're interested, I'll link you to some videos, you just have to ask - you're a clever girl, you realise the blissfulness of ignorance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Right of ascension? I'm not aware of any such legal construct in English law. Presumably you mean the law of succession?
    My mistake, that's what I meant.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    And no, he did not have authority over his sisters before he became king. A better example would be a family who is non-royal; what rights would a brother have over his sister? The answer is none.
    Yes, he would have. He would have been prioritised over them. The male heir of a family always had authority over their sisters, moslty because they would be the main source of income for their families.



    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Why should she have authority before she was queen?
    Because she would have been considered a Princess of the Blood.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    And in relative terms (compared to the average English person), she had considerable power. She had very considerable authority over the men and women of her household prior to becoming queen. They were legally bonded to her and required to follow her commands, and she had the right to use corporal punishment on them.

    Not so - Henry declared her illegitimate so she had very little authority. She was legally never given back the title of Princess, and was known simply as Lady Elizabeth. Yes she had higher rank over her servants, but the same can be said for her brother. And her father had the authority to get rid of her servants, or appoint members of her household that he could rely on to relay information.


    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Why would Henry's wives have power? You're confusing a Queen Regnant with a Queen Consort.

    Similarly, Prince Philip is not the King of England. He is the Prince Consort.

    Presumably then you think a First Lady or Prime Minister's wife should have some right to power simply because of who she's married to? Isn't that an even more regressive gender view?
    Because some of them had had titles in their own right, and therefore influence. Katherine of Aragon was a Princess of Spain with a relative elected Holy Roman Emperor, and Anne of Cleves from a highly Protestant royal family. Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr had also acted as Queen Regnant in their own times for him, when Henry was away at war with the French.

    I'm using these as an example of how back in those days, it didn't matter if you were of a higher class - if you were a woman, your choices were limited and you did not have a lot of freedom
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As hinted at earlier, there is more a split in class than in gender.

    Obviously there are areas where divisions still exist, such as the army, but I'm glad it's improved.

    We are obviously ignoring the ****-hole that are many developing nations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Ace)
    The time is now, mate.
    Women fought back against their oppressors one day; now it's our turn to fight back against ours.
    Yup mate, I honestly think there will be an uprise in our lifetime by men. I personally give it 20-30 years tops. Too many men are being marginalised at the expense of their female peers and this is certainly not good for society. A society needs men to be at their optimal output to function properly.

    Vive la Revolution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The male will always be the dominant out of the two. Girls are weak. Look at the body frame of a male compared with a women, a man could crush a woman. Feminism was the greatest evil of the 20th century, allowing women to believe they were equal. In my experience woman who are still treated like they are woman (cleaning, cooking, homemaker, stay at home mum) are more happy than the ones who believe they should be treated like men.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robbmann)
    The male will always be the dominant out of the two. Girls are weak. Look at the body frame of a male compared with a women, a man could crush a woman. Feminism was the greatest evil of the 20th century, allowing women to believe they were equal. In my experience woman who are still treated like they are woman (cleaning, cooking, homemaker, stay at home mum) are more happy than the ones who believe they should be treated like men.
    I've said this before:

    If women were to become extinct, the best scientists in the world could come together, make artificial wombs and life would go on [albeit would be a pretty depressing one without women]

    If men were to become extinct, the human race would be doomed as soon as the first gas pipe started leaking.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goodbye)
    Being the 21st century, 2013 we wouldn't really accept the fact that there is gender inequality but Is Male dominance still present in society?

    0<x>140
    Yes , it will be and it should.Because if both gender will be equal who is going to lead a family

    People trying to normalize the term of equalism of gender to get money and power from it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robbmann)
    The male will always be the dominant out of the two. Girls are weak. Look at the body frame of a male compared with a women, a man could crush a woman. Feminism was the greatest evil of the 20th century, allowing women to believe they were equal. In my experience woman who are still treated like they are woman (cleaning, cooking, homemaker, stay at home mum) are more happy than the ones who believe they should be treated like men.
    I've got to say mate, I disagree with a lot of what you're saying, respectfully, of course.
    To say women are, "weak" is incorrect, at least in the way that I view strength, that is to say that strength is not just about being able to physically, "crush" things - which has, is and will always be a necessity for the furthering of life.
    I believe that strength is also an intellectual trait as well as spiritual (I personally am athiest) among other things - all of which women are certainly not, "weak."

    A lot of women who do those things you've listed may well be happy, but that is because they choose to do those things.
    Women who are forced to do them (without enjoying being forced - something which a lot of women do enjoy), however, are not happy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    I've said this before:

    If women were to become extinct, the best scientists in the world could come together, make artificial wombs and life would go on [albeit would be a pretty depressing one without women]

    If men were to become extinct, the human race would be doomed as soon as the first gas pipe started leaking.
    Although that last joke was humourous, I don't think you're helping our cause with it - at least not in this circumstance.

    And as for your argument regarding science, scientist could just as easily produce sperm and life would continue without men.

    I think we're forgetting the wonder and beauty of women, both physically and intellectually - which feminism has clearly destroyed.
    You may think them, "crazy" but learn to love it, for if they were gone, where would we be?

