It should come as to no surprise that women are economically dependant because they are MEDIOCRE in thier persistance to help society as a whole progress. We are left with this system ONLY because women won't get the fuck out there and perform or work. Your idea of patriarchydoesn't work because while you say it does so and so to men it doesn't account for the people so say men do those things and are bad for it and still themselves use the word patriarchy, hope that makes sense.
Question, how does identifying "patriarchy" as the source of men's inequalities address the fact that feminism, that largely claims to be about equality, refuses to acknowledge men have issues (which was his initial point after all)? How does it address the fact that the feminist DV industry actively denies female violence, that it actively propagates a perception of men as abusers, that is then used to deny paternal rights in custody deputes. Your missing the point for the examples
@MNeilGri I don't think the problem is one of men's issues not being acknowledged; it's that they tend to be used as counters for when female issues are raised. The circumcision/FGM issue is an example of this; non-consensual circumcision is a valid concern that men should address, but simply using it as a 'me too' response when women bring up FGM serves no useful purpose other than to make men look foolish imo
@conferencereport "I don't think the problem is one of men's issues not being acknowledged; it's that they tend to be used as counters for when female issues are raised." Except this thought directly contradicts with TJ's video, where his initial statement said nothing about women's issues, but rather, that men's issues existed "TOO", and his examples were then countered by pointing to women's issues. This is again repeated throughout the comments section.
@conferencereport Except it wasn't brought up as a "me too" example, it was brought up as a "valid concern" (your words) and has been "countered" with claims that "FGM is worst"... so, it may be worst, it's also largely illegal. Furthermore, it is recognized as an issue and being addressed in those locations it isn't illegal. So how does saying "hey, me too" detract from all that? why is saying "me TOO" (not "just me". more counterpart than counter), so abhorrent a concept?
I agree that "me too" is not a proper argument because my problems don't undermine your problems but circumcision is not the best example because in US it's not legal to cut a girls boys genitals but it's legal (and mostly socially acceptable) to cut baby boys.
Also some feminists (not all of course) refuse to admit that men are hurt by the current system (you yourself gave examples).
Is the future not, with or without feminism, for females? Properties of consciousness will be more important than physical properties. In my country woman are a majority on the universities, results of female students are better. There is already a matriarchal problem on our primary schools where few man are teachers. The (more physical energetic) boys need an older male example too. It is a reverse situation of the patriarchal past...
Glad someone made this video. I couldn't help think of those exact points you were making as AA went on his anti-feminist rant. I can understand taking a firm stance against some of the more crazy feminist, but it seems like he's taking a stance against even the more down to earth feminists to the point of ignoring how annoying it can be to constantly be patronized the way women are, and essentially strawmanning their position as if they are in favor of this inequality.
@Sloth7d He never claimed the "down to earth feminists" were in favor of the inequality, he claimed you were failing to look at both genders issues, as feminists often claim they do. Furthermore, he pointed out the responses to that claim were largely denying the existence of male issues. I'd be happen to be pointed to an example of feminist action on behalf of a men's issue,,, that is in favor of addressing that men's issue (I've seen plenty opposing fathers rights. just for clarification)
I think an appropriate amount of nuance has been added to patriarchy here. However, it is interesting, and unsurprising, that the positives (for men) have been clawed backed at a brisker rate than the negatives.
I partially reject your explanation of how patriarchy causes men to serve longer sentences for crimes. In the middle ages through around the enlightenment or so, there is a lot of literature indicating that women actually have more moral standing power and have the power to "tame" men through marriage or something.
If this social phenomenon we're calling "patriarchy" has both positive and negative effects on the way the world is set up for both male and female people in that world, isn't calling it "the patriarchy" a little misleading? And not very useful? Gendering the problem itself is, here, an example of what we're trying to move beyond. The word itself seems to lay blame at the feet of one gender, as if this was some grand conspiracy. It's too easily misunderstood.
