>patriarchal masculinity emotionally damages boys
>we have to end patriarchy to heal men from their trauma
>the solution to ending patriarchy is to give men more love
>women are to blame for patriarchy as much as men are
>women are no more emotionally mature than men
Was she the only good feminist author?
>patriarchal masculinity emotionally damages boys
>we have to end patriarchy to heal men from their trauma
>the solution to ending patriarchy is to give men more love
that's how they get you. The hidden underline is swapping patriarchy for matriarchy, which is the same authoritarian power-structure only more laced with euphemism.
>The hidden underline is swapping patriarchy for matriarchy
Bell was against this. Power struggles are not love and a sign of emotional immaturity on either side.
A Black person was too low iq to be a fully neurotic high iq white/israeli feminazi and ended up being slightly less histrionix and insane, kek
Define live
can you please not be racist it is unnecessary and uncalled for thank you
That i cannot do Black person. Now tounge my anus and frick of to r*ddit.
You can.
Riddle me this,
An answer do tell,
What's thirteen percent,
Yet 50 as well?
Captcha: WHY4A
"Love" is a meme empty word created by westerner homosexuals. If your philosophy is based on love its doomed to fail
>dude just be hecking nice and wholesome hold hands and sing kumbaya
Kindness and manners are great but life is complex and those type of traits aren’t always useful.
This is cope. There are ALWAYS power struggles, even in the most loving relationships.
>someone is motivated by compassion
>nope, it's really a ploy for power
>and really, power, expressed and understood in terms of power structures
mate you need real human connection
What
said. Idk if I agree with the woman but not every sign of compassion or sympathy is an evil demon practicing deception. It’s like the people saying silly celebrities like joe Rogan are controlled opposition just because he slightly agrees with them. It’s schizo
I DON'T NEED YOUR LOVE, JUST THAT SWEET ASS, PUSSY AND breasts. X
She was literally correct about everything. It's like reading Marx or the gospels, my only analysis is yes all of this is unquestionably true.
shut up coomer
Is it really this simple???
Based and correct pilled.
>emotional damage
So what? The great tragedy of the world is that people get hurt?
Loving sex is more fulfilling than lustful sex, and fulfilled people are more creative than unfulfilled people.
>fulfilled people are more creative than unfulfilled people
This idea of yours either comes from wishful thinking, or misinterpreted stats and wishful thinking. It sure would be convenient if what people desire also was what made mankind progress, wouldn't it? From thermodynamics to darwinian evolution though, everything we know should make you wary of this notion.
What else would be the tragedy of this world? That's like a description of tragedy.
Violent masculine ultrapatriarchy on trend-dbol cycle doesn't actually hurt men emotionally. It hurts weak men
Feminism is lobbying for sois
yes she's basically a utilitarian
patriarchy is a conspiracy theory promoted by capitalists
only usa and their tools care about it
Jesus you fricking gnat, say something interesting or go away, I can get reflexive political opinioms by the pageload for free on the internet. I'm not buying what you are selling. You shouldn't either.
frick off cia
Bot post
damn I thought only I thought that. What book did she say this in?
The Will to Change
c.f. also Dorothy Dinnerstein
Did she say the same about racism?
>women are no more emotionally mature than men
wait, is there anyone who thought that women are more emotionally mature than men...?
masculinity emotionally damages boys
prove it
>we have to end patriarchy to heal men from their trauma
suffering is the cause of all that is best in us
>the solution to ending patriarchy is to give men more love
I refuse to be tamed like an animal
>women are to blame for patriarchy as much as men are
why assign 'blame' for a functioning organizational pattern?
>women are no more emotionally mature than men
in fact far less so, because their tantrums are indulged by society and their whims catered to
>prove it
Look at acts of violence, substance abuse, and suicide rates between the sexes and tell me that men aren't more emotionally damaged on average. If you're questioning what's caused that, then consider this site and the associated dialogues here, or consider porn, since patriarchal masculinity is expressed all over the place alongside expressions of anger and hatred in both.
>suffering is the cause of all that is best in us
Prove that.
>I refuse to be tamed like an animal
But you're okay being violent like an animal?
>why assign 'blame' for a functioning organizational pattern?
Because it isn't a naturally arising pattern. It's multi--generational trauma.
>in fact far less so
No, they're about equally immature in this regard, and maturity is a matter of education in both cases.
>Women are not going to give men more love
Not without proper education, no.
>they would become quickly disconcerted that men want sex and not just love
Men and women both need sex. It's patriarchal masculinity that has made women sexually repressed and made men lustful / obsessive about it. Lust develops out of a lack of self-love. It's sexual addiction, and the problem with any addiction is that it can't be satiated and always needs more extreme stimuli the next time around.
>Women are emotionally and crave a stoicism in men
Patriarchal masculinity caused both. Liberated men and women are equally emotional.
>The dysfunction of today is caused by thinking it could be otherwise
No, it's caused by the continual perpetuation of patriarchal masculinity in a world where such a masculinity is no longer necessary due to advances in technology and social infrastructure.
>Mixing them together makes men and women behave in ways they would not otherwise find intuitive
Men committing violence and suicide and becoming sex, alcohol, drug, and work addicts is not something they find intuitive except when they are emotionally damaged.
>ook at acts of violence, substance abuse, and suicide rates between the sexes and tell me that men aren't more emotionally damaged on average. If you're questioning what's caused that, then consider this site and the associated dialogues here, or consider porn, since patriarchal masculinity is expressed all over the place alongside expressions of anger and hatred in both.
Men that were raised by single mothers.
Certainly a factor in many modern cases, but single mothers often become patriarchal because they think they need to be, and that's where the issue lies. When mothers adopt the patriarchal masculinity (that is, masculinity that glorifies the domination of men over others) that they think their sons need in their lives, their sons typically end up resentful and violent towards their own mothers and women in general.
Wtf an actually good post? Amazing
What is with the most braindead online leftist/feminist types and the word "trauma"?
It's like this semi-religious concept cloaked in a vaugely sciency exterior, but it's actually just a bunch of bullshit.
I can instantly tell when someone is a member of the cult if they use any of the following words: Inter generational trauma, toxic, internalized X, etc.
Future historians will write fascinating tomes about this new religion.
Here's my theory on all this sex stuff:
Men are naturally more aggressive, competitive, and impulsive. Women are simaltaneously afraid of and attracted to this side of men. This leads them to strike a pose which seems contradictory or incoherent to men, but from their pov makes sense.
They want to constrict that side of men, but they're also attracted to it to an extent.
There's also this difficulty that a man capable of some violence can be attractive in offering protection (thinking about pre-modern times), but that can pose some risk to yourself.
Most of history they've been subject to men, and have had to deal with men's natural egoism. For the most part they've always had to be more concerned with ensuring the safety of their own person and their children's safety. And have often used their sex, or more specifically their ability to produce children / provide heirs, as a bargaining chip to secure that safety. The children ensure her use to the husband and that they're now tied together.
I was reading the old Testament recently, and was struck by how much the women are obsessed with having children. Basically if women couldn't produce children they'd become useless. There's even a section where Jacob's two wives are competing for his affection, and to have more children than the other.
Fastforward to moden times, the reproductive element isn't tied to sex anymore and men no longer hold all the cards, but women still fear for their safety.
Im the past safety was ensured by a personal bond to a man. Today they must try to neuter, tamp down in mass men's instincts by appealing to men's reason through argument.
A trauma is an emotional scar. Most people have them, since most people were neglected or abused either by parents or peers at some point. What exactly is your issue with the term / concept?
>Today they must try to neuter, tamp down in mass men's instincts by appealing to men's reason through argument.
Stopped reading there
Thats the last line in his post.
Where else would you stop reading?
>If you're questioning what's caused that, then consider this site and the associated dialogues here, or consider porn, since patriarchal masculinity is expressed all over the place alongside expressions of anger and hatred in both.
This is not evidence. All you have is bare assertion, which I dismiss because you have shown neither a causal connection nor an arrow of causation
>suffering is the cause of all that is best in us
>Prove that.
It's a truism throughout history because it is so obvious. You do not develop capacity to do much of anything without struggle. Do you think you would be anything other than a spineless sea-creature if all you knew was comfort and indolence? The question you should be asking is 'to what extent and in what contexts is suffering good and necessary?'
>But you're okay being violent like an animal?
Nice unfounded accusation. As I have never non-consensually engaged in it except in direct defense of myself or others, yes, unreservedly. You will never eliminate it or its necessity in the same way that you will never eliminate other basic forms of crime or violations: people exploit vulnerabilities. Your ilk taking over universities and spouting this facile nonsense is one such exploitation: shall we have you removed for the damage you've caused?
>Because it isn't a naturally arising pattern.
Except just about everywhere. Laughable claim.
>No, they're about equally immature in this regard
And you implicitly called me 'violent like an animal' because you simply couldn't help yourself.
lol
lmao
>All you have is bare assertion
Maybe, but I think bell hooks is correct. Young men watch porn today, for example, which promotes the patriarchal values they come to adopt, but the modern world doesn't allow them to legally or economically dominate women anymore, so these values fall flat on their faces and lead them to addiction and depression. If young men stopped thinking they were born to dominate women and that women are only attracted to dominant men (only patriarchal women are) and instead educated themselves on what feminist masculinity looks like and chose feminists as partners, they would find themselves in healthier relationships and would feel more fulfilled as a result.
>You do not develop capacity to do much of anything without struggle.
Conflict isn't the same as suffering and it's also not a given that it's the cause of "all that is best in us." I would agree that it's a necessary ingredient, but not the chief cause like you're claiming it is (conflict, not suffering).
>Nice unfounded accusation.
It's not unfounded. You're defending patriarchal masculinity, which encourages emotional repression in men, which is responsible for the majority of violence committed by both men and women.
>Except just about everywhere.
It's everywhere, but that doesn't mean it arises naturally anywhere. homosexual sapiens had to learn it, and until they did, they co-existed with a cousin species that never did, the Neanderthals. The need to learn it is almost over though because the species and planet have changed since the Neanderthals were alive.
>still just bare assertions
>claims that humans had to learn 'the patriarchy' from neanderthals ([citation needed], seriously, what the frick am I reading)
>suggests I am a violent animal and then claims this is not an unfounded accusation despite, again, having no evidence
your entire worldview is a house of cards. you are a creature of pure prejudice; absolutely stereotypical of feminists.
>claims that humans had to learn 'the patriarchy' from neanderthals
Not what I wrote, read it again.
>suggests I am a violent animal
It's a safe assumption to make considering you believe in continuing the domination of men over others beyond the expiration date of such a social structure.
I think I clicked off the reply box accidentally
should read
from [conflict with] neanderthals
>existed with a cousin species that never did, the Neanderthals. The need to learn it is almost over though because the species and planet have changed since the Neanderthals were alive
Is your entire worldview based on hearsay of biased academics and the bones of a species that has been dead for 40,000 years?
>Young men watch porn today, for example, which promotes the patriarchal values they come to adopt
You're incapable of analyzing anything outside of your ideological blinkers.
"Patriarchy" almost seems like feminists version of original sin.
Absent from your posts is any actual arguments for the things you value
If there is an element of domination in porn thats because there's an element of domination in sex.
Neurology has shown that the parts of the brain associated with aggression are close to that of sex--suggesting that rather than it being a product of the "patriarchy" it's actually just part of sex. Sex is related to power, this fact makes you queezy because you are more of a prude than a puritan pastor.
>If young men stopped thinking they were born to dominate women and that women are only attracted to dominant men
Do most men think they are born to dominate women?
If they did then why did they let women have equal legal and social rights to them? Seems like a baseless assertion.
>patriarchal masculinity, which encourages emotional repression in men, which is responsible for the majority of violence committed by both men and women.
About 99% of the world's violent crime is men.
Emotional repression / patriarchy has little explanatory power for why higher lvl of aggression should be so consistently higher in one sex.
Most socities today are not patriarchies, so that's strange..
>homosexual sapiens had to learn it, and until they did, they co-existed with a cousin species that never did, the Neanderthals.
You know what we did to the Neanderthals lol?
Also no evidence that we had to learn conflict. Conflict and border clashes between groups naturally arise in our closest living relative, the Chimpanzee.
>You're incapable of analyzing anything outside of your ideological blinkers.
Not at all. In fact, I've barely read any feminist works and I'm just starting to tackle this area.
>Absent from your posts is any actual arguments for the things you value
So far, my posts aren't about defending things I value, but dismantling the shallow arguments of others.
>Neurology has shown that the parts of the brain associated with aggression are close to that of sex--suggesting that rather than it being a product of the "patriarchy" it's actually just part of sex.
How do we know this is the case and that thousands of years of patriarchy didn't just condition the species this way? How do we know that it isn't just continuously doing so? And what about all the people today who aren't aggressive but who still have loads of sex, like Asians, or feminist men for example?
>Do most men think they are born to dominate women?
No, they're taught it by older patriarchal males.
>About 99% of the world's violent crime is men.
And I'm willing to bet that most of those men are patriarchal, or haunted by the voices of patriarchal males.
>Emotional repression / patriarchy has little explanatory power for why higher lvl of aggression should be so consistently higher in one sex.
Patriarchy actually damages men far more than it does women. This is bell hooks' stance on the matter. Feminists other than her talk mostly about how it hurts women, but according to hooks, it's really hurting men way, way more, and has been doing so for a very long time in history. It hurts them by traumatizing them and teaching them to hate themselves, pressuring them into becoming basically good little soldiers that only know how to eat, frick, and kill — with the last priority being how to love.
>Most socities today are not patriarchies
Most societies today are still perpetuating the values of patriarchies. It's all over the place, it's obvious.
>Also no evidence that we had to learn conflict.
It's not conflict that we learned, but patriarchal organization, which led us to wipe out the Neanderthals. It was good back then. It's not anymore.
>In fact, I barely read
That much was already clear.
>the people today who aren't aggressive but who still have loads of sex, like Asians, or feminist men for example?
"Like asians" lol.
>And I'm willing to bet that most of those men are patriarchal, or haunted by the voices of patriarchal males.
Wow this patriarchy sure causes a lot. Is your mental disability also a product of the patriarchy?