    However, if feminists were gone, the world would be a far greater place, please do not confuse women with feminists - two very different, but for obvious reasons interconnected, races - for lack of a better word.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    I've said this before:

    If men were to become extinct, the human race would be doomed as soon as the first gas pipe started leaking.
    Not quite, but you had me thinking of (Zubaty, author of What Men Know That Women Don't) .
    (Found this "info" book whilst looking for vid )

    In response to a TV prog (that I vaguely watched with Jane Horrocks?), read attached pdf file from P3, downloaded Oct-06.
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: pdf If Men Went on Strike - Sam Fryman.pdf (73.1 KB, 231 views)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rad_student)
    Not quite, but you had me thinking of (Zubaty, author of What Men Know That Women Don't) .
    (Found this "info" book whilst looking for vid )

    In response to a TV prog (that I vaguely watched with Jane Horrocks?), read attached pdf file from P3, downloaded Oct-06.
    Oh hell yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    Yes, he would have. He would have been prioritised over them. The male heir of a family always had authority over their sisters
    Prioritised is different to authority, and again you've failed to provide a single credible example.

    Because she would have been considered a Princess of the Blood.
    There was no such title in Tudor England. And I suspect you really don't have any understanding of the Tudor legal system. There is no reason that a style (as opposed to title) should have any legal effect or authority thereof, and princes equally had no inherent authority other than what was conferred by the monarch in the way of positions and titles (for example, being given a household, or being made the premier of the council that ruled Wales, etc)

    Not so - Henry declared her illegitimate so she had very little authority.
    Her legitimacy or lack thereof had absolutely no impact on her authority over her household as a major landowner.

    She was legally never given back the title of Princess, and was known simply as Lady Elizabeth. Yes she had higher rank over her servants, but the same can be said for her brother.
    "the same can be said of her brother". Yes. Exactly. Why do you think she should have had power simply because she came out of a particular vagina?

    And her father had the authority to get rid of her servants, or appoint members of her household that he could rely on to relay information.
    Was this unique to her being a woman, or the fact that the King's family was always subject to his direct personal control both as a father and a monarch? Again, I think your understanding of Tudor law is quite lacking.

    Because some of them had had titles in their own right, and therefore influence. Katherine of Aragon was a Princess of Spain with a relative elected Holy Roman Emperor, and Anne of Cleves from a highly Protestant royal family.
    This is really quite irrelevant. The question is why you thing a Queen Consort should have any particular legal authority? Equally, their influence did not have legal effect.

    Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr had also acted as Queen Regnant in their own times for him, when Henry was away at war with the French.
    No, they acted as Queen Regent, not Queen Regnant.

    I'm using these as an example of how back in those days, it didn't matter if you were of a higher class - if you were a woman, your choices were limited and you did not have a lot of freedom
    And I'm pointing out that this wasn't your original argument, that authority in royal families was based around sovereignty rather than gender, and that one was not subjected to the authority of one's brothers by any legal mechanism, excepting royal families where the effect is the same when you have a female monarch.

    A perfect example of this being that Empress Matilda had authority over Robert, Earl of Gloucester. Why? Because she was Queen. His maleness gave him no superior status over her, despite being her brother. He was subject to her, because she was the monarch.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rad_student)
    Not quite, but you had me thinking of (Zubaty, author of What Men Know That Women Don't) .
    (Found this "info" book whilst looking for vid )
    This is why nobody takes MRAs seriously.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    This is why nobody takes MRAs seriously.
    Please explain, is there some incorrect info that you can help me clarify with? It is the vid you r talking about? The other link was a book that I had not Seen till today.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rad_student)
    Please explain, is there some incorrect info that you can help me clarify with? It is the vid you r talking about? The other link was a book that I had not till today.
    The video was one giant joke. Admittedly I stopped watching about 2-3 minutes in, so it could have ended with 'hah! Just joking, we're being ironic' but it didn't seem to be heading that way. I didn't post about it myself because I didn't know what the hell to say to that crap.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    The video was one giant joke. Admittedly I stopped watching about 2-3 minutes in, so it could have ended with 'hah! Just joking, we're being ironic' but it didn't seem to be heading that way. I didn't post about it myself because I didn't know what the hell to say to that crap.
    Watch till the end & maybe an answer will come to you. I'd like to help further, but its hard when people r speechless on a text only forum!
    I'm not always great at expressing myself either.
    Does it answer the thread?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rad_student)
    Please explain, is there some incorrect info that you can help me clarify with? It is the vid you r talking about? The other link was a book that I had not Seen till today.
    Seriously? The whole thing is expressed through a fictionalised woman whose character is deliberately designed to conform to negative stereotypes that appeal to the prejudices of the target audience. That alone makes it trash. It's also aggressively ahistorical, painfully reductive, doesn't even attempt any form of analysis, degrades the hard work of female engineers, scientists, inventors, firefighters and so on, degrades service sector workers and throws in some cherrypicked statistics at the end to seal the deal. It is totally void of any value.
 
 
 
  • 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.