When explaining that we might be living in an patriarchal society you slightly miss the point of most (at least many) criticisms of feminism: 'We' don't complain about feminists pointing out that we live in such a society, but that they complain about being oppressed by this society, when, after considering all facts, this statement is obviously false (even though SOME oppression might exist, still it's LESS than the oppression against men).
@conferencereport: Yes, but admittedly not by a huge margin. The more important fact is that they are more often favored (and still complain that it's 'not enough').
@mrmagmrmag You mean like in post secondary education, where, when %56 male attendance was unacceptable and proof of discrimination, but %60 female attendance is proof men can't adapt (despite millions of years of doing so, leading innovation) and are inferior (despite men and women being completely equal when women want something), then claiming that women are still discriminated in the STEM fields and pump yet more money into encouraging yet more women into education?
@MNeilGri Yes, but I guess it's not necessary to post examples. I also can only comment on the situation here (in Germany). There is currently a discussion going on to require companies by law to have a certain percentage of women in their upper executive/management level, independent! of the percentage of women in that company that is. A few years ago one might just have laughed, hearing such a proposal, but now it might soon become reality.
@mrmagmrmag Ah Germany, where Schroeder (sp?), the women's and equality minister, opened a department for boys and men within her ministry, and got slammed by feminists for doing so. Called incompetent and unprofessional, if memory serves.
Under patriarchy men are not supposed to have fond feelings for children yet under that same system they are expected to fight, die, save and provide for those children.
@conferencereport It's interesting to me looking at that sentance in two ways. One, it seems to contradict itself, that is, if men in fact are expected to not have fond feelings for their children then how can it be they fight, die, protect, save and provide for those children. It seems to me the fond feelings would be the primary component necessary for such actions. Two, what would the polar opposite be, say under matriarchy?
@DiwataMan I think it's part of the weird trade-offs we make under patriarchy. Our being excused from childcare so we can pursue careers is bought at the cost of having to be a provider, just as our 'right' to look down women's blouses is bought at the cost of not being able to complain when they physically abuse us.
@conferencereport But we are not excused from childcare. Sure, one could look at job statistics and see there is an overrepresentation of women in child care services but that's child care only in a limited sense. Does this overrepresentation then imply that men ought not or do not have fond feelings for children? Certainly not. If a man changes the diaper or kisses his children, is he ostracized in some way?
@DiwataMan Some men are ostracised for being too child-friendly, although I know that's not as common as it was. I really meant 'we' in the general sense of male and female archetypes that operate on us more subtly such that their operation, as you say, shows up in statistics but is hard to pin down within individual relations.
@conferencereport Right, the traditional gender roles of woman as care giver and man as provider, although that being just a crude representation of much larger discussion and dynamic. Those are the archetypes you are referring to yes? Do you see these roles as purely a social construct, a natural one, percentages of both? Nature vs. Nurture that is, and/or how much of both?
@conferencereport What happens when you remove the benefit, but maintain the cost? You no longer have a trade-off, but oppression. you know, what we're told men don't suffer? Since, despite the fact we are still expected to be provider (enforced through child support laws and alimony), but are no longer excused from childcare (unless we are utterly denied), or when it is sexual harassment (AKA a crime) to stare down a blouse, but we're still expected to not complain about abuse
What I find rather curious anytime the word 'feminism' is raised, in whatever context and whatever the speaker is actually saying, are the assumptions made by commenters, as if many of them can only see what they expect to see rather than what's there. I once put together a collaboration on it as a favour and got attacked for a whole host of things which I hadn't implied let alone said and any response I gave was only viewed in the victim mentality of the commenter (male in that instance).
Patriarchy='rule by men' By definition it means that the rule of law and the power of the state reinforcing that rule. Would you mind highlighting the laws on the books that are presently enforced to uphold this 'patriarchal system'? Even if I have a paleo-sexist 'kuche, kinder, kirche attitude, I can't call a cop to arrest a woman that does not comply with my attitude. The suffixes -archy and -ocracy are political terms and don't belong in the socio-cultural sphere. Words mean things
@cehbeach That's not the definition that most people use when they say 'patriarchy'. It certainly wasn't the one used by either of the videos that I'm responding to.