>It's not conflict that we learned, but patriarchal organization, which led us to wipe out the Neanderthals
No evidence
>How do we know this is the case and that thousands of years of patriarchy didn't just condition the species this way?
Try to explain something without using the word "patriarchy", this is a challenge.
Nothing worth addressing here. I'll save my time for someone more serious about this topic.
I'm not him but I do find it funny that you choose the people with the lowest possible birth rates as a good example of sex havers.
You don't see self owns like that frequently
>lower birth rates means less sex
Really?
I feel like those would highly correlate at the very least.
If you have some data indicating that asians are hidden sex freaks feel free to share
nta but how much hentai and ecchi manga is there?
I meant sex freaks in the sense of them having tons of it.
I feel like the excess of hentai and manga would indicate the obvious, that they aren't having much sex
>still have loads of sex, like Asians, or feminist men
you made the bait too obvious, try again another thread
I’m going to continue reading this thread however, this post was where I felt compelled to stop and say thank you. You’ve maintained consistent and coherent levels of discourse despite bad faith attempts by stunted or immature individuals. Is it a function of individual patience or because the truth doesn’t require combative and accusatory language to validate itself? Regardless, I greatly appreciate the change in perspective you’ve offered, detailing pain points I wasn’t able to verbalize previously.
>You’ve maintained consistent and coherent levels of discourse
When ever someone asserts something that disagrees with his philosophy, he either denies it or blames the neblous patarichary.
All preexisting female behavior he blames on the patriarchy except for his own unfalsible personal ancedotes, and he is in complete denial on the increase in Transgenderism and decrease in patriarchal attitudes in the current year.
You're welcome. I may have lost the plot briefly at some point, because I'm still figuring it all out myself (it's why I come here — to have recent readings and thoughts challenged, so I can organize them better), but I'm relatively consistent because I've spent a lot of time in debates, in-person and online, so I'm used to it. I've seen every type of bad faith argument out there countless times over and understand where they come from. I'm also one of the few active posters who doesn't engage in threads about authors I haven't read.
>he is in complete denial on the increase in Transgenderism
I'm not. The increase is simply marginal and doesn't support your presuppositions.
>decrease in patriarchal attitudes in the current year
The increase in Muslim and conservative populations worldwide prove you wrong.
I didn't mention any career, I mentioned a characteristic. I only mentioned offices to bring to mind the environment where you'll find most female workers.
>The increase in Muslim and conservative populations worldwide prove you wrong.
What conservative populations, the pro LGBT conservatives that are the liberals of a decade ago?
2nd gen arabic immigrants are more liberal muslim than their parents like most generations.
>Men and women both need sex. It's patriarchal masculinity that has made women sexually repressed and made men lustful / obsessive about it. Lust develops out of a lack of self-love. It's sexual addiction, and the problem with any addiction is that it can't be satiated and always needs more extreme stimuli the next time around.
It's true that men and women both need sex but the average desire for sex is different in men and women. This is predicted by the high parental investment in the female and the potentially low parental investment by the male. Apes follow one of two breeding patterns, tournament style breeding in which one dominant male does most of the breeding and pair bonding in which couples form. Biologically the shows in male female sexual dismorphia. Humans show biological hallmarks of being right on the line between the two systems. This is also reflected in our history. I'm not a biological determinist and I think that culture mediates our actions with respect to our biological drives but any ideology that thinks there is nothing real to overcome is bound to fail
Differences in libido are largely linked to testosterone levels, and in regards to that, see
Because it stems from male warrior culture from the tribal era of human history.
>Because it stems from male warrior culture from the tribal era of human history.
In addition to this, we're talking about a value structure which has underpinning it the conviction that men must dominate those around them in order to be considered men. Manhood is associated with domination, which leads to violence towards the self and others, which leads to addiction and depression. It's patriarchal masculinity that's being addressed because it's men and women with that conviction who cause emotional damage to younger generations, that damage being the conviction itself.
>Manhood is associated with domination, which leads to violence towards the self and others, which leads to addiction and depression.
What would you rather Manhood be associated with? Try and construct something instead of deconstructing for a moment. Womenhood has a clear thing to center itself around, childbearing as its the one thing that she can do that men can't. And fatherhood isn't an answer since what fatherhood is, is too broad of a term dependant on culture. And of course it has to differ from what women can do.
>What would you rather Manhood be associated with?
How about generativity or vitality? See
for further input on this.
See
Testosterone level is largely a product of environment.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30136295/
>In the healthy, normal males and females, there was a clear bimodal distribution of testosterone levels, with the lower end of the male range being four- to fivefold higher than the upper end of the female range(males 8.8-30.9 nmol/L, females 0.4-2.0 nmol/L).
Still environmental. Patriarchal masculinity changed most of the planet over the course of millennia.
>Patriarchal masculinity changed most of the planet over the course of millennia.
Higher testosterone levels among men come from "patriarchal masculinity"?
Do you hear how utterly deranged you sound?
This explanation is actually on par with evangelical Christians ascribing every bad phenomenon to the devil.
Every single piece of evidence shown to you, you rationalize away under this nebulous concept "patriarchal masculinity".
You are not intellectually honest.
when all she has is a dildo, every problem looks like 'patriarchal masculinity'
>Higher testosterone levels among men come from "patriarchal masculinity"?
In a sense. They come from the environment, which has been significantly altered by patriarchal masculinity over many thousands of years.
>Do you hear how utterly deranged you sound?
What's deranged about it? We already know that environment affects testosterone levels, and that there exist populations where testosterone levels differ from the known average.
>Every single piece of evidence shown to you, you rationalize away under this nebulous concept "patriarchal masculinity".
I don't "rationalize away." I criticize the presuppositions that the presented studies don't actually support.
>Man you have more to give, the handsome, rich and social well connected, will be more attractive to women.
To women who want that, sure, but the dynamic would still change, because as long as men and women are both re-educated on the matter, they will no longer glorify the stoic male who suppresses his emotions in order to maintain a dominant appearance. This lets men be more vulnerable without fearing rejection from women, who only reject men for such a thing because they're patriarchal in the first place. Over time, this would change both men and women, making them both equally emotional and sexual, and then what men have to give women will change too. It won't be possessions, because possessions are valued only by patriarchal beings; it'll instead be passions.
That's not male nature. See the above conversation. Testosterone levels are environmental.
testosterone levels among men come from "patriarchal masculinity"?
>In a sense. They come from the environment, which has been significantly altered by patriarchal masculinity over many thousands of years.
What in the Rousseau and Freud pseduo-prehistorical matriarchal precursor bullshit is this? Oh wait I know - their bullshit made up idealised version of prehistory that has been disproven by literally all available evidence.
lol, lmao even.
>that has been disproven by literally all available evidence.
Delusional.
It's not bad. It's just not a defining trait of masculinity.
>When men start to break down and open up to them, women get irritated since their pleasure box isn't emitting pleasure any more.
Patriarchal women do that, not women as a whole. bell hooks talks about this. Women are responsible for perpetuating patriarchal values into the modern era just as much as men are.
>Before you had two different things, afterwards you have one.
No you don't. There's still physical differences. They just aren't viewed through the tyrannical lens of one being superior to the other.
>No you don't. There's still physical differences. They just aren't viewed through the tyrannical lens of one being superior to the other.
You would have one category, one identity, one social group of menwomen. Ultimately you would do away with physical difference too as best as you could. But within that group there would still be individuals capable of elevating themselves, of meeting the higher standard of being a man instead of merely a woman, who would be stunted and crippled by having been deprived of that possibility. Without them you'd have a culture more oppressive and stagnant than any that's ever existed in human history
>they will no longer glorify the stoic male who suppresses his emotions in order to maintain a dominant appearance.
You misunderstand the Females idea of a valuable man. Women value men as a source of pleasure and social status. When men start to break down and open up to them, women get irritated since their pleasure box isn't emitting pleasure any more.
Men recognize this, and they learned through female exposure as well as 2nd hand guidance from their friends and fathers, that women will abandon them when they express themselves.
It's why men perform irrational and dangerous actions to impress women, it shows their measure of control and their tolerance to damage, while still providing for the female.
Why is it good for men and women to blend together like that. Before you had two different things, afterwards you have one. Seems to me a lot of left-wing causes are like that, if they all get what they want the world will be a lot less interesting.
You sound just like the Communists trying to create the homosexual sovieticus, believing you can just morph people into whatever you want, that everything is environment: it isn't. Even the most progressive women end up losing respect for men that act feminine, yet the claim to that is 'oh we haven't gone far enough, the dreaded society still is controlling you, the revolution must continue'. It becomes unfalsifiable as there is no way to completely remove society as in influence, so you can always claim that society just needs to be changed more, wasn't changed enough. You are essentially fighting evolution. There is a very important reason women are attracted to men that act traditionally masculine - they are more likely to be able to protect them, acquire resources and these traits will be beneficial in the offspring. This has been the case forever, even in a world completely devoid of war, simply surviving against nature puts these evolutionary pressures upon humans and the women select accordingly. Tearing people away from the natural world in this over-civilised mess which literally destroys people's mental health still does not undo the genetic preferences of women, and be assured that this state we currently live in, anomalous to 99% of human history will not last long enough to remove that genetic preference in women for masculine men.
And it is not at all delusional. The idea of a matriarchal/not patriarchal feminine precursor society in prehistory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_and_Taboo is was popular among some in the past two centuries and accorded with their psychological and ideological beliefs. You are parroting their old shit without even knowing it. There has been zero serious evidence discovered of this supposed non-patriarchal societal structure (which of course is too far back to get any good evidence) which is exactly why it is placed in those mists of time - it is unfalsifiable - although ridiculous because it does not accord with all other societies we do have evidence of. Assuming history and prehistory (poorly known of) is the opposite to all we know is silly and requires some serious proof.
This mystical precursor to give legitimacy to ideas that have literally never worked is common, and for similar reasons has been used by many groups. The Nazis used the far-flung past to place their idealised Aryan precursor society too, and all that Hyperborean shit. It is impossible to prove or disprove conclusively, which is how they liked it.
This is rank historicism and stinks in the nostrils of any man of rational intellect.
Stop being angry at existence, men are as women have made them over long evolution by sexual selection, and they did so because of the reality of human existence: natural selection.
May you find a man that is able to put your histrionic and childish immature femininity in order.
>You are essentially fighting evolution.
Attempting to steer it in a new direction, rather. It's possible, it just takes a lot of work.
>There is a very important reason women are attracted to men that act traditionally masculine - they are more likely to be able to protect them
Of course, but they pretty soon won't need men for protection thanks to technology. Then what? Are you going to try to go back to the old ways, an approach that has never been shown to work? Or will you join the effort to re-educate them so they appreciate other qualities in men?
>May you find a man that is able to put your histrionic and childish immature femininity in order.
I'm a heterosexual male.
>Attempting to steer it in a new direction, rather. It's possible, it just takes a lot of work.
Ah so you are indeed a Marxist.
>Of course, but they pretty soon won't need men for protection thanks to technology. Then what? Are you going to try to go back to the old ways, an approach that has never been shown to work? Or will you join the effort to re-educate them so they appreciate other qualities in men?
More Marxist delusion that they will reshape the world in both technology and humanity.
>I'm a heterosexual male.
God help you. What an unmasculine and unchristian mind, truly rationality deserts you as femininity takes shape in a vessel unfit for it's purpose.
What tech you speak of? Ai shit?
>I'm a heterosexual male.
Of all the things you have said, this is the phrase I find hardest to believe
That's because you're patriarchal. It blinds you from other forms of masculinity.
>generativity or vitality?
By generativity you mean making stuff?
Isn't that the same as judging a man by his job?
By vitality do you mean his strength of body?
Isn't that the same as judging him by his height and genetics?
Elborate further
My idea is that masculinity's essential trait is giving rather than dominating. This would complement my other idea, that femininity's essential trait is receiving rather than submitting. What is being given is up to the individual male and what he has, and the female he should enter relationship with should be one who would like to receive what he has to give, not one that he can dominate into submission.
>What is being given is up to the individual male and what he has
That's kinda of the problem I have here, you haven't changed the dynamic at all.
Man you have more to give, the handsome, rich and social well connected, will be more attractive to women.
As is the current situation.
And you have this one sided scenario, where the man is the provider and the women the spender, it doesn't offer much to those who have to give themselves away.
Kinda unfair.
Nature and nurture are not separable. There is also no reason to think that interactions between the two are linear or monotonic. I'm not saying that there is no culture that could make adult males behaviorally identical to adult females but there is no reason to think that identical socialization would lead to that outcome. That being said identical socialization is not even a possibility because socialization must respond to the individuals behavior and individuals are different. My point is if the plan does not address underlying biological differences it is bound to fail. This is not me advocating for a return to traditional gender roles or anything along those lines. It's just an attempt to be honest about the fact that humans are not a tabula rasa.
>Look at acts of violence, substance abuse, and suicide rates between the sexes and tell me that men aren't more emotionally damaged on average
That's because men have a lot more testosterone and are more prone to risk-taking behavior, as well as impulsive behavior. It's simply male nature to do dumb shit sometimes. You can decrease it, but it's unrelated to patriarchal structures: they just need a good upbringing that minimizes moronic actions due to childhood traumas leading to antisocial behavior.
But don’t woman want a more “manly” man. Of course they want a very specific type of loving person most of the time. But that perfect type of man leans to be more masculine then feminine. An efficient LOVING protector is the natural want for a woman.
>suffering is the cause of all that is best in us
What do you see that is valuable in human behavior that isn't an attempt to reduce suffering? Better humans are better because they make the world more desirable for someone somewhere.
>prove it
your behavior proves it for me
Took far too many posts for something sensible like this to be posted. This board is dead.
>Any system that is not patriarchal is bound to be shittier for men
For everyone else too, but they lack the sentience and culpability to recognise it.
That is a good quote.
Although I've always favoured limited monarchy over a republic.
>Oh my science your inbred white lineage and heckin wholesome 100 trad hat gives you the heckin right to rule over us as a superior being!
