Entries with no category
When feminists blame patriarchy, MRAs roll their eyes and move on, because they see patriarchy differently. I would argue that MRAs look at it more accurately, and that feminists look at something called “The Patriarchy”
Patriarchy, in itself is not the ultimate evil in the world. It has plenty of restrictive flaws, but as a whole, it is a working system. It may be a system where nobody truly wins unless you are at the top of the pyramid. Was it fair? No. Was it just? Debatable. But did the system work? Absolutely.
Patriarchy is the socially constructed system where there is a division of labor based around gender. Many of the major jobs for men are often providing and protecting, but most notably making the major social decisions goes to the men. This did not mean the jobs of women were less valuable, but simply different, and different jobs often came with different benefits. Leading men had more political influence, and women had a roof over their head provided for them. It should be noted not all men, generally a small handful, but the number of men that are given power tends to grow over time, and eventually it goes to women.
Being a man would only give you lots of power, but only if you were rich too. Otherwise, you have to wait for the gradual expansion of power (which in most western nations is already taken care of) or you have to fight for it (as feminists did, pushing for the vote).
It should also be noted that it differs in degree from place to place. Rural America was radically different than parts of China where they practice foot binding, which is different than cultures that practice arranged marriages, and that is different from cultures that only have male circumcisions.
Some cultures are worse to one gender than they are to others.
That is, in a sense patriarchy, but it is not “The Patriarchy”
To learn about "The Patriarchy" click here
No matter where you go, society is divided by gender. In itself there is nothing wrong with this. It is part of social customs to divide by gender, and oftentimes it is challenged both for good and bad reasons. The goal of trying to make the world gender neutral is not something that is practical, no matter how society changes.
The accumulation and alteration of new knowledge that creates the modified power dynamics does not get us past a gender division. If anything it can even create a new, or stronger gender division as what is deemed acceptable by who is challenged so frequently that what is acceptable one day, is intolerable the next.
In fact, when we try to desegregate, sometimes we end up undoing everything. Look at how we tried to make the work world gender neutral in the 60s and 70s. In the end the realms that were influenced by men and women were different, but that is all they were different. Some originally male oriented fields became female dominated, and those that were female dominated became male dominated. We never really changed things. If we are looking for a social change that will have gender neutrality it does not come easily. Oftentimes these drastic changes come at a great cost. Sometimes it is an economic collapse or a genocide, other times it is beneficial-like the industrial revolution. Read the rest here
While I advocate for making most government assistance programs gender neutral, the reality is there will be some…unfriendliness to the idea. This is something that we see throughout history. When a group forces its place into a different social circle or towards obtaining certain treatment (Gay marriage, women in the workplace, any ethnicity that enters a new area of the world) there is often some hostility due to what is perceived as an invasion and an attempt to destroy someone’s culture. But this doesn’t last forever.
The next generation, doesn’t mind as much but may still be uncomfortable
The generation after that may find a member or two in an odd position but won’t mind
The generation after that doesn’t give a damn.
It’s a common historical trend. Integration + Time= Tolerance
I say we use this to our advantage and take it into consideration when we create programs for men that CANNOT be combined with those for women. Domestic violence programs and shelters can be combined, so can (most) government health services, aid to single parents, amongst other things can be combined. However, until we get more forms of male birth control Planned Parenthood will still be mostly female. Programs to inspire children to go into STEM fields can be made gender neutral as well. America is falling behind as a whole, and we should be concerned with getting more people all together into STEM fields than the male to female ration within the program. A good chunk of medical/biological research cannot be combined. But at first, things should be separate.
This will avoid the appearance and argument of a “male invasion”. It is also a good way to monitor how much money goes towards men and women.
Of course, we can’t expect to create and integrate the programs over too many generations. We would be talking 50-60 years. Programs might not be stuck with if it takes that long, and people may become a bit too set in their ways. If we take too long it could be harmful to the integration process.
I say we do it in 20 years. It won’t bring complete acceptance, but it will silence opposition. See how the 20 years are divided up here
Feminism has done lots of terrible things to men, as well as many good ones for women, and often times there were good things for women that ended up hurting men (intentionally or not). But some times, things that were designed to help women came with no expense directed at men for being men, and many of those things I like. I am not saying that these things are flawless (I have issues with aspects of planned parenthood), but rather that I think these things are beneficial. No where is it written that women can't have problems, and they need to be confronted and solved, just as issues men face need to.
Also before you jump down my throat also consider what I said about relative power and that while the gap and power dynamics may change, these do not automatically take things away from men. Anyways, here is a list:
There are two basic forms of power when it comes to influence. There is “hard power” which uses might, strength, aggression and whatnot to push forward ideas; and there is “soft power” which involves more subtlety, persuasion, and a different line of thinking.
When you combine the two, you get what Joseph Nye refers to “Smart power”. And we in the MRM need to start generating a bit more smart power. We need to do it, and fast. The sooner we harness smart power the sooner we can get rid of people like Mary Kellet.
The first part of smart power is soft power. Soft power involves the spreading of ideas, creating allies on all sides, and from time to time a bit of schmoozing. Think tanks, lobbyists, and scholars are solid sources of smart power when it comes to generating thoughts into the people’s minds. Strong PR campaigns portraying those that support an idea in the most positive manner possible are another must in the world of soft power. Essentially, it is a more passive manner of creating and enforcing a group’s influence.