@conferencereport That's my point. The term has been bastardized from it's original meaning to this ephemeral, vague, and ultimately pointless concept. When people can make a word mean what ever the fuck they want it to mean then it becomes useless. Unless you're talking about Victorian England/America, Medieval Europe, or modern day Iran then it's meaningless
IOW, I see the same comments by men over and over and over again as if they just can't digest this (gee I wonder why?). It just gets so tiring as a feminist to say the same things over and over again. So I'll let you say it Fred! :-)
Oh no, I'm feeling like I gotta get back in the ring. NOT! I just cannot put myself back into this. I find it a masochistic thing here on YT. However, you make a good video.
The examples that he gave. Are indeed a criticism of patriarchy. You can only make the argument that a patriarchy that oppresses men is still a patriarchy, If you stretch the meaning of the term. Which is absurd for obvious reasons.
@thecreepyguy It's another dead end argument. Because how do you then disprove that a patriarchy exists if you're just going to stretch the definition to mean anything. And at a point where it becomes so stretched, It loses all meaning. And a matriarchy would actually be a lot more closer to how the real world actually works. Because although most people at the very top. If we are going to talk in real terms, Women control most of the wealth and have most of the rights.
@thecreepyguy most people at the very top, Are men i meant to say.
If we are to think overall of men compared to women. Women overall have more rights and privileges and hence it would be more accurate to call it a matriarchy.
@conferencereport Because it then is not a patriarchy. At least not following a definition that says men get most or all of the power and women less or none of it. Which would be the logical implication of the word in that it stems out of patriarch. Meaning a man who is in charge and has power. And patriarchy being that this is a system that we live in that applies to all men.
If it were simply some men ruling at the top. Oppressing other men and women. Then it would be an oligarchy.
@conferencereport Then perhaps it would be wise to not use a word such as patriarchy in a way that betrays the literal meaning of the word patriarch. And that modern understandings can either find another a word that is more appropriate to their intended meaning, Or expect confusion and misunderstandings if they use pseudo language.
And a similar argument can be had for the word feminism suddenly meaning equality.
But why is it not more appropriate to use the word oligarchy?
@thecreepyguy As I say in the video, I'm picking up on the term as I understand it being used in the two videos that I'm responding to, both of which use it as it tends to be used by people who talk about these things a lot. In the end it doesn't really matter what word you use as long as you have a shared understanding of what you're talking about, surely.
@conferencereport Indeed. And a shared understanding of what you're talking about is difficult to achieve when you use pseudo language and confusing terms.
And i still don't see why it is not more appropriate to use the word oligarchy.
@conferencereport Well technically you are. Modern understandings of the definition may have changed, But the actual dictionary definition remains the same.
So basically everything bad that happens to women can be blamed on men, and everything bad that happens to men can also be blamed on men also. Ugh, this is just more misandry.
patriarchy seems to force men to be "nobler" than women. now that women have all the same rights if not moreso than men, theres nothing that comes on the flip side.
Noun: A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
I'm with TJ none of the above can be attributed to the USA or the UK .
Actually I retract some of my statement in viewing the second half, where your theory becomes more clearer, however I still stand by my first statement that this is disinformation about Patriarchy.
It is a failure to get to grips with the issues surrounding the myth of patriarch.
Socrates is someone who clearly has a condition that seeks to have reinforced male patriarchy for the syndrome of Misandry.
why do persons who are completely unstudied of what Patriarchy, surmise then theory about what it is. Firstly you are not discriminating the difference between this and a Power Elite. If you make reductionisms of what Patriarchy is, it disappears. Your trying to circulate disinformation in a tone of being expert, which is a nonsense. You also assign genderism/male sex to patriarchy which is dismissed by the examination of class, by Statist types as a form of sexism on men around voicing for men
Good vid! TJ's analyses of feminism is similar to that of poor republicans. They are getting fucked over by a specific system, and they do nothing to fight that. These people would rather bitch at people who supposedly take money away form "workers" in the form of things like welfare.