MonarKEKS are pathethic lol
Didn't absolutist monarchy pave the way to liberal democracy in so far as it eroded the power of the aristocracy?
That's Tocqueville's argument if i remember correctly, and absolutist monarchy was a new phenomenon.
Seems to me if you wanted to be a le hecking based read you'd actually argue for a return to feudalism.
>the solution to ending patriarchy is to give men more love
I can personally say with certainty that if a warm-hearted nubian chocolate queen had sat on my face and giggled at key developmental junctions of my adolescence, I would not have turned into a chud.
Women are not going to give men more love, and if they did they would become quickly disconcerted that men want sex and not just love. Women are emotionally and crave a stoicism in men. Men are raised to be more stoic because they want to distinguish themselves from women. The dysfunction of today is caused by thinking it could be otherwise and trying to cultivate some mingled fraternity between the sexes. Women and men should be kept separate, like in Islam, except for marriage couples and family. Mixing them together makes men and women behave in ways they would not otherwise find intuitive
>because they want to distinguish themselves from women.
Why though? I’m not male I don’t get it.
>Why though? I’m not male I don’t get it.
To make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex.
Doesn't seem hard to understand.
Beyond seeking the attraction of women, men innately feel the drive to be independent, appear strong, and avoid displaying weakness, as appearing strong is the best way for men to attain power and respect.
Whereas women attain power/status by doing the opposite--by accentuating weakness to attract men who can then display their strength.
Think for example how women will ask their significant other to open a jar for them.
Not who you're responding to.
>To make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex.
Patriarchal males will only attract patriarchal females. It's not necessary for men to become patriarchal in order to attract women.
>men innately feel the drive to be independent, appear strong, and avoid displaying weakness
Independence and strength do not require one to be physically and psychologically dominant over others.
>It's not necessary for men to become patriarchal in order to attract women.
You're telling me pic related gets chicks?
>Independence and strength do not require one to be physically and psychologically dominant over others.
Independence maybe not, but strength in a social sense is entirely measured by being superior to some other. You are only strong in so far as someone else is weak.
You havent met zoomer girls. They love rwinks like chalamet, finn wolfhard, they like all the kpop idols, they hate chuds due to their toxic masculinity. Andrew tate fans are chick repelant
>They love rwinks like chalamet, finn wolfhard, they like all the kpop idols
Media isn't real life
Follow your own advice.
As a soft fem guy i can tell you there's a large group of young women looking for guys like that. I think this is because other men are scary, im more afraid of women than they are of me so tomboy/alt girls/fujos like it. Admittedly most of them are bisexual, but lots of zoomer girls are bisexual anyway
>muh love
americans lmao. just stick to continental critical theoricians and spare yourself the new-age/american marxism crossover.
>>>the solution to ending patriarchy is to give men more love
why atheists can't stop saying people need more love
its not atheists, its bourgeois ideology to occult the objective material forces that shape the social order. by invoking "love" you successfully hide historical, sociological and economical determinants. any attempt to undermine the role of social factors and reduce it to some vague individual notion of psychology is bourgeois ideology in action.
Patriarchy unequivocally and absolutely benefits men. Any system that is not patriarchal is bound to be shittier for men. The idea that patriarchy hurts men is pure psyop
>Patriarchy unequivocally and absolutely benefits men.
Not anymore. Men's mental health is increasingly getting worse and it's obvious that the perpetuation of patriarchal masculinity is causing it. We see it perpetuated in commercial media and by the entertainment and porn industries and in conversations between boys and men at schools, at offices, at gyms, and on social media sites, which regularly involves glorifying the domination of men over others and shaming one another into becoming emotionally repressed and psychologically violent. Most "incels" are really just men carrying debilitating toxic shame.
>it's obvious that the perpetuation of patriarchal masculinity is causing it.
You don't seem to understand the very term you are using.
"Patriarchy" is not some state of mind or attitude, it describes a state of affairs in which men exclusively rule. We do not live in a patriarchy, women are freer than in any other state in history, so if men's mental health is truly declining it can't be ascribed to the patriarchy.
> shaming one another into becoming emotionally repressed and psychologically violent. Most "incels" are really just men carrying debilitating toxic shame.
Incels are far simpler. They don't get attention from women, don't have sex, and tend to be low status.
When men don't have sexual release they get angry.
Maybe women don't get this because sex is different for them, but if guys abstain from jerking off and all sex, after like 2 weeks you'll find yourself just irrationally mad, frustrated, and pent up.
Simple as.
>"Patriarchy" is not some state of mind or attitude, it describes a state of affairs in which men exclusively rule.
Patriarchal masculinity is a form of masculinity that glorifies the domination of men over women, children, and men who are perceived as weaker. It's an attitude and not a state of affairs.
>Incels are far simpler. They don't get attention from women, don't have sex, and tend to be low status.
They're not getting attention or sex because they're not playing the game right. The vast majority of them could change their situation within 6 months with some re-education and basic effort. They don't do this because they're not in the right frame of mind to do so. Instead they believe in the values promoted by older patriarchal males which simply don't suit them.
>You're telling me pic related gets chicks?
Pic related looks homosexual so probably not. There are plenty of non-patriarchal heterosexual men getting their sexual needs met.
>strength in a social sense is entirely measured by being superior to some other
Not necessarily. Strength can be a matter of endurance and not domination and is such in more modern areas of society today.
>Patriarchal masculinity is a form of masculinity that glorifies the domination of men over women, children, and men who are perceived as weaker. It's an attitude and not a state of affairs.
No it's not.
Let me give you a little lesson in etymology:
Patriarchy = Patri + archy
Archy from greek means rule
Patri means father
The rule of the father.
It was a state of affairs in which women had no legal rights. Women could not inherit property, work, vote, or receive an education.
That was patriarchy.
Since men no longer exclusively rule but allow women to share power, patriarchy no longer exists.
If you wish to re-define patriarchy as just some vaguely toxic attitude some men have, that's fine, but that's not a real patriarchy.
>Strength can be a matter of endurance and not domination and is such in more modern areas of society today.
Strength in a physical sense sure, but strength in a social sense is entirely relative/comparative. It only has meaning in so far as there is someone beneath you.
A professional weightlifter is strong not because he can deadlift 400lb, but because he is one of a few that can do so, whereas the vast majority cannot.
If everyone's super...
>Pic related looks homosexual so probably not. There are plenty of non-patriarchal heterosexual men getting their sexual needs met.
He does look homosexual true, but he also exudes weakness and feminity. Why are you not attracted to pic related if you wish men to be more caring, social, non-competitive, in short more like a woman?
>No it's not.
I'm using the term as it's employed by bell hooks, which the thread is about.
>Since men no longer exclusively rule but allow women to share power, patriarchy no longer exists.
The values of this patriarchy still exist and continue to be promoted. This is what's being addressed, not patriarchy itself.
>A professional weightlifter is strong not because he can deadlift 400lb, but because he is one of a few that can do so, whereas the vast majority cannot.
You have a point. However, this doesn't mean men must dominate women in order to be attractive to them. Dominant i.e. patriarchal men will only attract patriarchal women.
>he also exudes weakness and feminity
These are patriarchal values. Femininity isn't weakness.
>Why are you not attracted to pic related
I'm not gay.
>These are patriarchal values. Femininity isn't weakness.
Does he not look weak, soft objectively? I see nothing "patriarchical" about this observation; it is simply a natural observation to make looking at him.
Or the way a women holds out her hand or brushes her hair kind of lightly or daintily, visually suggesting fragility and fraility. Feminity is weakness outside that essential weakness i can think of nothing else to define it.
If anything your desire to define feminity as strength is a rather masculine way of viewing things.
I'm also confused by it. Earlier you rail against the supposedly patriarchical values of seeking to be dominant over others, but now you are offended by a suggestion of your own sex's weakness. That's awfully patriarchical of you.
>I'm not gay.
Irrelevant, he's the very model of your non patriarchical man: compliant, submissive, open, and non-dominating.
You should be attracted to him.
Unless you're being dishonest with me or yourself about what you claim to want?
>anon is a heterosexual man
>him not wanting to frick a twink somehow disproves his point
what is this, ancient greece?
if we wanted to pursue this moronic line of argumentation, you should be showing him pictures of muscle girls or tomboys and asking him if he wants to frick them, the non-patriarchal women
can’t speak for anon, but id absolutely rail a lady bodybuilder
>Feminity is weakness outside that essential weakness i can think of nothing else to define it.
Femininity is about receptivity, not weakness. It's only weakness when viewed in the light of patriarchal values, which glorify the domination of men over others. Outside of patriarchal values, masculinity is also not about strength; I don't know of a good word to describe what masculinity is really about and I'm not sure the English language has such a word yet.
Think of the penis and the vegana as physical manifestations of the essential qualities of masculinity and femininity. The penis is not "stronger" than the vegana; they are two different organs with different designs and functions, and their "strength" is measured not against one another but against other like-organs.
>If anything your desire to define feminity as strength is a rather masculine way of viewing things.
It isn't. I wish to define both as potentially strong or weak in their own respective spheres of being. One should not dominate the other because they are separate.
>now you are offended by a suggestion of your own sex's weakness
I'm neither a woman nor offended by the comment. You misunderstood my point.
>Irrelevant, he's the very model of your non patriarchical man: compliant, submissive, open, and non-dominating.
The non-patriarchal male is neither dominant nor submissive. Submission is defined in relation to dominance. The pic you posted is that of a patriarchal gay male. Most gay males are patriarchal and often even more extremist in this regard than heterosexual males.
>I'm neither a woman nor offended by the comment. You misunderstood my point.
Oh my bad you write like an emotional histrionic moron so i assumed you were a woman.
>ad hominem
>calls others emotional morons
>The penis is not "stronger" than the vegana
Only the vegana is strong here. The weeny doesn't have muscle, while the vegana is pure muscle
Let's return to the jar of pickles.
The year is 2050 and you've just been assigned your nu-husband model. He's everything you ever dreamed, deeply caring and compassionate.
When he learned about third world homosexuals, sorry i mean the poor suffering oppressed children of the world, he heroically voided his bank account.
On sundays he holds consciousness raising conventions and cry-sessions, where he and other gays let go of negativity, express their emotions, and embrace each other. Woah .
He's enlightened and doesn't believe in archaic prejudices or socially constructed differences like having a penis, so he cut his off. That was one difference too unfair. A penis enters into things, sorry i mean women, and that's unfair to women who don't have penises and don't get to enter into things.
6th wave feminism has realized the biological difference is the final frontier.
It comes down to a fair exchange: chopping off mens, and giving women the remainder to graft on (or whatever is left in the box, a new subscription service)
The hubby's great
There's just one problem with this new model, the jar of pickles.
You tried to not let it bother you, but it's been nagging you.
The other day you approach your non-patriarchical, submissive nu-husband.
He's rail thin, wears a awkward little smile on his face, and his hair dyed with a streak of purple medium long. He stands limply, his forearms crossed and his hands slightly bent. He's staring down meditating in Yaow Wa Go pose unresponsive. Repeating quietly "breath in, let go, repeat" . He does not distinguish himself in any way. He does not insert but endlessly relinquishes. He is the apex, the ideal neutered pet.
You tip toe up to him and ask,
"Can you open this for me?" You ask accentuating the end of your sentence.
"Oh Uh i-i don't know. Maybe we can try together as a team. If i was strong it wouldn't be fair to you. " He shuffled lightly away as if contemplating the oppressiom of all the hand-less children never able to open pickle jars. He, a """man"""" exerting his handsy privilege while children everywhere can barely even open a container of wet wipes.
And that was the end of jarred pickles as we know it.
Let this be a lesson about something. It's a slippery slope. One day you're casually cutting of your penis to please your wife and the next day jarred pickles are gone.
>Men's mental health is increasingly getting worse and it's obvious that the perpetuation of patriarchal masculinity is causing it.
None of it is obvious. You are literally talking out of your ass trying to sell a narrative with no weight behind your claims. Patriarchy = rule of men. Hence it absolutely and unequivocally benefits men. Every man alive should fight to reinstate a system as patriarchal as possible.
>shaming one another into becoming emotionally repressed and psychologically violent.
Source : my ass
>Most "incels" are really just men carrying debilitating toxic shame.
If patriarchy = men expecting basic human rights like sex the indeed patriarchy is making incels carry shame since they can't have their basic needs fulfilled in a non-patriarchal society. So your solution is that incels give up the "patriarchal mindset" and expectation that they should get sex and relationships and just roll over and die with a smile on their face? Sorry, but no amount of feminist brainwashing will ever change the fact that men need sex. If wanting and needing sex is patriarchal then you'll have to literally inject hormone blockers into us to make us feminist
>None of it is obvious.
It is, but you're an indoctrinated tool who doesn't read, so you don't see it. But to me, I take one look at the current circumstances and see very clearly that all the violence, substance abuse, and suicide associated with men today is directly related to their values, which have been strongly and wrongly influenced by modern entertainment and porn, which are anachronistically patriarchal most of the time.
>Patriarchy = rule of men. Hence it absolutely and unequivocally benefits men.
Any structure based in tyranny (read: insecurity) will cause more harm than benefit anyone in the long run.
>Sorry, but no amount of feminist brainwashing will ever change the fact that men need sex.
Who's arguing otherwise? Of course men need sex, but so do women, and they would need it equally had men not been trained to be killers and women their trophies. It's patriarchal brainwashing that makes men lustful and women repressed.
>What an unmasculine and unchristian mind
We're both posting on IQfy. You're not exactly the epitome of what you consider peak masculinity either.
No. A man still has a penis and a woman still has a vegana and a womb. They wouldn't be physically equal, and they're also free to exercise and diet or not.
AI / automation and drones / robotics, mainly.
>AI / automation and drones / robotics, mainly.
That's like saying artificial wombs will make women obsolete,
It'll make soldiers and police obsolete. Physically strong males will become pure spectacle as time goes on, no longer a social necessity.
>Physically strong males will become pure spectacle as time goes on, no longer a social necessity.
You are stupid.
No a 10k piece of silicon that can be fooled by a qr code is not going to replace a 30 dollar an hour wagie.
A drone could already be used to execute you and your entire family with ease.
