Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.

OK, but you keep talking about things from an individualistic perspective, which makes it really hard to discuss patriarchy from a societal perspective.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

Quit it/deal with it applied equally is great.

Yelling at a preschooler like a drill instructor when you would hug his sister for the same behavior, not so much.

Yep.  And the yelling bit doesn't work anyfuckingway.

Never let your child see that you're upset with them.  It's one of their goals, part of the primate dominance game.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.

OK, but you keep talking about things from an individualistic perspective, which makes it really hard to discuss patriarchy from a societal perspective.

Sorry.

Like I said, I'm on unfamiliar ground, and I'm kind of talking myself through this.

[Salty]

I think this thread bring up a lot of stuff that's probably more than one thread will reasonably allow for.

At some point we will reach critical mass and Eris Herself will pop out our monitors and finally lead the bloody, bloody, silly crusade.

Alty,
Fuck The Singularity.

[Junkenstein]

Vaugley relevant gif



Too tired and working too long to contribute. Will be able to lurk more from work now I have cleared up my predecessors fuckups. That I know of.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So do we see a change?

I mean the past 100 years or so seem to have culminated in women having more freedom/control/power and men being more free of stereotypical constraints. Is this something real, or just superficial? Are Condie and Hillary harbingers of equality, or token women in power?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

Eh, to a point. It's men asserting certain qualities that place them in a perceived higher status bracket, not necessarily to put women down specifically. Sometimes it's used by men to raise their status above women in an oppressive way, or to ensure the status quo where that kind of oppression is rampant. But it is also used to raise in status in contest with other men because...well, that's what apes do. It can be more or less refined, and it can take very different shapes.

Certainly it can be obnoxious, out-dated, crude. But that has more to do with Those Kind of People than qualities inherent in promoting one's masculinity.

Much in the same vein: Women can put on make-up for a variety of reasons (many of which involve attracting a mate), but with varying degrees of need and intensity. Some women cannot live without make-up (sign of Patriarchy?) or wear only a little because it makes them feel nice (?).

Generally I prefer to wear makeup. In the summer I tend not to because I just end up sweating and looking like a raccoon.

I always notice that people are nicer to you when you wear a little makeup, for some reason. It's also one of the things women size each other up by, which is kind of strange. But I've been told a few times by women that when they met me, they had a good impression because I "had my makeup on right". I've been guilty of the same thing, but truth be told, women with disorders tend to paint their faces kind of crazy. A few people look great without makeup but a lot don't, and if they never wear it I tend to wonder what the reason is - if they're allergic or if they just don't care what they look like. Which is probably fucked up of me.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

Quit it/deal with it applied equally is great.

Yelling at a preschooler like a drill instructor when you would hug his sister for the same behavior, not so much.

Yep.  And the yelling bit doesn't work anyfuckingway.

Never let your child see that you're upset with them.  It's one of their goals, part of the primate dominance game.

Yep. You yell, they win.

[Phox]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

Um...

...


...


SILENCE!  I AM THINKING BIG THOUGHTS! 

[Phox]

NIGEL IS STEALING MY THOUGHTS!  )

Better check your soul while you're at it.  It's still close to lunch time.

Seriously, I have hard time reading through a thread without a moment going like this: "Oh, I have something to say, this is awesome! Oh... Nigel just said it... and in a clear, concise way. And also said things I didn't think about. Dayum."

[Salty]

With my son I am always sure to tell him not to "man up". I may tell him to be a big boy, but the emphasis there is that he handle himself in a way that is more socially acceptable. Be bigger and stronger than you are now. That's a good thing to tell any kid, I think. Most humans too.

But I'd feel awkward saying "man up" because WTF does that even mean?

[Phox]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

Um...

...


...


SILENCE!  I AM THINKING BIG THOUGHTS! 

S'cool, Roger, I completely get where you were coming from with that statement, and you are certainly not wrong about what you're saying. It's just one of those conversations where we're addressing different issues in the same sentence again. 

[Juana]

I never said I agreed with the idea that crying is a sign of weakness.

Oh, I know.  I view it as a sign that something is VERY wrong, which is why I taught my son and my daughter that crying is for when crying is appropriate. 

I wouldn't think that you would assume it's a sign of weakness.  I respect your opinion in a way that I would have (a few years back) found very difficult to do with someone half my age.  I wouldn't respect your opinion as much if you held such weird beliefs as "crying is weak".  You might be a Fresno weirdo and a cannibal, but you've always had your shit in one bag...Even if you view me as a bit of a dumbass.

Haha, why thank you.


Women/females wear makeup for a lot of reasons. When I'm actually feeling feminine, I wear it because I want to (and fuck feminists who decide doing anything stereotypically "feminine" is a sign of surrendering to the patriarchy). When I'm leaning toward the masculine (as I am right now) I wear it only if I'm going out for the evening in public because I feel really weird not doing so.

So do we see a change?

I mean the past 100 years or so seem to have culminated in women having more freedom/control/power and men being more free of stereotypical constraints. Is this something real, or just superficial? Are Condie and Hillary harbingers of equality, or token women in power?

There is a change for women (and females in general to some extent) but a lot of our change has not yet been matched by change in men and males. You're still locked into tighter constraints (in some ways) than we are. I can get away with gender expression that is vastly outside what is expected of a women/female, but you can't. Women/females can wear men's clothing pretty easily (point in case, me), but men are mocked and degraded for wearing women's clothing. How are transvestites in women's clothing depicted in the media? They are either depicted as being sick/weird or degraded comic relief. Transvestites in men's clothing are shown as sexy (they heydays of burlesque are good examples of this) or powerful and brave (like Mulan, in Mulan).

Condi and Hilary are, I think, harbingers of change, Condi in particular. Neither of them would have been allowed to be in the positions they have or currently do occupy until maybe the last couple decades and I think it's only going to get better in terms of how many women are allowed to hold similar positions as time goes on.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.