Some very keen points! TJ`s arguments had a similar logic white supremacists employ when they argue that the accusation of racism is being anti-white.Yet all along they are under the unconscious assumption that discrimination is equally distributed when clearly it is not.
If there was no patriarchy as a background consensus of power-structures and cultural prejudice then we would see women initiating courtship, be more aggressive and possessive overall, and have more leadership roles.
@eydos "TJ`s arguments had a similar logic white supremacists employ when they argue that the accusation of racism is being anti-white."
No, actually that's what you're doing right now.
"If there was no patriarchy as a background consensus of power-structures and cultural prejudice then we would see women initiating courtship, be more aggressive and possessive overall, and have more leadership roles."
You ever think that many women just don't want any of those things?
Your views are very sensible. There's no sense in sustaining a gender war; patriarchy is unfair to anyone who dislikes it's harmful stereotypes. As you say, we need to fight it together.
Gender is not the only dimension along which society is stratified. Not all men fight wars, some men send to war. Not all men spend harsh prison sentences, some have had a beer with the judge for years. It's a mistake to try to understand society by these one-dimensional axis.
I.e. the real patriarchs don't suffer those negative consequences as much as men and women of lesser status along other stratifications.
@socrates856 "I.e. the real patriarchs don't suffer those negative consequences as much as men and women of lesser status along other stratifications."
You seem to be describing the sister concept of Kyriarchy, with which I would agree.
@45means45 Consider sex a dimension. Dimension is some sort of category, where by changing one variable you are able to describe all that changed. To describe two dimensions you need two variables. What goes on with people is influenced by many factors. Sex being one, wealth, social standing, ethnicity etc being other such factors. I use dimension to point out that sex is insufficient to explain some of our observations. To collapse them ("men get drafted") is inaccurate. See Cheney.
It should come as to no surprise that women are economically dependant because they are MEDIOCRE in thier persistance to help society as a whole progress. We are left with this system ONLY because women won't get the fuck out there and perform or work. Your idea of patriarchydoesn't work because while you say it does so and so to men it doesn't account for the people so say men do those things and are bad for it and still themselves use the word patriarchy, hope that makes sense.
MirageScience 1 month ago
Question, how does identifying "patriarchy" as the source of men's inequalities address the fact that feminism, that largely claims to be about equality, refuses to acknowledge men have issues (which was his initial point after all)? How does it address the fact that the feminist DV industry actively denies female violence, that it actively propagates a perception of men as abusers, that is then used to deny paternal rights in custody deputes. Your missing the point for the examples
MNeilGri 1 month ago
@MNeilGri I don't think the problem is one of men's issues not being acknowledged; it's that they tend to be used as counters for when female issues are raised. The circumcision/FGM issue is an example of this; non-consensual circumcision is a valid concern that men should address, but simply using it as a 'me too' response when women bring up FGM serves no useful purpose other than to make men look foolish imo
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport "I don't think the problem is one of men's issues not being acknowledged; it's that they tend to be used as counters for when female issues are raised." Except this thought directly contradicts with TJ's video, where his initial statement said nothing about women's issues, but rather, that men's issues existed "TOO", and his examples were then countered by pointing to women's issues. This is again repeated throughout the comments section.
MNeilGri 1 month ago
@conferencereport Except it wasn't brought up as a "me too" example, it was brought up as a "valid concern" (your words) and has been "countered" with claims that "FGM is worst"... so, it may be worst, it's also largely illegal. Furthermore, it is recognized as an issue and being addressed in those locations it isn't illegal. So how does saying "hey, me too" detract from all that? why is saying "me TOO" (not "just me". more counterpart than counter), so abhorrent a concept?
MNeilGri 1 month ago
@conferencereport
I agree that "me too" is not a proper argument because my problems don't undermine your problems but circumcision is not the best example because in US it's not legal to cut a girls boys genitals but it's legal (and mostly socially acceptable) to cut baby boys.