Write proper English and then I'll reply.
>A drone could already be used to execute you and your entire family with ease.
So could a man with a gun you absolute buffoon
>he thinks men will stand a chance against the drone army after 20 more years of refinement
Good luck.
>he thinks men will stand a chance against the drone army after 20 more years of refinement
Go ahead and waste more money on useless boondongles, see how long your drone army lasts when it escapes the lab room.
We've already used drones to kill thousands of people, and that's manually / without the use of computer vision algorithms. You really think this technology won't get better as time goes on?
>drones to kill thousands of people, and that's manually / without the use of computer vision algorithms. You really think this technology won't get better as time goes on?
You mean those man piloted missile trucks?
Those things that we use the terrorize the mighty forces of a Palestinian orphanage?
>A drone could already be used to execute you and your entire family with ease.
And now he turns to 'we will kill you'. The Communists never change. Also I thought war was created by the heckin' unwholesome mascs. anon?
Show yourself out impotent Communist homosexual.
>It is, but you're an indoctrinated tool who doesn't read, so you don't see it
Oh, so you don't have any valid arguments to back up your claims. I see.
>which have been strongly and wrongly influenced by modern entertainment and porn, which are anachronistically patriarchal most of the time.
The former has absolutely nothing to do with the latter. And you still haven't proven that the things you've mentioned are caused by "entertainment and porn". Patriarchy has existed for 1000s of years, long before modern entertainment and porn were a thing. And nothing about modern entertainment and porn exudes traditional patriarchal values. So your argument is invalid.
You are just repeating meaningless words which are part of the psyop.
>Any structure based in tyranny (read: insecurity) will cause more harm than benefit anyone in the long run.
Unsubstantiated value judgement. Next....
>and they would need it equally had men not been trained to be killers and women their trophies. It's patriarchal brainwashing that makes men lustful and women repressed.
Bwahahahahahahaha. Holy kek, I guess you really are a clueless idiot male (or a troll) if your understanding of women is so rudimentary and flawed. I'm sorry brother but women would not frick you if they become more open and secure with their sexuality. If anything sexual openness is the biggest cause of inceldom there is, silly little incel
Cont.
Look incel, if your problem is that women won't frick you then you need more patriarchy, not less patriarchy
>And nothing about modern entertainment and porn exudes traditional patriarchal values.
"Traditional patriarchal values" consider men to be the dominant sex. These values glorify the domination of men over others. You're really going to tell me that modern entertainment and porn doesn't do this on average, and with increasing intensity as time goes on?
Is the world not becoming more Muslim? Are Americans not becoming more conservative? Both of these things are fundamentally patriarchal in nature.
>women would not frick you if they become more open and secure with their sexuality.
It's not about that, but I have a girlfriend anyway and have never had trouble getting relationships. Women, unless they're extremely patriarchal, generally prefer men to be emotional and vulnerable with them. This isn't weakness, it's intimacy. Women dislike emotionally unavailable men who treat them like sexual objects.
>It's not about that, but I have a girlfriend anyway and have never had trouble getting relationships. Women, unless they're extremely patriarchal, generally prefer men to be emotional and vulnerable with them.
Come back to this comment in 6 months, we will see if it holds up
It will. I've had relationships longer than 6 months and have approached all of them the same way. I only date feminists, by the way, because feminist women are smarter and harder working than patriarchal women.
My experiences with women prove it to me.
Patriarchy is the conflation of masculinity with the pathological need to hold absolute dominion over women and children. Only patriarchal women want men to hold absolute dominion over their lives. Ask any feminist woman and she'll tell you otherwise.
>Ask any feminist woman and she'll tell you otherwise.
Feminist women. Ahh let me guess...they are fatherless women who desperately created "safe place" as a coping mechanism? Why do I need to ask them? Because they were already being conditioned psychologically by political agitprop, right?
>Why do I need to ask them?
Because by talking to them for the first time in your life, you may actually learn that your ridiculous caricature of them doesn't hold up. Almost any woman working in an office today is a feminist, and they possess all kinds of family backgrounds. Most of them are hard working, yet feminine. These are the highest quality women today, and they don't have any interest in dating country bumpkins whose understanding of masculinity has been intermingled with pathological thinking.
>Most of them are hard working, yet feminine. These are the highest quality women today,
Valving a person by their carreer is a repulsive anti-human mindset.
>Women, unless they're extremely patriarchal, generally prefer men to be emotional and vulnerable with them
Proof it. The burden of proof is on you since you are the one who made a claim. Not even that anon. But proof it.
Your personal love story doesn't have any power because it doesn't represent the average data. It is cherry-picking. Things you need to consider before taking a conclusion: mean, median, mode, standard deviation, margin of error, variation, replicability, understanding on the difference between categorical data and numerical data.
Because this has something to do with gender relation you also need to read Darwin and Mendel (the former would make you understand why competition and instinctive behavior exist in men and women, plus the later would make you understand about heredity in eukaryotic organisms).
>You're really going to tell me that modern entertainment and porn doesn't do this on average, and with increasing intensity as time goes on?
Yes. Even if it did (it doesn't) this would still not prove that these things are linked with modern suffering of men.
>Is the world not becoming more Muslim? Are Americans not becoming more conservative?
I wish.
>Women, unless they're extremely patriarchal, generally prefer men to be emotional and vulnerable with them. This isn't weakness, it's intimacy. Women dislike emotionally unavailable men who treat them like sexual objects.
I'm guessing that like all the other unoriginal claims you pull out of your ass which you learned in some feminist psyop class, or worse a hollywood movie, you never put any serious thought behind this one too or tested it in the real world. Other wise you wouldn't be this disconnected from reality.
See incel, the entire essence of patriarchy is that what women like or dislike shouldn't have mattered in the first place. That way men can be what they need to be for a better society without having to become some dysgenic thing to chase pussy. This is besides the fact that being an emotionally expressive homosexual won't get you pussy anyway as you claim.
>It's not about that
Btw, you are the one who brought up incels in the first place. I just told you straight that anti-patriarchal feminist rhetoric (such as yours) expects incels to just roll over and die without relationship and sex. Hence every incel (such as yourself) has every reason to support patriarchy. Your counter was essentially that incels don't get sex because women are not open about sex due to patriarchy. Which I pointed out as farcical and again divorced from reality. So yeah, it is indeed about that
>Even if it did (it doesn't) this would still not prove that these things are linked with modern suffering of men.
Modern entertainment and porn constantly glorify the domination of men over women and children. The most critically acclaimed show of all time, Breaking Bad, does this, even if the core message stands against patriarchal values. I don't have to demonstrate it with porn, you either know what I mean or you haven't watched porn.
>better society
For who?
>being an emotionally expressive homosexual won't get you pussy
Feminist men do get pussy though, and you don't have to be a "homosexual," you just don't need to hold your shit in like an anal retentive ape, which is actually the more homosexual behavior of the two.
>anti-patriarchal feminist rhetoric (such as yours) expects incels to just roll over and die without relationship and sex
Not even remotely. I consider most male "incels" (there's almost no such thing) to be men who are suffering from debilitating toxic shame from regularly exposing themselves to entertainment and porn which express patriarchal values in abundance, which no longer promote a successful survival strategy for men in the modern era. I want such men to heal and overcome their trauma so they can go on to have the healthy relationships and sex that they deserve.
>The only reason you harp on the muslim population is due to the fact that the other points you made were proven incorrect.
And? This doesn't change the fact that Islam is patriarchal and has a growing global influence. More good faith arguing here.
>Nobody believes this except [people I don't consider human, so they don't count as people]
Convenient.
>And? This doesn't change the fact that Islam is patriarchal and has a growing global influence. More good faith arguing here.
Want to talk about good faith arguing, then maybe you should explain how women have more rights than ever before is an increase in patriarchal attitude.
And no, anecdote on sub-currents only you have seen in not an argument
Women have more rights. Doesn't mean there isn't an uptick of men who don't respect those rights.
See what you have here is one two statements,
one backed by fact
>Women have more rights.
and then one by conjecture
>Doesn't mean there isn't an uptick of men who don't respect those rights.
You just assume and state things without backing them up.
Are you just talking about Islam again.
The conjecture here is really your assertion that, because women have more rights, that patriarchal values couldn't possibly be increasing in the world. That's the conjecture.
>because women have more rights, that patriarchal values couldn't possibly be increasing in the world. That's the conjecture.
Well if the patriarchal values was increasing it should correlate that women should have less rights.
A patriarchy where women have more rights than men isn't a patriarchy by definition/
Or is patriarchy just a meaningless term for you?
>even if the core message stands against patriarchal values
Thanks for proving my point.
>I don't have to demonstrate it with porn, you either know what I mean or you haven't watched porn.
Traditional patrairchs would hate porn. The idea that women could be allowed to make money by fricking randos and filming it is at its core anti-patriarchy
>For who?
For men obviously. That's the whole point. For men patriarchy = good. The rhetoric that patriarchy is bad for men has no basis in reality and is basically a psyop to turn men against their own interests.
>Feminist men do get pussy though,
That's besides the main point. Since you haven't adequately countered my points in this regard I'll accept your concession.
>Not even remotely. I consider most male "incels" (there's almost no such thing) to be men who are suffering from debilitating toxic shame from regularly exposing themselves to entertainment and porn which express patriarchal values in abundance, which no longer promote a successful survival strategy for men in the modern era.
Baseless delusional fantasies divorced from the practical reality of dating in the modern world, followed by victim blaming. No wonder you are an incel
>Men's mental health is increasingly getting worse
You mean women's mental health is increasingly getting worse, with yourself as an object lesson.
>Comparing daughter-mother pairs, daughters have higher rates of lifetime ever major depression, generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder. Daughters appear to experience almost three times the rate of major depression compared to their mothers, and almost twice the rate of generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder. Adjustment for daughter and mother sociodemographic characteristics appears to have little effect on these findings. We have repeated this analysis in Additional file 1 (mothers and female children but without pairing mothers and daughters). The findings are generally similar to those observed in Table 4.
>Najman, J.M., Bor, W., Williams, G.M. et al. Does the millennial generation of women experience more mental illness than their mothers?. BMC Psychiatry 21, 359 (2021).
Male mental health has experienced an increase, but nothing like the explosion of female mental illness.
Lemme guess, you're going to dishonestly claim now that 'muh patriarchy' has been increasing in power (contrary to all evidence) and that it's the primary cause of this, because patriarchy bad!
Women's mental health is also getting worse, yes. However, our society isn't becoming less patriarchal, but more-so, so...
's mental health is also getting worse, yes.
So what as women's right increase does the patriachalness increase as well?
Well the answer seems clear then, just take them away
Or maybe you're fricking stupid.
Think before you vomit out your worthless thoughts please
>However, our society isn't becoming less patriarchal, but more-so, so...
Good point fellow friend of the people, we should find safer ground. I propose rewinding the clock to 1852. Finally the women will have the burdens of Patriarchy lessened.
Good job brothers.
yeah, that massive increase in transsexualism and 'nonbinary gender identification' is iron-clad evidence for the increasing strength of the patriarchy
you're so full of shit it's unreal
>massive increase in transsexualism and 'nonbinary gender identification'
>massive
Not happening.
>you're so full of shit it's unreal
And you don't go outside enough.
Fun fact: 2016 was omitted from this, because it was so much higher that they discarded it as 'potential outlier'
It's only gone up since these were collected
So, patriarchy did this, right?
Try going outside instead of getting all your information from graphs off the internet. There's no massive influx of trans people walking around. It's a marginal increase at most.
Oh, but by the way, "degeneracy" (read: dissenting points of view) does increase as a natural consequence of strengthening a value structure.
>And now he turns to 'we will kill you'.
Try following the post chain, because that's not my point at all.
>Those things that we use the terrorize the mighty forces of a Palestinian orphanage?
And are already being tested as law enforcement in both the US and China, yes.
>And are already being tested as law enforcement in both the US and China, yes.
Yes and?
The only thing they are doing is placing the helicopter pilot on the ground, you aren't so ignorant as to thing these things are actually independent do you?
>Try going outside instead of getting all your information from graphs off the internet. There's no massive influx of trans people walking around. It's a marginal increase at most.
You are willfully ignorant and are not arguing in good faith,
>Yes and?
The point being that we are currently developing technologies which will be capable of providing physical security for us, ultimately rendering physically strong men and women no longer a social necessity (or as much of one). When that happens, either we'll have even more "incels" than we do now, or we'll have men and women attempting to re-educate younger generations to appreciate different qualities in men.
>You are willfully ignorant and are not arguing in good faith
It's very simple. Just go outside.
>It's very simple. Just go outside.
I can see two trans flags, a BLM flag and a Ukraine flag from my window.
Now apologize for spreading misinformation
Pics or it didn't happen.
>Just dox yourself bro
No
Just blur any street names and license plates.
>we are currently developing technologies which will be capable of providing physical security for us
I'm sure the gizmos of israelitery will remove the masculine nature among the common man, especially when population is growing most in third world countries without easy access to food let alone machines this complicated.
Also
>just go outside
Ignores the real state of affairs outdoors. Cell phones became widespread because they were harmless for most, but drones not so much. If the democratic governments of the world (especially poorer ones) overstep their boundaries by policing everything, people will get angry.
You miss the point, which is that physical security will slowly be deferred onto machines. Less and less women will feel dependent on men for physical security as a result of technology.
I'm not saying there hasn't been an increase. It's just not "massive." You're seeing a vocal minority and most likely fixating on it given that you seem to be an intolerant person.
I just didn't bother reading it yet, and now I'm signing off for the night.
>I'm not saying there hasn't been an increase.
threefold increase in under 10 years from the graph, and any other source you care to look at. Furthermore, the social contagion that it is has only increased from then until now. If a threefold increase isn't massive, what is?
>you seem to be an intolerant person.
intolerant of intellectually dishonest liars like yourself, certainly
>I just didn't bother reading it yet
I'll translate:
>I just haven't figured out a way to use verbal sleight-of-hand to change the subject, so now I'm going to 'leave' and hope no one notices that I still respond to posts where I can just flatly deny evidence and claim 'muh patriarchy'
it must cost you sleep to come to a place like IQfy and get your ass handed to you repeatedly
>If a threefold increase isn't massive, what is?