For more on soft power, hard power, and how we put it all together click here
This happened without my knowing, but I was credited so I am letting it slide. A fellow blogger at Canal du Bufalo has published a piece of mine in Portuguese! If you can read it (or have a translator) go and check it out! Remember, if you want to republish something of mine, please ask first folks!
Ages ago I decided I would do a series called “the struggle for fairness” well it didn’t take off as I planned and beyond the core concept which I wrote in a way I don’t think did it justice it really didn’t come out well IMO. So this is the last part of the “Struggle for Fairness” series, which is a more sophisticated and stronger retelling of the first part.
As a whole there is a gap between the sexes when it comes to power. And it is not a pretty gap either. However, the goal is not to take strength and power away from one group of sex, but to advance the other. Essentially, I am applying Joseph Nye’s concept of relative power (normally used for dueling nations) to the gender war. The core idea is simple: By empowering men we are not belittling women, and when we are empowering women we are not belittling men.
For the sake of argument, I am going to be looking at society as a whole. The charts below are not set up on a core factual number, and are merely meant to help visualize the situation. Near the end I will apply it towards different spheres of influence. For the graphs, core ideas, and everything else click here!
Boys in America have a major educational crisis. Now making only 40% of students in college and continuously being unnecessarily drugged, they have fallen behind in math, literacy, and are not even thought to be as smart as their female counterparts by fellow classmates.
But before we create any sort of program in order to give boys more resources, we have to do one thing first.
We have to make boys want to learn. All the affirmative action program constructing (or deconstructing, depending on your beliefs) and additional high end resources isn’t going to do shit if boys are still turned off from learning in the first place.
So what is the key to getting boys to want to learn? Well one thing would actually be to improve the social status of teachers. In America teachers are highly undervalued, and not seen as incredibly noteworthy, and mocked for only working 9 months out of the year. Yet in other parts of the world they are viewed as nation builders. There is a clear gap in prestige for teachers (below a college level). Mix in pedophile hysteria and the notion that it is a job meant for women and you have a recipe for disaster. But how will increasing the amount of prestige involved in teaching increase boys achievement in education? more here...
The American Sociological Association recently published a new study. The basic premise behind the study is how do social networks and adolescents positions in them impact violence. It looked at both cross gender networks and single gender networks. At the end here is what the study found:
Males were also more aggressive toward females than females were toward males, and females were more aggressive toward other females than males were toward other males. Compared to boys, girls occupy significantly more central network positions, are more physically developed, and earn higher grades, but they are less likely to participate in sports.
It should be noted however the statistical difference regarding the violence committed by gender is pretty small. The gap is actually small enough to actually be nullified by the fact the study took place primarily in rural North Carolina (I am not picking on NC look at page 23).
An interesting thing to note is that the people at the top are generally non violent-with the exception of those at the top of the top. Also, those at the bottom of the ladder are not likely to be violent as well. The biggest perpetrators are those in the “bridge” category who tend to be in the middle of the pack, linking everyone together (the friend of a friend people) and those at the top.
When intergender relationships are rare and used as a status marker, violence increases as well. There is no solid explanation for this, but when a relationship between men and women sticks out, whether it is rare in a social network or something that sticks out in a diverse social circle the level of violence goes up when the relationship also serves as symbolic purpose.
What really increases the chance violence is not if the violence works, but if those committing violence THINK it will work. Whether it does or doesn’t is irrelevant to if a violent act will be committed or not. Most violence isn’t senseless. If the perpetrator does not think they will benefit from it, there won’t be violence.
While this focuses on teens I am going to apply it to something we are all a bit more familiar with: false rape accusations and domestic violence.
Read the rest here
Recently, some fellow lefties have been claiming that the GOP has declared a “war on women” through a series of vicious tax cuts and regulations. Most notably Bobby Franklin who did something which I thought was commendable trying to get rid of the word “victim” when it came to processing and police conduct regarding rape cases. Then he went bats shit crazy and decided that women should be charged with murder for miscarriages. This is notably the most anti-woman thing the republicans have done, and it is absolutely deplorable. This is followed by trying to make a budget cut based on "what types of rape make abortion ok".
But has the whole campaign been anti-woman? I really don’t think so. What they really are is anti-human.
Yes, they have cut lots of programs and spending towards women’s health, planned parenthood, assistance in birth control, and made some pretty sick anti-abortion laws. A lot of them probably cause a bit more psychological harm and stress than are necessary making women suffer for their own pro-life agenda.
But among the budget cuts towards social services proposed they have proposed assistance for the mentally ill and education, they have successfully taken a shit on the unions in Wisconsin. They are continuously backing the DOFA. They have cut heating for low-income areas. If there is a program that provides a service they will find a way to cut it, no matter how popular, important, or effective the program is.
Lets not forget NPR is now under attack as well.
At the same time they have funded NASCAR, given tremendous subsidies to the oil industry and for birth control to horses, and will not make a sufficient cut to military spending or doing anything about our industrial military complex. They will not enforce any gun regulation, they won't even go back to 10 bullets per clip instead of 31 after the Giffords shooting.
Read the rest here...