Also some feminists (not all of course) refuse to admit that men are hurt by the current system (you yourself gave examples).
perodjetlic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is the future not, with or without feminism, for females? Properties of consciousness will be more important than physical properties. In my country woman are a majority on the universities, results of female students are better. There is already a matriarchal problem on our primary schools where few man are teachers. The (more physical energetic) boys need an older male example too. It is a reverse situation of the patriarchal past...
Isn't patriarchy not an 'old boys' network?
Contextcatcher 1 month ago
Really glad I subscribed to this channel :)
georgemc25 1 month ago
Glad someone made this video. I couldn't help think of those exact points you were making as AA went on his anti-feminist rant. I can understand taking a firm stance against some of the more crazy feminist, but it seems like he's taking a stance against even the more down to earth feminists to the point of ignoring how annoying it can be to constantly be patronized the way women are, and essentially strawmanning their position as if they are in favor of this inequality.
Sloth7d 1 month ago
@Sloth7d He never claimed the "down to earth feminists" were in favor of the inequality, he claimed you were failing to look at both genders issues, as feminists often claim they do. Furthermore, he pointed out the responses to that claim were largely denying the existence of male issues. I'd be happen to be pointed to an example of feminist action on behalf of a men's issue,,, that is in favor of addressing that men's issue (I've seen plenty opposing fathers rights. just for clarification)
MNeilGri 1 month ago
Of course one doesn't strike a woman-
bend them over the knee and roundly spank them!
VoxNeruda 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I think an appropriate amount of nuance has been added to patriarchy here. However, it is interesting, and unsurprising, that the positives (for men) have been clawed backed at a brisker rate than the negatives.
72daystar 1 month ago
I partially reject your explanation of how patriarchy causes men to serve longer sentences for crimes. In the middle ages through around the enlightenment or so, there is a lot of literature indicating that women actually have more moral standing power and have the power to "tame" men through marriage or something.
However, I do agree with the idea.
insidetrip101 1 month ago
If this social phenomenon we're calling "patriarchy" has both positive and negative effects on the way the world is set up for both male and female people in that world, isn't calling it "the patriarchy" a little misleading? And not very useful? Gendering the problem itself is, here, an example of what we're trying to move beyond. The word itself seems to lay blame at the feet of one gender, as if this was some grand conspiracy. It's too easily misunderstood.
EquitoErgoSum 1 month ago
When explaining that we might be living in an patriarchal society you slightly miss the point of most (at least many) criticisms of feminism: 'We' don't complain about feminists pointing out that we live in such a society, but that they complain about being oppressed by this society, when, after considering all facts, this statement is obviously false (even though SOME oppression might exist, still it's LESS than the oppression against men).
mrmagmrmag 1 month ago
@mrmagmrmag You think that women are oppressed less than men?
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport: Yes, but admittedly not by a huge margin. The more important fact is that they are more often favored (and still complain that it's 'not enough').
mrmagmrmag 1 month ago
@mrmagmrmag You mean like in post secondary education, where, when %56 male attendance was unacceptable and proof of discrimination, but %60 female attendance is proof men can't adapt (despite millions of years of doing so, leading innovation) and are inferior (despite men and women being completely equal when women want something), then claiming that women are still discriminated in the STEM fields and pump yet more money into encouraging yet more women into education?
MNeilGri 1 month ago
@MNeilGri Yes, but I guess it's not necessary to post examples. I also can only comment on the situation here (in Germany). There is currently a discussion going on to require companies by law to have a certain percentage of women in their upper executive/management level, independent! of the percentage of women in that company that is. A few years ago one might just have laughed, hearing such a proposal, but now it might soon become reality.
mrmagmrmag 1 month ago
@mrmagmrmag Ah Germany, where Schroeder (sp?), the women's and equality minister, opened a department for boys and men within her ministry, and got slammed by feminists for doing so. Called incompetent and unprofessional, if memory serves.