It seems massive because you frame it this way, but the starting population was extremely minuscule to begin with, so the actual numbers don't result in a particularly massive change.
>This is not surprising as more workplaces shut down, you have more men at home and so more opportunity for abuse to occur.
Why would more abuse occur on account of this? It makes no sense.
>This link claims that over the past two decades, rape has rose 2.9% annually.
Still an increase. The link also states that male-on-male rape has increased by 22% over the last 5 years.
>You have no conclusive evidence that it has increased since the 20th century.
According to the link, it has increased.
>If men are having less or no sex & instead watching porn, I would expect less rape not more.
I wouldn't, because it's not "all men are having less sex," but "less men are having sex," because less men are getting married now. Most men only ever had sex through one of two ways: marriage and prostitution. They're not avoiding marriage because they're opting for porn, they're opting for porn because they're avoiding marriage — and then you also have increasing suicide rates among men. What's really going on, it appears, is men's sexual needs are not being met; and is it any wonder that so much of porn is violent in nature?
>Moreover, if your claim is that "patriarchy" is causing rape and domestic violence, then which society is more patriarchal 1960 or 2023?
2023, easily. Just look at modern entertainment and how much more vengeful and aggressive it is in nature. It doesn't matter if women have more freedoms than back then, because men are overall more depressed and violent than they were.
>Why would more abuse occur on account of this? It makes no sense.
Because normally would be abusers are working outside the home = less opportunity for abuse to occur.
Whereas with the lockdown they're trapped together. Really not hard to understand.
>According to the link, it has increased.
You're actually doing the thing where you take a graph and then restrict the range so the trend line looks favorable to your argument and then point to an extreme outlier caused by a worldwide pandemic.
>I wouldn't, because it's not "all men are having less sex," but "less men are having sex,"
Less men having sex = less opportunity for rape to occur = less rape.
How is this not getting through to you?
>2023, easily. Just look at modern entertainment and how much more vengeful and aggressive it is in nature. It doesn't matter if women have more freedoms than back then, because men are overall more depressed and violent than they were
Even most feminists wouldn't agree with this.
In 1960 women couldn't even get divorced even if their husband was raping them.
The percentage of people that have a favorable view on feminism is higher than ever before. Women are more educated than ever before, now more so than men.
And no proof that men are more violent.
>Because normally would be abusers are working outside the home = less opportunity for abuse to occur.
And why are they abusers at all? This is what's important.
>You're actually doing the thing where...
>How is this not getting through to you?
Male-on-male rape started increasing before the pandemic, according to the article. It's safe to assume male-on-female rape did too.
>Even most feminists wouldn't agree with this.
I don't think they're looking at the right social cues. It's getting worse for women, not better, compared to the 60s. We had an incline, and then with the advent of the internet, a gradual decline.
>And no proof that men are more violent.
Violent crime may be on the downswing, but violent entertainment and porn, and bullying, are not. Suicide is also up, and that's essentially self-violence.
>You had said nothing, made no argument
That Americans are increasingly liberal doesn't mean there isn't a growing undercurrent within American government and other institutions attempting to reverse it.
>there was no time in history, where women weren't doing farm work
What I meant was farm work that they previously couldn't do. Heavier labor. Technology continues to level this out between men and women. You don't need me to explain how, I hope.
>you only condemned men.
I pointed out who is really at fault is what I did.
>What I meant was farm work that they previously couldn't do. Heavier labor. Technology continues to level this out between men and women. You don't need me to explain how, I hope.
No go ahead pleases elaborate.
I'm all ears.
>That Americans are increasingly liberal doesn't mean there isn't a growing undercurrent within American government and other institutions attempting to reverse it.
>Just because there isn't any visible evidence doesn't mean that there isn't a super secret group of bogeyman that we have no proof of.
>No go ahead pleases elaborate.
Women can press buttons too, and more and more work is turning into button-pressing due to technology.
>there isn't any visible evidence
There is, and I've provided a ton in this thread, but you're too thick to grasp anything other than published statistics.
>There is, and I've provided a ton in this thread, but you're too thick to grasp anything other than published statistics.
You're hearsay isn't valid
>Women can press buttons too, and more and more work is turning into button-pressing due to technology.
You release we haven't relied on solely human labor for farming since we domesticated the ox correct?
And of course nothing could exclude a women owning slaves to work for her, as many plantation owners did.
>it's just hearsay if there's no graph to accompany it
>it's not that I'm incapable of connecting the dots, you just aren't saying anything
The point, which went over your head (as usual), is that technology, and the men who invent it, are the ones who destroyed patriarchy — the species' need for men to hold absolute dominion over others.
But the destruction of patriarchy in the legal sense doesn't mean the economic and cultural followed right after it. I mentioned Reeves's book earlier, which explains how it didn't in the economic sense.
>it's better for them in every conceivable way
If things are better for them today, why are they becoming more depressed?
>"Social cues" can't be measured
So, it's just hearsay if there's no graph to accompany it? Serious question, the most serious one in the thread: do you really think there's nothing to what I'm saying at all?
>I don't get the impression the ones killing themselves are the same population as domestic abusers
Both are affected by the pathology that is patriarchal masculinity.
>I don't see what porn or violent entertainment has to do with "patriarchy"
It's been explained many times.
>The point, which went over your head (as usual), is that technology, and the men who invent it, are the ones who destroyed patriarchy — the species' need for men to hold absolute dominion over others.
You didn't make a point.
You made a claim, that farming was too laborious for women, that some special piece of tech came out that made it so easy even a women could do it. And thus "the fall of the patriarchy", because men are only useful for their muscles am I right?
By I pointed out, that farming hadn't purely relied on human labor since animal fricking husbandry was invented.
The foundational myth of your version of idea of feminism is completely wrong.
>ut the destruction of patriarchy in the legal sense doesn't mean the economic and cultural followed right after it.
But you claimed the opposite, you stated that the economic came first, that women entered the workforce then feminism was required. So you stated it was economic, then social, then I assume legal.
See
Read bell hooks, you're not worth wasting any more time on.
>Read bell hooks, you're not worth wasting any more time on.
I accept your concession
>If things are better for them today, why are they becoming more depressed?
Because they are stupid, and they don't actually want the freedom they have.
They like the idea of being free more than the actual consequences.
>So, it's just hearsay if there's no graph to accompany it? Serious question, the most serious one in the thread: do you really think there's nothing to what I'm saying at all?
Yeah it's hearsay and there's very little of worth to anything you've said. By every conceivable quantifiable metric women have more rights and freedoms today than they ever have in any other point in history.
That's a fact.
There's very little of worth in what you say because you ascribe a multitude of complex sociological phenomenon all to "patriarchy", such that the word becomes a bit like what the devil is to fundamentalist Evangelicals or capitalism to Marxists.
Here, let's list everything you ascribe to patriarchy: men's depression, violence in general, violent media, pornography, bullying, suicide, the desire to win over others, capitalism, and more.
Patriarchy sounds like some kind of divine entity--an anthropomorphic creation of your diseased mind
If women are shown to be happier you say it's cause patriarchy is tricking them or that they're "patriarchical females"
If they're shown as sadder you take it as proof that patriarchy is increasing.
If someone provides evidence showing the increasing freedoms of women, you backtrack and point to random stats that you have not proved are causally connected to "patriarchy"
You're a sloppy thinker who takes as the word of god the word of one feminist writer whose claims you uncritically accept.
>I don't think they're looking at the right social cues. It's getting worse for women, not better, compared to the 60s.
We've been over this, it's better for them in every conceivable way but you just keep ignoring all the evidence like a child plugging his ears.
In 60s I'm pretty sure there were a lot of colleges that wouldn't even allow women before the equal rights amendment.
You have no grasp of history, no facts on your side, all you have is your feeling that things are worse.
"Social cues" can't be measured, it's bullshit. Why not point to something more tangible like women's education, earnings, or participation in the workforce?
>violent entertainment and porn, and bullying, are not. Suicide is also up, and that's essentially self-violence.
Holy cope.
I don't get the impression the ones killing themselves are the same population as domestic abusers, so it's kind of besides the fact.
I don't see what porn or violent entertainment has to do with "patriarchy" and in any case that people consume violent media does not show that people are in fact more violent.
>Less and less women will feel dependent on men for physical security as a result of technology.
See that already happened, but women are too stupid to carry around firearms regularly and in mass
Technology has already replaced man, but guess what man is still around.
>Try going outside instead of getting all your information from graphs off the internet.
10 years ago I could walk into a tea shop or ice cream parlor and be 100% certain I would not see troony flags or employees with pronouns on their nametags.
Guess what I've seen recently?
>our society isn't becoming less patriarchal, but more-so,
You're so painfully dumb and lacking wider perspective it's unreal.
Spend less time on Insta and more time reading actual history books please.
Meanwhile...
>domestic violence is increasing
>rape is increasing
>bullying is increasing
Most of which is committed by men.
On the other hand, you also have porn consumption increasing alongside male virginity and suicide, and the vast majority of porn is patriarchal in nature (i.e., displaying men violently dominating women).
I wonder who could be behind the plummeting mental health of women, the gays and trans people who often befriend women or are indifferent to them, or all the violent and suicidal men around them who routinely abuse and abandon them?
>I wonder who could be behind the plummeting mental health of women, the gays and trans people who often befriend women or are indifferent to them, or all the violent and suicidal men around them who routinely abuse and abandon them?
Cool it with the antisemitic remarks this isn't IQfy
>the gays and trans people who often befriend women or are indifferent to them,
You haven't seen the TERF war's, or the lesbians being shut out of their own dating apps?
It's the most wonderful case of women dealing with the consequences of their own actions, I have seen recently.
violence is increasing
"The incidence of intimate partner violence has declined by over 60%, from about ten victimizations per 1000 persons age 12 or older to approximately 4 per 1000."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/#:~:text=The%20incidence%20of%20intimate%20partner,to%20approximately%204%20per%201000.
>>rape is increasing
"According to a March 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1995 to 2010, the estimated annual rate of female rape or sexual assault declined 58%, from 5.0 victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older to 2.1 per 1,000. Assaults on young women aged 12–17 declined from 11.3 per 1,000 in 1994–1998 to 4.1 per 1,000 in 2005–2010; assaults on women aged 18–34 also declined over the same period, from 7.0 per 1,000 to 3.7.[12][13]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20National%20Crime,a%20decline%20of%20about%2085%25
Are statistics also just a product of the patriarchy?
>rape is increasing
>On the other hand, you also have porn consumption increasing alongside male virginity and suicide, and the vast majority of porn is patriarchal in nature
So more and more men are having no sex but also more men are rapists?
K, great logic bud.
Do you really want a childish slap fight in the form of link spamming? A Google search brings up many statistical reports from 2021, 2022 and 2023 on the increase of all of these.
>So more and more men are having no sex but also more men are rapists?
Not "more men are rapists." More rape is being committed. These two things can co-exist, and are.
>Do you really want a childish slap fight in the form of link spamming?
Mate, it's two links.
I haven't found much data suggesting any substantial increase over the long term, but admittedly accurate stats around rape are hard to get as a lot goes unreported.
Most evidence I've seen shows no statistically significant increase in rape and domestic violence. If yiu want to restrict the range two like two years and point to a .5 increase, i wouldn't consider that honest.
You're the absolute picture of confirmation bias. Someone gives you contrary facts "oh no not those facts only the facts from Bell Hooks are true."
Read another book
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/06/shadow-pandemic-of-domestic-violence/
https://legaljobs.io/blog/sexual-assault-statistics/
https://cyberbullying.org/school-bullying-rates-increase-by-35-from-2016-to-2019
That's from a 10 second search. There's many more.
Men across the board are watching more porn. The men committing rape are also watching more porn. Do you honestly think porn conveys a healthy image of masculinity for men and that porn isn't influencing men's view of women? Not to mention that porn production itself is increasing and most of it involves sexual violence against women or is tied to human trafficking.
Meanwhile, social media is full of male-on-male bullying and shaming. If you visit IQfy, then you aren't ignorant to this phenomenon.
Patriarchal masculinity may not be the only factor involved, but it is very obviously a significant factor behind violence and depression today.
>https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/06/shadow-pandemic-of-domestic-violence/
Your claim: patriarchical masculinity is increasing & this is causing more domestic violence.
What your link actually shows: that a global pandemic and lockdowns caused an short-term increase in domestic violence. This is not surprising as more workplaces shut down, you have more men at home and so more opportunity for abuse to occur.
>https://legaljobs.io/blog/sexual-assault-statistics/
This link claims that over the past two decades, rape has rose 2.9% annually.
But I can find just as many stats showing that since 2003 it has remained relatively stable at around 30 per 100,000, or even that since 1980 it's declined. In any case, rape stats are notoriously bad both because of under-reporting and because every country has a different legal definition of what constitutes rape.
You have no conclusive evidence that it has increased since the 20th century.
>Men across the board are watching more porn. The men committing rape are also watching more porn. Do you honestly think porn conveys a healthy image of masculinity for men and that porn isn't influencing men's view of women?
If men are having less or no sex & instead watching porn, I would expect less rape not more.
Moreover, if your claim is that "patriarchy" is causing rape and domestic violence, then which society is more patriarchal 1960 or 2023?
By all measures women today have way more freedoms then they ever did, so even if I granted your claim, by your own logic we would expect less not more rape today.
>Not "more men are rapists." More rape is being committed. These two things can co-exist, and are.
Right but if more and more men are having no sex opting to watch porn we'd still expect a lower rate compared to the past.
Unless the men that still do are just like having tons more rape lol
I'm interested, any suggestions on which books of her to start with?
This one
is what the OP is referring to
>Was she the only good feminist author?
No. There are none. Women have shown themselves to be almost entirely destroyers of civilisation. They should be at home. Frick all feminism.
>Women have shown themselves to be almost entirely destroyers of civilisation
How?
>introduce women into the work place
>wages stagnate as the workforce doubles over a generation
>families cannot afford to sustain themselves on a single salary
>as wages stagnate, conditions worsen for women
>they seek higher education to demand more pay
>cognitively capable women go into masters and PhD courses
>high IQ women are spending their 20s in university and their 30s in the workplace
>IQ is highly heritable
>high IQ women are having 1 child
>dummies are having 3 or 4
>the IQ of great Britain has dropped 1 standard deviation in less than a century
>soon there won't be enough smartie pants to keep a complex electrical grid going
>all services like water treatment, road networks, a technology sector
>once great places like Great Britain will be a mid tier literal who nation in a 100 years
>women are the majority of the electorate
>they statically vote for more grants and programs for women's education
>they accelerate this process
>mfw only 50 years till Albanian conditions
Robots will replace the need for an abundance of high IQ humans in the work force and the majority of those low IQ humans will be mowed down by drones or left to starve and die as parts of the world incapable of adopting robot workers lose their infrastructural means to support their population
Hereditary IQ also pertains to men and even before emancipation, women were picked by their looks than their intellect and good qualities.
This makes dumb men just as big a cause of deteriorating civilization while disproving your arguement that only after women got the access to formal education they began having less children.
This point is flawed because it assumes that women are in a finite equation, in which they are not because both sexes exist and the world exists beyond written word and mathematics.
Read Plato's Phaedo.
Foolish man you are!
It doesn't matter how you pick them. If pretty and dumb had 5 kids and pretty and smart had 5 and ugly and smart had 5 and ugly and dumb had 5 then functionally the society maintains itself.
If the smart ones, pretty or ugly, check out of society then it means a lack of smart people. What on earth has your choice got to do with it? Fool!
>nixon depegs the dollar from gold
>carter and reagan bust unions
>clinton and bush ship manufacturing overseas
>somehow none of this caused wage stagnation
>it must be women's fault
misogyny is a psyop to keep working class people from resisting the elites
So women are just another component of the cultural war
woman-hatred is the problem, not women
if we just stopped caring about culture war bait and reunionized we'd see wages rise again
but misogyny makes that impossible since a misogynist and a woman can't organize together
the same is true for minorities, gays, and so on. it's better to work together for a bigger slice of the economic pie than to argue about how to subdivide the tiny we're getting now
Maybe trying to organize with women was impossible and made them misogynists
counterpoint: the most successful unionization drives of our time (amazon, starbucks, wga, and sag-aftra) were all done in mixed-gender fields, and with the exception of amazon, majority-female fields
Neat if only they used their unionizing super powers when they first joined the workforce way back when
>when they first joined the workforce way back when
Women were openly groped and harassed on the regular in workplaces back then. Unionization was impossible.
women and beta men always side with government
This could easily be collartion vs causintionsansn. Also more importantly nost women want to have kids and an education me think. Just like most men.
I don't know what that gibberish is supposed to be at the beginning of your comment but it matters not what you want, it matters that society is going to disintegrate soon enough.
Can anyone tell me what that little pepe is?
It's not a smidge, is it?
Why do you care? What are you collecting them like yuigoh and Pokémon cards?
women getting the vote is literally one of the best things to happen to civilization in centuries. After that though, things get extremely homosexualy.
>women getting the vote is literally one of the best things to happen to civilization in centuries.
Why?
she's less deranged than most radfems, i'll give her that, but quite frankly that's not a very high bar, and she doesn't surpass by much.
I don't know about the patriarchy but this board appears to be full of boys that haven't been given much love.
Love for men is earned, not given.
This dynamic is thanks to patriarchal females regarding love as a reward for good behavior from their patriarchal partners. Step outside your bubble of patriarchal values and you'll find plenty of men and women receiving and giving love without such nonsense like having to "earn it." Love does not have to be earned, it is a basic right.
>it is a basic right
You cannot make me love commies, banksters or any of their minions
>This dynamic is thanks to patriarchal females regarding love as a reward for good behavior from their patriarchal partners.
The problem I have is that don't believe your "non-patriarchal" females as you term it, actually exist.
Women exchange sex and affective for material goods and other aids. When those stop, she leaves. Which is why the divorce rate is so high and it is 70% women.
No fault divorce was an act of war against marriage
They do exist, but they, and the circumstances that allow them to act freely and naturally, are still very rare.
>Which is why the divorce rate is so high and it is 70% women.
Most women are patriarchal. This is not by nature, but by demand; most women do not feel safe in this world and thus become patriarchal.
>One loves another because that other qualifies to be loved
The only true qualification necessary for love is the other's honest self-expression. Patriarchal masculinity has repressed the selves of both men and women for millennia, making any commitments to intimacy a series of empty platitudes in an effort to satiate the addictions said repression has generated.
What has further complicated the matter is the erroneous conflation of said addictions with the term "personality" — patriarchal masculinity has indoctrinated nearly everyone, over time, into believing that the byproducts of its repression are natural. Now, most people think that men are lustful by nature, or women have low libidos by nature, or men are more violent by nature, or women are pacifist by nature. None of this is true. Men and women, when they're not trapped inside the trauma cycle created by patriarchal masculinity, are equally emotional and sexual.
>Define your terms
Read between the lines and figure it out yourself.
>Most women are patriarchal. This is not by nature, but by demand; most women do not feel safe in this world and thus become patriarchal.
So what we have here is a classic catch 22.
You can't have non-patriarchal men due to all the patriarchal women and vice versa.
So what the point in sprouting a philosophy doomed to failure exactly
>So what the point in sprouting a philosophy doomed to failure exactly
It's not a philosophy, but a scientific truth.
>You can't have non-patriarchal men due to all the patriarchal women and vice versa.
People can be re-educated. They became patriarchal through education in the first place.
>men are [not] more violent by nature
except, you know, for those pesky things called genetics and evolutionary biology
are you next going to suggest that different breeds of dog are equally prone to attack?
>Read between the lines
I already did by calling you out and you failing to describe what you mean. Are you even familiar with the concept of positive versus negative rights?
>The only true qualification necessary for love is the other's honest self-expression.
You are either being obtuse accidentally or deliberately
You do not love me, for example, as you would love a romantic partner or your parents. I do not qualify to be loved by you in those ways; I lack the required characteristics. I similarly do not have a positive 'right' to be loved by you in such ways.
Must be nice for you that your ideological possession makes you immune to the cognitive dissonance you would otherwise feel upon the realization that your positions have been mauled to death and their bones picked clean
>except, you know, for those pesky things called genetics and evolutionary biology
And what exactly do you think these are causing in terms of motivation and behavior?
>are you next going to suggest that different breeds of dog are equally prone to attack?
Are you suggesting that the owners of different breeds have no influence on their dogs' behavior, or that this isn't what's really going on? Because, if that wasn't the case, then explain why there's plenty of pitbulls that grow old and never once attack anyone or any other animal, for example.
>Are you even familiar with the concept of positive versus negative rights?
Of course.
>I do not qualify to be loved by you in those ways; I lack the required characteristics.
Such conditions, however, do not indicate that love has to be earned. In fact, such conditions can't be earned; they can't be worked for. It's only lust, which only exists out of a lack of love, which stems from repression, that wants things that must be "earned" — things that one does not have a basic right to, that require suffering (of the self or a subordinate) to obtain. Our eyes only gaze towards such things when they lack love, i.e., not due to "genetics and evolutionary biology," but due to repression caused by indoctrination.
>And what exactly do you think these are causing in terms of motivation and behavior?
Aggression and proneness to engage in violence, naturally.
>Are you suggesting that the owners of different breeds have no influence on their dogs' behavior
There's that bullshit pivot again. You said that it is not true that men are more violent by nature. That nurture has an effect is not in dispute and is outside the scope of your claim, which is laughably false on its face. You might as well be claiming that men are not taller or stronger as a group; which, again, they clearly are, for genetic and evo bio reasons.
>Such conditions, however, do not indicate that love has to be earned.
There's that pivot to avoid conceding you've been defeated again.
It's been fun making you my ragdoll, but you're not worth talking to until you develop some intellectual honesty.
>Aggression and proneness to engage in violence, naturally.
So, why are there men and women who don't fit what you're saying?
>There's that bullshit pivot again.
What's bullshit about it? My view is that it's not nature, but nurture; that men are more violent and sexual, and women less so, not by nature, but because they are stuck in a trauma cycle that trains them to be as such. My response to your dog breed argument was in perfect alignment with this.
>There's that pivot to avoid conceding you've been defeated again.
Nope. See above. I don't agree with your presuppositions.
>So, why are there men and women who don't fit what you're saying?
>hurr durr what is a distribution of characteristics
The existence of some men shorter and weaker than some women does not disprove the fact that, if you take the entire set of men and the entire set of women, the men are taller, stronger, more aggressive, etc., for genetic and evo bio reasons. It's chemistry; it's a brute fricking fact of life. Same with dog breeds and propensity for certain behaviors.
Stop being dishonest and admit your defeat, which is clear to anyone not totally fricking moronic.
>men are taller, stronger, more aggressive, etc.
https://www.progress.org.uk/mens-testosterone-levels-largely-determined-by-environment/
There are populations where these traits aren't as significantly different between men and women. There are even populations where the women are more aggressive than men. The existence of such populations suggest the differences are primarily environmental, i.e. a result of nurture and not nature.
Yes, they're dropping, but not significantly enough to say that most men and women are no longer patriarchal.
That study doesn't state that women have equal level of testosterone to men. It doesn't state women and men have the same biological quality. It only states that they are differences of testosterone levels among Bangladeshi men who stay in Bangladesh and Bangladeshi men who stay in UK with better condition.
No apple to apple comparison. This doesn't refute women are not equal to men. You just tried desparately to win. A red-herring fallacy.
>Love does not have to be earned, it is a basic right.
Define your terms or this is just more mushmouthed rambling
One loves another because that other qualifies to be loved
One also does not love everyone equally or in an identical way
Is this the part where you redefine the words 'love' and 'right', and then start in with the motte and bailey tricks?
>Love for men is earned, not given.
Pagan love is earned. Christian agape is given.
Hell yeah goyim. You need to keep working hard so Mr Greenberg can afford his new yacht- oops I mean, so you can be deserving of love one day. Just keep believing that bro, you totally aren't enslaved on every level
Note also that OP doesn't seem to have any notion of the actual purposes, let alone consequences, of attempting to turn men into weaklings, co-dependents, and pets
Who's ready for the age of total stagnation, in which no risk is acceptable and the fundamentally contradictory notion that no violence is justifiable is held up as the sacred foundational truth?
The bad part of traditional masculinity is trying too hard to appear tough and conform to the ideal for social validation, not the ethos of self-reliance.
Let's examine what you've just said:
>trying too hard to appear tough
This is a tautology; 'too much' of anything is the amount at which it becomes a detriment. What is the correct amount? What social function does it serve? Why is this strategy employed, both knowingly and unknowingly?
>conform to the ideal for social validation
Without some shared idea of the good, social cohesion is impossible. See also the comment about people naturally seeking to exploit vulnerabilities; women do this too, but use different avenues owing to their different social dynamics.
You have also again conspicuously avoided detailing the expected purposes and consequences of the strategic alteration of male social affairs. Is it not obvious that it is to make them more vulnerable to exploitation by the tools traditionally employed by women?
Being a conformist sheeple living in fear of disapproval makes you more vulnerable to manipulation, not less. And it is in fact in direct opposition to the other traditional masculine trait, self reliance.
>continued total avoidance of pertinent topics
>strawmanning the one thing you actually address
pack it up boys, I just slew the dragon
It can't be a strawman you fricking moron, we are discussing my view not yours. You didn't slay the dragon, the dragon made you his wife and now you are pregnant with cute little dragon babies.
>You don't want to be an emotionally repressed alcoholic who beats and rapes his wife like me? You must be a co-dependent weakling just like *hic* women
>midwit cannot understand nuance
Try this.
>Once the Nazis came to power, they could use the apparatus of the modern state, with its unchecked authority, to invade the private sphere in ways impossible in earlier eras: “An assault on the inviolability, on the sacredness of the home, would have been impossible in old Iceland in the way it was carried out in 1933, among a million inhabitants of Berlin, as a purely administrative measure.” No doubt Jünger romanticizes “old Iceland,” but his point is that the modern administrative state lays claim to unlimited powers at odds with traditional notions of one’s home as one’s castle. To underscore his point...: “A laudable exception deserves mention here, that of a young social democrat who shot down half a dozen so-called auxiliary policemen at the entrance of his apartment. He still partook of the substance of the old Germanic freedom, which his enemies only celebrated in theory. Naturally, he did not get this from his party’s manifesto—and he was certainly also not of the type Léon Bloy describes as running to their lawyer while their mother is being raped.”
>The extraordinary passage needs some parsing. The “so-called auxiliary policeman” were Nazi Storm Troopers, dubiously empowered...to carry out police functions, in this case, to round up regime opponents. These Nazis had an ideological commitment to “Germanic” values, which however remained exclusively ideological, since they celebrated them only in theory, without trying to realize them in their lives. It was however the young Social Democrat who surpassed mere theory in order to put “the old Germanic freedom” into practice by resorting to violence. His alternative was to be led quietly to a concentration camp. When he resisted arrest, according to Jünger, he was not only a better German; he was also more “Germanic,” acting in accordance with an archaic notion of integrity. In any case, however, when he fought back, he was not following “his party’s manifesto,” since the Social Democrats would have condemned illegal or violent tactics. (Walter Benjamin makes an analogous criticism of Social Democratic passivity in his “Theses on the Philosophy of History” of 1940.) Léon Bloy’s characteristically polemical remark underscores the point that there are situations of immediate violence and existential threat where formal reliance on legal procedure is as ineffectual as party manifestoes or theoretical allegiances. In this spirit, Jünger concludes that “the inviolability of the home” depends less on constitutions than on “the family father, who, sons at his side, fills the doorway with an axe in the hand.” A mythical connection links the archaic image of the axe-wielding father from Iceland with the brave Social Democratic resistance fighter in Berlin. “If we assume that we could have counted on just one such person in every street of Berlin, then things would have turned out very differently than they did.”