MNeilGri 1 month ago
Under patriarchy men are not supposed to have fond feelings for children yet under that same system they are expected to fight, die, save and provide for those children.
DiwataMan 1 month ago
@DiwataMan Yep
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport It's interesting to me looking at that sentance in two ways. One, it seems to contradict itself, that is, if men in fact are expected to not have fond feelings for their children then how can it be they fight, die, protect, save and provide for those children. It seems to me the fond feelings would be the primary component necessary for such actions. Two, what would the polar opposite be, say under matriarchy?
DiwataMan 1 month ago
@DiwataMan I think it's part of the weird trade-offs we make under patriarchy. Our being excused from childcare so we can pursue careers is bought at the cost of having to be a provider, just as our 'right' to look down women's blouses is bought at the cost of not being able to complain when they physically abuse us.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport But we are not excused from childcare. Sure, one could look at job statistics and see there is an overrepresentation of women in child care services but that's child care only in a limited sense. Does this overrepresentation then imply that men ought not or do not have fond feelings for children? Certainly not. If a man changes the diaper or kisses his children, is he ostracized in some way?
DiwataMan 1 month ago
@DiwataMan Some men are ostracised for being too child-friendly, although I know that's not as common as it was. I really meant 'we' in the general sense of male and female archetypes that operate on us more subtly such that their operation, as you say, shows up in statistics but is hard to pin down within individual relations.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport Right, the traditional gender roles of woman as care giver and man as provider, although that being just a crude representation of much larger discussion and dynamic. Those are the archetypes you are referring to yes? Do you see these roles as purely a social construct, a natural one, percentages of both? Nature vs. Nurture that is, and/or how much of both?
DiwataMan 1 month ago
@DiwataMan Would you agree that gender stereotypes are the roots of all sexism? Men are this women are that.
Anthonyofthedesert 1 month ago
@Anthonyofthedesert I guess that would be on how you define stereotype and sexism. I suppose one could practice sexism based on a stereotype.
DiwataMan 1 month ago
@conferencereport What happens when you remove the benefit, but maintain the cost? You no longer have a trade-off, but oppression. you know, what we're told men don't suffer? Since, despite the fact we are still expected to be provider (enforced through child support laws and alimony), but are no longer excused from childcare (unless we are utterly denied), or when it is sexual harassment (AKA a crime) to stare down a blouse, but we're still expected to not complain about abuse
MNeilGri 1 month ago
What I find rather curious anytime the word 'feminism' is raised, in whatever context and whatever the speaker is actually saying, are the assumptions made by commenters, as if many of them can only see what they expect to see rather than what's there. I once put together a collaboration on it as a favour and got attacked for a whole host of things which I hadn't implied let alone said and any response I gave was only viewed in the victim mentality of the commenter (male in that instance).
Loreleila 1 month ago
@Loreleila Yeah, we're all Pavlov's bitch when it come to the F word.
conferencereport 1 month ago
Patriarchy='rule by men' By definition it means that the rule of law and the power of the state reinforcing that rule. Would you mind highlighting the laws on the books that are presently enforced to uphold this 'patriarchal system'? Even if I have a paleo-sexist 'kuche, kinder, kirche attitude, I can't call a cop to arrest a woman that does not comply with my attitude. The suffixes -archy and -ocracy are political terms and don't belong in the socio-cultural sphere. Words mean things
cehbeach 1 month ago
@cehbeach That's not the definition that most people use when they say 'patriarchy'. It certainly wasn't the one used by either of the videos that I'm responding to.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport That's my point. The term has been bastardized from it's original meaning to this ephemeral, vague, and ultimately pointless concept. When people can make a word mean what ever the fuck they want it to mean then it becomes useless. Unless you're talking about Victorian England/America, Medieval Europe, or modern day Iran then it's meaningless
cehbeach 1 month ago
IOW, I see the same comments by men over and over and over again as if they just can't digest this (gee I wonder why?). It just gets so tiring as a feminist to say the same things over and over again. So I'll let you say it Fred! :-)
GirlonFilm1969 1 month ago
Oh no, I'm feeling like I gotta get back in the ring. NOT! I just cannot put myself back into this. I find it a masochistic thing here on YT. However, you make a good video.
GirlonFilm1969 1 month ago
if I understood correctly you say that we are born in a patriarchy because there is a patriarchy, that is circular logic and it proves nothing.
Men have problems and have NOTHING to do with the imaginary patriarchy. There is no patriarchy, women are overprotected and not oppressed.
Hulkmania316 1 month ago
@Hulkmania316 Thanks for the response, putting the word NOTHING in capitals makes it much clearer. I understand completely now.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport hahaha, very good sense of humor. I have to recognize that.
Hulkmania316 1 month ago
Are you a concious man?
Hulkmania316 1 month ago
The examples that he gave. Are indeed a criticism of patriarchy. You can only make the argument that a patriarchy that oppresses men is still a patriarchy, If you stretch the meaning of the term. Which is absurd for obvious reasons.
thecreepyguy 1 month ago
@thecreepyguy It's another dead end argument. Because how do you then disprove that a patriarchy exists if you're just going to stretch the definition to mean anything. And at a point where it becomes so stretched, It loses all meaning. And a matriarchy would actually be a lot more closer to how the real world actually works. Because although most people at the very top. If we are going to talk in real terms, Women control most of the wealth and have most of the rights.
thecreepyguy 1 month ago
@thecreepyguy most people at the very top, Are men i meant to say.
If we are to think overall of men compared to women. Women overall have more rights and privileges and hence it would be more accurate to call it a matriarchy.
thecreepyguy 1 month ago
@thecreepyguy Why is it absurd to say that patriarchy also oppresses men?
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport Because it then is not a patriarchy. At least not following a definition that says men get most or all of the power and women less or none of it. Which would be the logical implication of the word in that it stems out of patriarch. Meaning a man who is in charge and has power. And patriarchy being that this is a system that we live in that applies to all men.
If it were simply some men ruling at the top. Oppressing other men and women. Then it would be an oligarchy.
thecreepyguy 1 month ago
@thecreepyguy Most modern understandings of patriarchy don't follow that definition.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport Then perhaps it would be wise to not use a word such as patriarchy in a way that betrays the literal meaning of the word patriarch. And that modern understandings can either find another a word that is more appropriate to their intended meaning, Or expect confusion and misunderstandings if they use pseudo language.
And a similar argument can be had for the word feminism suddenly meaning equality.
But why is it not more appropriate to use the word oligarchy?
thecreepyguy 1 month ago
@thecreepyguy As I say in the video, I'm picking up on the term as I understand it being used in the two videos that I'm responding to, both of which use it as it tends to be used by people who talk about these things a lot. In the end it doesn't really matter what word you use as long as you have a shared understanding of what you're talking about, surely.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport Indeed. And a shared understanding of what you're talking about is difficult to achieve when you use pseudo language and confusing terms.
And i still don't see why it is not more appropriate to use the word oligarchy.
thecreepyguy 1 month ago
@thecreepyguy I'm sorry if the term is confusing, but I'm not using it incorrectly, that's just the way it is.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport Well technically you are. Modern understandings of the definition may have changed, But the actual dictionary definition remains the same.
thecreepyguy 1 month ago
@thecreepyguy True
conferencereport 1 month ago
I would be delighted (really) to hear you address the SCUM manifesto, I've never seen anyone do it.
fenderkid6 1 month ago
Great video, very well put.
churchofstfu 1 month ago
So basically everything bad that happens to women can be blamed on men, and everything bad that happens to men can also be blamed on men also. Ugh, this is just more misandry.
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago
@JackofOneTrade567 I didn't say anything that even comes close to what you say here.
conferencereport 1 month ago 3
patriarchy seems to force men to be "nobler" than women. now that women have all the same rights if not moreso than men, theres nothing that comes on the flip side.
Ioganstone 1 month ago
Isn't patriarchy biological though? Something instinctive that we can not change?