I take it that you think this demonstrates a need for patriarchal values in society, because without them, men would become fragile and incapable of defending themselves from greater forces, like the Nazis. Am I correct?
Here is the problem with this sentiment: the removal of patriarchal values does not constitute grounds for a softer populace. This is a bias cultivated by such values.
Firstly, patriarchal values don't make men strong, but hypervigilant. It makes them fearful of imaginary external threats and doubtful of their ability to survive without having absolute control of their environment at all times. It aligns their view of what it means to thrive and be healthy with the sickly notion that they must suppress the will of others. It makes them neurotic, insecure, and lustful. This isn't strength, but mania; in fact, such a state makes one feeble over time. It encourages one to make enemies where it isn't necessary and to commit cruelty against oneself and one's loved ones.
Secondly, patriarchal values make women weaker. An entire half of the species' population is crippled for the sake of making the other half hypervigilant and manic. The species' overall capacity for survival isn't increased, but simply reallocated. No improvement in this regard is experienced, it's an illusion.
Lastly, the absence of patriarchal values doesn't deprive men of their capacity for survival. One doesn't need to believe in the absolute sovereignty of the self in order to act.
I agree with you. It's not only patriarchal values, but capitalist values that are also responsible for the perpetuation of the cycle of abuse that sparked sometime during the tribal era of humanity, that had its uses for a time. It bore great fruit, but the tree is dead now and has to be cut down.
how absolutely fricking predictable of you, to employ the exact strategy I said you would in
:
>verbal sleight-of-hand to change the subject
Anyone can follow the train of posts that lead from the following:
(Me)
(in which you avoid engaging with what is actually written and substitute a personal attack, in a dishonest attempt to avoid conceding that some violence, and the readiness to do violence, is necessary and justified)
(in which I use an extended quote to illustrate that "there are situations of immediate violence and existential threat where formal reliance on legal procedure is as ineffectual as party manifestoes or theoretical allegiances."
Which brings us to your response now, where you still refuse to acknowledge this, and also make yet more claims that contradict your earlier ones, such as:
>he removal of patriarchal values does not constitute grounds for a softer populace.
Hey, remember when you said
>You're defending patriarchal masculinity, which encourages emotional repression in men, which is responsible for the majority of violence committed by both men and women.
if 'emotional repression' and 'the majority of violence' vanished from a population, that would ipso facto be a softer populace.
Furthermore, if
>patriarchal values don't make men strong...It makes them fearful of imaginary external threats and doubtful of their ability to survive...absence of patriarchal values doesn't deprive men of their capacity for survival.
and
>patriarchal values make women weaker
then how do you explain:
>homosexual sapiens had to learn it, and until they did, they co-existed with a cousin species that never did, the Neanderthals. The need to learn it is almost over though...
Clearly, it was an adaptive and successful strategy; this would not have been the case if it both 'did not make men strong' and 'weakened women' at the same time.
Thanks for playing; I'm batting 1000 in this b***h
>if 'emotional repression' and 'the majority of violence' vanished from a population, that would ipso facto be a softer populace.
No, it wouldn't. It would be a less neurotic and manic populace, but not necessarily a softer one. You seem to conflate pathological violence with strength because you can't conceive of strength otherwise.
>Clearly, it was an adaptive and successful strategy
Tens of thousands of years ago, yes. I already conceded this point earlier in the thread, and pointed out that the environment, or playing field, has drastically changed since then.
The story of the Nazis is funny because the Nazis are essentially the pinnacle of patriarchal values in the modern era. That's what happens when said values get taken seriously and are allowed to organize at the national level. Modern organized crime is the next closest thing. None of the men from these factions are worth emulating.
>What conservative populations
The US is becoming increasingly conservative, for example.
>2nd gen arabic immigrants are more liberal muslim than their parents like most generations.
Sure, but the Muslim population is still growing and their religion (like all Abrahamic religions) perpetuates many patriarchal attitudes into the next generation, since the religion is fundamentally patriarchal.
>not necessarily a softer one.
define 'softer' then.
>you won't, of course, because you have already refused to define your terms so that you can continue to use misdirection
>You seem to conflate pathological violence with strength
as usual, verbal attacks without evidence
>the environment, or playing field, has drastically changed since then.
On what basis do you conclude that it makes men weaker now?
>The story of the Nazis is funny because the Nazis are essentially the pinnacle of patriarchal values in the modern era.
Ahhh, so you equate 'Nazis' with 'patriarchal values', which is diametrically opposed to Junger's notion of 'patriarchal values.' As usual, your definition of 'muh patriarchy' is 'all that bad stuff that I don't like'
>The US is becoming increasingly conservative, for example.
Show your work, Trump lost.
And he advocated for pro-LGBT rights before he did.
Obama in 2008 wasn't even pro-gay marriage.
These conservatives aren't conservative in a way to that would support your argument.
And that also exludes the rest of the world which has gotten even more liberal.
>their religion (like all Abrahamic religions)
Islam is the only growing abrahamic religion but Christianity is dying out much faster.
The number of total Abrahmaic religion worshippers is decreasing
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/09/americans-conservative-obama-trump-joe-biden
>These conservatives aren't conservative in a way to that would support your argument.
Sure they are. Just look at all the recent abortion bans across the states.
>Christianity is dying out much faster.
Christianity is growing worldwide.
>The number of total Abrahmaic religion worshippers is decreasing
Nope:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/
>Between 2015 and 2060, the world’s population is expected to increase by 32%, to 9.6 billion. Over that same period, the number of Muslims – the major religious group with the youngest population and the highest fertility – is projected to increase by 70%. The number of Christians is projected to rise by 34%, slightly faster than the global population overall yet far more slowly than Muslims.
Where's the bait?
>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/09/americans-conservative-obama-trump-joe-biden
You fool, you didn't even read the article you are citing.
The increase in conservatism is only focused on crime, in regards to abortion, and LGBT rights, america is as liberal or more liberal than before.
>Christianity is growing worldwide.
Christianity dipped downward percentage wise from 2010 to 2020 as you can see here.
It is projected to increase in the coming years but only in sub saharian africa, in all the rest of the world it is trending downward.
And of course projects 40 years out are utterly worthless.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/christians/
>in regards to abortion [...] america is as liberal or more liberal than before
Is that why there's abortion bans? Watch as Trump wins the popular vote next election. Americans are losing faith in the democratic party (rightly so, the party is a mess) and I'm witnessing it in real-time around me. Along with this is the cultural shift towards traditionalism, including views on marriage and male-female relationships.
>It is projected to increase in the coming years but only in sub saharian africa, in all the rest of the world it is trending downward.
We're talking worldwide, so it doesn't matter, and the Muslim population is growing much faster and is more patriarchal anyway.
>Is that why there's abortion bans? Watch as Trump wins the popular vote next election. Americans are losing faith in the democratic party
I am literally going to quote the article you used as an example.
>Support for abortion rights is at record highs, with even many Republicans wanting the government out of women’s uteruses. And Americans aren’t just more pro-choice broadly; they are now more likely to support abortion without restriction.
>Support for LGBTQ rights is also widespread. Seventy-one per cent of Americans support same-sex marriage rights. Sixty-six per cent favor allowing trans people to serve in the military. And 93% say gay people and lesbians should have the same job opportunities and protections as straight people.
Im sorry reality doesn't agree with you and all you can find is evidence indicating otherwise.
>We're talking worldwide, so it doesn't matter,
For the majority of the world except for one region,
Sub sharian africa, abrahamic religions are in decline.
>and all you can find is evidence indicating otherwise.
Some evidence to the contrary of a specific talking point and suddenly everything presented is invalid. Definitely arguing in good faith here.
Culturally, the US may in fact be more liberal than ever before, but that doesn't mean conservatism, specifically the traditionalist kind that favors patriarchy, isn't on the rise globally. The only statistic we really need to look at for this is the growing Muslim population.
Also, just because most Americans are pro-choice and in favor of same-sex marriage doesn't mean there isn't a growing undercurrent of patriarchal values operating within the nation. Like mentioned earlier, domestic violence is increasing since the pandemic, and it makes no sense to say that that increase is due to the pandemic itself — that's like saying men are naturally abusive to their families when they have to spend more time with them. It's an idiotic claim. Rape and bullying, especially between males, is also increasing.
>abrahamic religions are in decline.
The Muslim population is growing almost everywhere.
>Definitely arguing in good faith here.
I'm just exhausted arguing with someone who is too stupid to know he is wrong
>The only statistic we really need to look at for this is the growing Muslim population.
No.
The only reason you harp on the muslim population is due to the fact that the other points you made were proven incorrect.
>Like mentioned earlier, domestic violence is increasing since the pandemic, and it makes no sense to say that that increase is due to the pandemic itself —
You take a momentary blip and ignore the overall 60% downtrend.
Women go to college in higer rates than men, pay less taxes than men, aren't eligble for the draft like men are and are recieve lesser criminal sentences compared to men.
If anything we are living in matriarchal environment compared to our ancestors.
We are not getting more patarchal over time
>Americans are losing faith in the democratic party (rightly so, the party is a mess) and I'm witnessing it in real-time around me. Along with this is the cultural shift towards traditionalism, including views on marriage and male-female relationships.
You spend too much time on Twitter. Democrats have won major elections in Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. They codified Abortion in red states in Kansas, and its highly likely they will do it again in Ohio.
America is not conservative and is not moving towards conservatism at all. Conservatism, in America, died in 1865 at the Appomattox Court House.
If anything, its Eastern Europe and Africa becoming more conservative.
>You spend too much time on Twitter.
I don't use Twitter.
>America is not conservative and is not moving towards conservatism at all.
Complete bullshit. Ask almost any cop or firefighter or their wives and adult children, anywhere, and you'll find out instantly how wrong you are, and those aren't the only occupations with an abundance of conservatives among them.
>If anything, its Eastern Europe and Africa becoming more conservative.
Yes. Asia too.
>Well if the patriarchal values was increasing it should correlate that women should have less rights.
Give it time and space to organize and it will. The abortion bans are already a small-scale display of this in action.
>Trump getting more votes is not conservatism, but further proof of the death of conservatism in the US.
Your notion of conservatism is warped. Trump is the darling of American conservatives today.
bell hooks wasn't concerned with the movement in her book The Will to Change so much as she was concerned with what made the movement a necessity in the first place, which she thought actually caused more harm to men than women. She thought men needed an even bigger and more serious movement of their own, similar to feminism for women, because they were suffering even more from oppression than women were.
>Thanks for proving my point.
Point not proven. Breaking Bad fans typically love the patriarchal aspects of the show. Most critically acclaimed shows tend to be the same way.
>Traditional patrairchs would hate porn.
Modern patriarchal men (that is, men who think men should hold absolute dominion over women and children — don't know how many times I have to point this out before it sticks) are the ones making porn, trafficking women into the industry to produce it, and indulging in it. The modern porn industry is primarily a reactionary movement against feminism. It's not feminist men paying women to be slapped around and forcibly penetrated by multiple men on camera and watching this spectacle with their dicks in their hands.
>For men obviously.
Patriarchal men specifically, i.e., men with a pathological need to dominate others.
>That's besides the main point.
It's not.
>Baseless delusional fantasies divorced from the practical reality of dating
Patriarchal women want patriarchal men and feminist women want feminist men. Modern dating proves this over and over again.
>Give it time and space to organize and it will.
How much time and space do we need to give the matriarchy before we are enlightened because we seem to have been living in it for the past decade or so, and things have only gotten worse for men.
You deflect because you know you can't beat me intellectually.
>matriarchy
We don't live in one.
>things have only gotten worse for men
And it's men's fault, because they aren't becoming feminist, or adequately helping younger men become feminist, in a world where feminism is now the leading successful survival strategy for men. And of the ones that do claim to have become feminist, most then ask for anal when the opportunity arises — which is increasing as a sexual act and a searched term on porn sites — because they really want to punish women for putting them through what they perceive as an injustice against their secretly held belief that they should hold absolute dominion over women. Sexual behavior tells us everything we need to know about a population, better than anything else.
>You deflect because you know you can't beat me intellectually.
Excuse me, are you the clown who was btfo from his own source?
>beat me intellectually
b***h settle the frick down.
>matriarchy
>We don't live in one.
Do women not have the right to kill their own children but men don't?
Are women not free from enslavement from the draft?
Don't more women go to higher education, but pay less taxes on average?
Don't women live longer than men?
Aren't their dedicated women shelters but no male shelters, and does that not apply to many other aspects , (scholarships, networking groups, etc).
Don't women receive lesser sentences for crimes than men?
If patriarchy is when men have more rights than women then clearly we are in a matriarchy
>And it's men's fault, because they aren't becoming feminist, or adequately helping younger men become feminist, in a world where feminism is now the leading successful survival strategy for men. And of the ones that do claim to have become feminist, most then ask for anal when the opportunity arises — which is increasing as a sexual act and a searched term on porn sites — because they really want to punish women for putting them through what they perceive as an injustice against their secretly held belief that they should hold absolute dominion over women. Sexual behavior tells us everything we need to know about a population, better than anything else.
>Feminism causes problem, the cure is more feminism
People like you are how the famines in the Soviet Union started, just the absolute denial of reality is insane.
>btfo from his own source
In your inefficient brain where bad faith arguments reign supreme, sure.
None of that indicates we live in a matriarchy since it's men who granted them all those amenities.
>If patriarchy is when men have more rights than women then clearly we are in a matriarchy
It doesn't have to be one or the other. This is your patriarchal (read: pathological) brain seeing enemies where there aren't any.
>Feminism causes problem, the cure is more feminism
Feminism didn't cause any problem. Men's failure to adapt is the cause of their problems.
>In your inefficient brain where bad faith arguments reign supreme, sure.
Cope, seethe, dilate etc etc
You brought up a guardian article that proved yourself wrong and you pivoted to the rise of Islam.
>Men's failure to adapt is the cause of their problems.
Maybe women should have just adapted to the patriarchy back in the day, thjat was the cause of their issues and suffering.
you see how absurd your argument is?
Of course you don't you worthless ideologue
>You brought up a guardian article that proved yourself wrong
It didn't prove me wrong, it just didn't prove me right. You're arguing in bad faith once again.