FuckIt11292 1 month ago
Thanks, Fred.
Barklord 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pa·tri·arch·y/ˈpātrēˌärkē/
Noun: A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
I'm with TJ none of the above can be attributed to the USA or the UK .
sausage4mash 1 month ago
Comment removed
sausage4mash 1 month ago
Actually I retract some of my statement in viewing the second half, where your theory becomes more clearer, however I still stand by my first statement that this is disinformation about Patriarchy.
It is a failure to get to grips with the issues surrounding the myth of patriarch.
Socrates is someone who clearly has a condition that seeks to have reinforced male patriarchy for the syndrome of Misandry.
apekillssnake 1 month ago
Excellent response
niriop 1 month ago
why do persons who are completely unstudied of what Patriarchy, surmise then theory about what it is. Firstly you are not discriminating the difference between this and a Power Elite. If you make reductionisms of what Patriarchy is, it disappears. Your trying to circulate disinformation in a tone of being expert, which is a nonsense. You also assign genderism/male sex to patriarchy which is dismissed by the examination of class, by Statist types as a form of sexism on men around voicing for men
apekillssnake 1 month ago
Good video.
MrMan322 1 month ago
Good vid! TJ's analyses of feminism is similar to that of poor republicans. They are getting fucked over by a specific system, and they do nothing to fight that. These people would rather bitch at people who supposedly take money away form "workers" in the form of things like welfare.
DahStranger 1 month ago
Some very keen points! TJ`s arguments had a similar logic white supremacists employ when they argue that the accusation of racism is being anti-white.Yet all along they are under the unconscious assumption that discrimination is equally distributed when clearly it is not.
If there was no patriarchy as a background consensus of power-structures and cultural prejudice then we would see women initiating courtship, be more aggressive and possessive overall, and have more leadership roles.
eydos 1 month ago
@eydos that's not patriarchy that's Biology .
sausage4mash 1 month ago
@sausage4mash I disagree.
eydos 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eydos "TJ`s arguments had a similar logic white supremacists employ when they argue that the accusation of racism is being anti-white."
No, actually that's what you're doing right now.
"If there was no patriarchy as a background consensus of power-structures and cultural prejudice then we would see women initiating courtship, be more aggressive and possessive overall, and have more leadership roles."
You ever think that many women just don't want any of those things?
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago
Men are stronger...
45means45 1 month ago
@45means45 Physically but not necessarily psychologically.
copperpaint 1 month ago
Together. Prozactly
TWITfromURANUS 1 month ago
Your views are very sensible. There's no sense in sustaining a gender war; patriarchy is unfair to anyone who dislikes it's harmful stereotypes. As you say, we need to fight it together.
gilraen789 1 month ago
Gender is not the only dimension along which society is stratified. Not all men fight wars, some men send to war. Not all men spend harsh prison sentences, some have had a beer with the judge for years. It's a mistake to try to understand society by these one-dimensional axis.
I.e. the real patriarchs don't suffer those negative consequences as much as men and women of lesser status along other stratifications.
socrates856 1 month ago 4
@socrates856 Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting all the inequities in society can be reduced to a single dimension.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@socrates856 "I.e. the real patriarchs don't suffer those negative consequences as much as men and women of lesser status along other stratifications."
You seem to be describing the sister concept of Kyriarchy, with which I would agree.
synchronium24 1 month ago
@socrates856
What is a dimension, and why do you use it so damn metaphorically.
45means45 1 month ago
@45means45 Consider sex a dimension. Dimension is some sort of category, where by changing one variable you are able to describe all that changed. To describe two dimensions you need two variables. What goes on with people is influenced by many factors. Sex being one, wealth, social standing, ethnicity etc being other such factors. I use dimension to point out that sex is insufficient to explain some of our observations. To collapse them ("men get drafted") is inaccurate. See Cheney.
socrates856 1 month ago
AMAZING VIDEO BRO I LIKE IT AND YOUTUBE RULES FOR VIDEOS
history797 1 month ago