>Maybe women should have just adapted to the patriarchy back in the day
They did, but then men invented technologies that demanded female workers in order to properly leverage, which demanded feminism. Women have been adapting to this change over the past century; men, not so much.
>victim blaming
Men are both the criminals and the victims here.
>It didn't prove me wrong, it just didn't prove me right. You're arguing in bad faith once again.
You made a statement that the world was getting more patriarchal, and you stated the the US was an example of that due to the rise of it's conservative party.
And I, as a being that actually read the article, pointed out that on feminism issues America was as liberal or even more liberal than before.
So you're statement that their is a patriarchal undercurrent, at least in the American politics was incorrect.
Objectively.
>then men invented technologies that demanded female workers in order to properly leverage, which demanded feminism
Now this is a fresh take from you, are you saying the introduction of women into the workforce was the cause of feminism?
Are you ignorant of the fact the majority of women didn't join the workforce until post WWII, but we were already on the 2nd wave of a feminism movement by then?
Were the suffragettes not feminists in your eyes?
>Men are both the criminals and the victims here.
I do adore you absolving the half society from it's sins, but praising it's virtues.
I know you will blame the patriarchy for indoctrinating women, as you refuse to hold them accountable for any of their actions as independent actors.
>So you're statement that their is a patriarchal undercurrent, at least in the American politics was incorrect.
These don't logically follow, as already explained, but continue to think they do if you prefer.
>are you saying the introduction of women into the workforce was the cause of feminism?
No, I'm saying the inventions were. They made all kinds of work, including farm work, viable for women, and very quickly men saw the potential profits in this, so they started making changes to social infrastructure to permit women becoming educated and entering the workforce at the larger scale.
>I do adore you absolving the half society from it's sins, but praising it's virtues.
When did I praise women's virtues in this thread? That's not what the thread is about. If anything, I've brought up multiple times how most women are also to blame for perpetuating patriarchal masculinity past its expiration date.
>These don't logically follow, as already explained, but continue to think they do if you prefer.
You had said nothing, made no argument to the contrary and reference something that doesn't exist.
>They made all kinds of work, including farm work, viable for women, and very quickly men saw the potential profits in this,
You are historically ignorant than, there was no time in history, where women weren't doing farm work, or helping around the farm, or doing work in general.
Did you think being a house wife meant sitting on their ass making cookies?
Women were brewers, seamstress, maids, tanners, fetchers, teachers, cheese merchants and all kinds of professions, loooooong before this century and this advent of feminism.
>When did I praise women's virtues in this thread?
That's fair, I looked at the thread again and you never praised women you only condemned men.
>Men's failure to adapt is the cause of their problems.
Also you're totally victim blaming right now,
let me add another L to your record
>Breaking Bad fans typically love the patriarchal aspects of the show. Most critically acclaimed shows tend to be the same way.
Please list to me the "patriarchal" aspects of breaking bad. It seems to me that for you patriarchy is just a euphemism for everything men are, men like and men strive for. So your feminist crusade to dismantle patriarchy is basically a crusade to dismantle manhood itself.
I mean, you can chop off your own dick and achieve the ultimate destruction of patriarchy within yourself but don't lump us with you and don't presume that our lives would improve if we castrate ourselves too.
>The modern porn industry is primarily a reactionary movement against feminism. It's not feminist men paying women to be slapped around and forcibly penetrated by multiple men on camera and watching this spectacle with their dicks in their hands
Lol. Nice satire of the average braindead feminist.
>Patriarchal men specifically, i.e., men with a pathological need to dominate others.
Most if not all men have need to dominate others. And not just men but women to. It just the degree that varies among individuals and genders. So yes, patriarchy does help men achieve that. Thanks for proving my point yet again that patriarchy benefits men.
Though it seems that along with a need to cut off your own dick(as proven above) you also want to be dominated in bed.
>It's not
>some feminist men get pussy therefore feminism gets you pussy
Sorry bro. No amount of feminist bootlicking would get you pussy. Its just what it is. Work on your critical reasoning skills to not make correlations
>Patriarchal women want patriarchal men and feminist women want feminist men. Modern dating proves this over and over again.
Nothing about modern dating proves this claim. And since you are incapable of following a conversation so I must remind you that THIS was your original claim:
>>Not even remotely. I consider most male "incels" (there's almost no such thing) to be men who are suffering from debilitating toxic shame from regularly exposing themselves to entertainment and porn which express patriarchal values in abundance, which no longer promote a successful survival strategy for men in the modern era.
The delusional fantasies of a schizoid who lives in his own head. When was the last time you went outside?
The silence is deafening on this one
Frankly OP and the like, one other sycophant of OP's have embarrassed themselves mightily
Even the sophistry of our enemies used to be more sophisticated
>They're not sending their best
sounds like homosexual Black person shit to me
I saw a webm with a screen split of a man and a woman.
The woman was having a mental breakdown after being told something bad once, while the man was sitting with a tired but indifferent look as a wave of emotional put downs or pleas to go have a nice day are directed towards him.
I felt it summarised the problem, women think we're the same and project their emotional weakness onto men then conclude that normal male behaviour is pathogenic.
There's no such thing as "patriarchal masculinity".
Men like every creature just act according to their natural instincts.
Some people look at this and take issue with it for whatever reason.
See the post above yours. There is such a thing and most of what you consider "natural instincts" isn't natural.
No I refuse these a priori assumptions. Whatever humans do is their natural state. It cannot be otherwise. Men are not forced to act any certain way. If they do so they choose to in which case that is in their nature.
>Whatever humans do is their natural state.
Sure, but what pressures they're subject to isn't part of this natural state, and this unnecessary conflation is the error you're making. So, it's true that, under the pressures of patriarchal masculinity, men become more lustful and violent and women less so, but these pressures can be done away with.
>what pressures they're subject to isn't part of this natural state
Wrong. The environment (i.e. the source of pressure) is inseparable from the individual. It is both what makes them and is made by them. The environment IS the natural state.
>but these pressures can be done away with
And yet they haven't. The natural state is what is not what is yet to be. If the natural state is to be free from these pressures they would already be gone.
>The environment IS the natural state.
This is an overshot and you know it. By natural state, we should only be referring to natural response, i.e., the internal state of an organism. Bottom line: our response to patriarchal masculinity is natural, but our survival no longer hinges on the existence of patriarchal masculinity, so it no longer needs to continue.
>And yet they haven't.
Yes, thanks to violent coercion and propaganda.
But how can the "internal state of an organism" not be shaped by its environment? Especially when it seems like the whole crux of your argument is that it is?
Of course it's shaped by its environment. Nonetheless, the organism continues living despite changing its environment.
>it's true that, under the pressures of patriarchal masculinity, men become more lustful and violent
You should read accounts of trans men.
They report after taking hormone treatments, i.e testosterone, noticing feeling much more horny than they had been before.
The difference is natural.
Now you're gonna tell me testosterone is also just a product of the patriarchy because you are a mindless ideologue incapable of independent thought.
Jews are matrilineal and express feminine behaviours.
feminism is just another path to israeliteification
Society is undebatebly becoming less patriarchal, yet number of virgins is ever increasing. Curious
>Society is undebatebly becoming less patriarchal
No, it's very debatable. We may no longer have a legal patriarchy, but most men and women continue to operate within a patriarchal value structure, and we can observe this very easily. It's not a given that this phenomenon is due to the nature of the sexes, either, because we're all surrounded by an abundance of educational materials (required reading in schools, commercial media, entertainment, porn, etc.) that clearly reinforce those values (read: perpetuate the trauma cycle into the next generation).
Most not all and clearly these values are dropping more and more especially in urban areas, the fact it "legally" still imples the trend is downward. (Can we even measure "patriarchal values" in any meaningful way anyway)
Why even use the toxic word patriarchy, unless you have an agenda.
Since you clearly believe it is enforced by men and woman it is not a patriarchy, use a less loaded term
>That study doesn't state that women have equal level of testosterone to men.
It wasn't intended to. I shared it to challenge the presupposition that biological rather than environmental factors are causing these differences between men and women.
There are plenty of studies like this and plenty of anthropologists have observed populations that question these presuppositions of yours.
Patriarchy is not the natural order of things. It was a survival strategy that worked at a certain time in a certain environment. Technology and society have been gradually changing said environment into one where it's no longer as effective a strategy.
It's not patriarchal men and women who will be surviving beyond the new millennium.
It simply doesn't work like that. Feminism can't help men even when feminists are sincere about wanting to, which they rarely are.
>Feminism can't help men
It can, but it depends on what you mean by help.
It's inherently a left-wing movement following the mold of the oppressed class fighting the oppressor class through liberatory struggle. If it's not that it's not feminism, it doesn't matter what some individual author says. Also women tend to be much less self-aware than men and can easily convince themselves they're trying to "help" men by castrating them.
masculinity emotionally damages boys
Could one of you feminists explain the gender pay cap?
Don't care for this homosexual communist longhouse shit.
>In a sense. They come from the environment, which has been significantly altered by patriarchal masculinity over many thousands of years.
Take your meds please
>>/x/
Kurgans literally changed Europe forever through warfare and were a patriarchal society.
>higher testosterone bad even doe you're a male
>The Incredible Hulk will teach men to beat women
>Harry Potter will teach men to become fascists
Nah, Bell Hooks' writing suffered from the same psychoanalytical woo-woo that the bulk of feminist writers suffered from
Ending "da patriarchy" - what the frick does that even mean?
Why do Marxists never make any sense? They always speak in gibberish.
Ok nice troll man but this revenge of the nerd shits kind of embarassing.
Why would the tech of these multi billion (aka patriarchal) companies not further enforce latrairchy through the very tech they create?
I don’t think you can get a complete picture thinking only about patriarchy– the system’s patriarchal capitalism, so if you want to have a model that encompasses all of its effects you’re gonna need a synthesis of feminism/intersectionalism and political economy/materialism. You see this failure a lot in lib feminist spaces, women screeching that “men” need to fix “men’s” problems, and smugly leaving it at that, with absolutely zero thought for what the neoliberal victory has done to society and the roles of men and women. It’s really tiring.
>come boys don't let that patriarchy keep you down, now now, come back to the longhouse you can cry here :))
Nah I'm thinking you can frick off
Wow she was so cute. I had no idea she was this cute. I want to coat her face with my seed as she moans and pants and scrabbles at her c**t with a slick hand. I want her to bury her face in my crotch and I want her to rub her face all over my balls and taint. In a feminist way, of course.
This thread is full of posters who haven't read the literature in question.
Patriarchal masculinity = toxic masculinity = guys who treat women as property and think they have a right to do so
In short: incels usually deserve to be incels
>we have to end patriarchy to heal men from their trauma
Start with something easy like preventing the most common form of trauma for men, bullying at school.
>female trauma: I got raped and tortured by my mom's boyfriend
>male trauma: THEY GIGGLED AT ME 10 YEARS AGOOOO BOO HOO, I GOT SHOVED IN A TOILET FOR BEING A gay BOO HOO
What's got you so worked up, bud? Tough time at school? Parents ignoring you?
Instead of throwing a school shooter tantrum you could, I don't know, get therapy for your anger issues? Try it out.
pure fricking onions + zero reading comprehension ass homie
Wtf I love longhouse now
I saw this word multiple times here, so I decided to look it up, and found this:
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/02/what-is-the-longhouse
Assuming that article is accurate, I'm fully on board with what the writer of it is suggesting. I don't favor "the longhouse" because I see clearly where it's weak and open to attack. I'm admittedly neither right nor left; I go a middle way. I don't side with the democrats whose response to "what's the alternative?" is only "as each individual sees fit." Social cohesion can only be established when concepts and principles are strongly defined rather than left open and vague.
Between patriarchal and feminist masculinity, however, I choose the latter, except when the latter becomes just as tyrannical and pathological as the former.
>define 'softer' then.
Easily destroyed.
>you have already refused to define your terms
What terms didn't I define?
>as usual, verbal attacks
That's not a verbal attack.
>On what basis do you conclude that it makes men weaker now?
I wouldn't say weaker, but it makes them less efficient at surviving. Male virginity and suicide are on the rise, as are patriarchal attitudes. It's no coincidence. Men aren't adapting to the feminist environment; they're holding steadfast to the patriarchal values of their ancestors that are promoted in the entertainment and porn that they regularly consume, and by the economy itself (read Richard Reeves's Of Boys and Men on this).
>As usual, your definition of 'muh patriarchy' is 'all that bad stuff that I don't like'
The thread isn't about Junger, it's about bell hooks. You're the one in the wrong here.
masculinity emotionally damages boys
Yes, and? Do you know how to get swole, b***h? You literally break your muscle fibers for them to grow back bigger.
Women are only concerned about safety, because they're boring and indolent. Hedonism stems from this effeminate concern for safety.
masculinity emotionally damages boys
Nobody believes this except women and sòy soulless bugmen
Its also hilarious someone would consider Trump a traditional conservative when he constantly eschews populist foreign and economic policy.
Trump getting more votes is not conservatism, but further proof of the death of conservatism in the US.
>take a movement meant for women, to give them equity and liberation (feminism)
>twist it so it's all about men again
yeah no. it's about as senseless as a black taking blm and saying "we need to end black oppression so the hispanics and israelites can have it easier"
Read the Care Manifesto.
social constructivism is society-is-a-baby logic. It's testosterone you silly goose
Feminism and women's rights is a massive shit test men have collectively been failing for generations. Women are by far the biggest perpetrators of toxic masculinity. She says she wants a sensitive emotional guy but will get the ick and lose respect for you if you cry in front of her. She demands you be an ally but will frick the misogynist with tattoos. Women will test you much like children to see how much of a man you really are and most men are failing. They will always end up with a guy that can put her in her place
>She says she wants a sensitive emotional guy but will get the ick and lose respect for you if you cry in front of her. She demands you be an ally but will frick the misogynist with tattoos.
Those are patriarchal women according to bell. The term shit test may not have been in use when she wrote her book The Will to Change, but she talked about this very phenomenon. Men should be collectively re-educating such women rather than let them perpetuate societal norms that no longer suit the species.