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

[Signora Pæsior]

"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy Wrath^TM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.

In fairness, no one's oppressing Paes. He's a straight white cis guy, bless him.

People say things like this when they buy into the idea of patriarchy, rather than kyriarchy.

It probably helps if you've turned a blind eye to systemic banking corruption throughout the globe, the increasingly punitive prison culture right in your own back yard, and living in a country that has some of the worst inequality in the world.

Those all are things that white cis guys are immune from, see.

The part where I said that my feminism is intersectional? Kind of assumes I "buy into" kyriarchy, but I'm sorry if I didn't specify that while hashing out replies on my phone

I'd also point out that the people who benefit the most from systemic banking corruption, our fucked-up prison culture (over half the prison population is Māori despite making up less than 15% of the total population), and income inequality (at the last census the mean income of Māori was 73.2% of that of non-Māori; women earn 2/5 of gross earnings) are upper-class white cis guys. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the system which currently allows this to happen was set up and is primarily run/controlled by white cis guys.

Which is not to say that Paes, personally, is not affected by living in a fucked-up system. Of course he is. We all are, because (whoo title reference) patriarchy/kyriarchy hurts men too.

And finally, I was being fairly tongue-in-cheek with my "Paes is a straight white cis guy" comment in the first place, but I realise that shit never translates well over the interbutts so that's my bad.

I don't know if you're doing the tongue in cheek thing again, but you argued the same thing as Net right there.

Ah, maybe. I read Net's comment as sarcasm; that those things systemically oppress cis white guys. I don't agree. There's a high chance I misinterpreted the post, though.

Admittedly, I was a bit pissed off when I wrote my reply, because people implying that I don't know what's going on in my own country is a bit of a hot button, but that's more to do with my shitty misogynistic family patting me on the head whenever I express a vaguely political opinion and it wasn't really Net's fault that it fucked me off so much. So, yeah, apologies if I missed something blindingly obvious there.

[Freeky]

Correct me if need be but I think I'm typical cis because I'm a dude who thinks of himself as a dude. What I do with my jiggly bits or anything else is irrelevant.

Yeah, but what does that entail?  If it isn't to do with sexuality at all, and Nigel (I think) mentioned something about your brain matches up with social customs of the body you have, that just further confused me as to what it means. 

I am definitely a woman, and that's the body I have, but I'd rather act like the guys than a dainty little flower. I'd rather tell an attractive guy "Hey, guy, you want me to take you home and make you call me Daddy?"  I'd rather be curmudgeonly and smart as a whip than something to look at (meh at that) and Nicey McDoormat.

Part of it might be my own set of defense mechanisms, and part of it is that I don't feel feminine enough (by that I mean the standard of femininity in our culture, whatever the hell it means to be a woman) to act like a female.  So what does that make me?

If you're a woman, and you have a female body, then you're cis. Standards of femininity don't come into it (which is good, because they're a bit shit). A cisgender person is someone who identifies as they gender/sex they were assigned at birth.

So you're including the intersex babies who were maimed and ended up being mostly okay with the gender/sex they got?  I swear I'm not being obtuse on purpose, but you need to type slowly and with small words when you talk to me. I'm a bit dense when I don't grasp something.

[Freeky]

Ah, maybe. I read Net's comment as sarcasm; that those things systemically oppress cis white guys. I don't agree. There's a high chance I misinterpreted the post, though.

Admittedly, I was a bit pissed off when I wrote my reply, because people implying that I don't know what's going on in my own country is a bit of a hot button, but that's more to do with my shitty misogynistic family patting me on the head whenever I express a vaguely political opinion and it wasn't really Net's fault that it fucked me off so much. So, yeah, apologies if I missed something blindingly obvious there.

No, he linked to some articles that backed up what you were saying, and ended his argument with "These are all things that cis white men are mostly immune to," which is the same thing you essentially said.

I can understand hot buttons, everybody has them.

[Signora Pæsior]

Correct me if need be but I think I'm typical cis because I'm a dude who thinks of himself as a dude. What I do with my jiggly bits or anything else is irrelevant.

Yeah, but what does that entail?  If it isn't to do with sexuality at all, and Nigel (I think) mentioned something about your brain matches up with social customs of the body you have, that just further confused me as to what it means. 

I am definitely a woman, and that's the body I have, but I'd rather act like the guys than a dainty little flower. I'd rather tell an attractive guy "Hey, guy, you want me to take you home and make you call me Daddy?"  I'd rather be curmudgeonly and smart as a whip than something to look at (meh at that) and Nicey McDoormat.

Part of it might be my own set of defense mechanisms, and part of it is that I don't feel feminine enough (by that I mean the standard of femininity in our culture, whatever the hell it means to be a woman) to act like a female.  So what does that make me?

If you're a woman, and you have a female body, then you're cis. Standards of femininity don't come into it (which is good, because they're a bit shit). A cisgender person is someone who identifies as they gender/sex they were assigned at birth.

So you're including the intersex babies who were maimed and ended up being mostly okay with the gender/sex they got?  I swear I'm not being obtuse on purpose, but you need to type slowly and with small words when you talk to me. I'm a bit dense when I don't grasp something.

That is... a really good question, actually. Hold on.

(I'm aware that, like, no time is passing to you while I look this up. Feel free to find some shitty elevator music and stop reading for a while if you want, though.)

Okay, just having a quick look around, there doesn't really seem to be a definitive answer (not that there's ever really a definitive answer to anything). I know that in the queer communities I'm involved in, "assigned at birth" usually translates to "this baby has a vagina, therefore it is a girl", which is obviously not always the case, as that child could actually be a trans male. The issues surrounding intersex babies being assigned one gender or the other at birth has always been treated as a separate issue, in my experience. HOWEVER, from what I can see just in the references that I have bookmarked, intersex doesn't seem to be considered to fall under either trans or cis. I know there are also differing opinions on whether people who are genderqueer/agender can claim to fall under the trans* umbrella, though it's generally agreed that they're not cis. I'm (obviously) not the expert, though, and it'll be interesting to research a bit further.

[Pæs]

Ah, maybe. I read Net's comment as sarcasm; that those things systemically oppress cis white guys. I don't agree. There's a high chance I misinterpreted the post, though.

Admittedly, I was a bit pissed off when I wrote my reply, because people implying that I don't know what's going on in my own country is a bit of a hot button, but that's more to do with my shitty misogynistic family patting me on the head whenever I express a vaguely political opinion and it wasn't really Net's fault that it fucked me off so much. So, yeah, apologies if I missed something blindingly obvious there.

No, he linked to some articles that backed up what you were saying, and ended his argument with "These are all things that cis white men are mostly immune to," which is the same thing you essentially said.

I can understand hot buttons, everybody has them.

I thought "are" was a typo because it didn't fit with how I read his post. Might be I didn't understand his point.

[Freeky]

Correct me if need be but I think I'm typical cis because I'm a dude who thinks of himself as a dude. What I do with my jiggly bits or anything else is irrelevant.

Yeah, but what does that entail?  If it isn't to do with sexuality at all, and Nigel (I think) mentioned something about your brain matches up with social customs of the body you have, that just further confused me as to what it means. 

I am definitely a woman, and that's the body I have, but I'd rather act like the guys than a dainty little flower. I'd rather tell an attractive guy "Hey, guy, you want me to take you home and make you call me Daddy?"  I'd rather be curmudgeonly and smart as a whip than something to look at (meh at that) and Nicey McDoormat.

Part of it might be my own set of defense mechanisms, and part of it is that I don't feel feminine enough (by that I mean the standard of femininity in our culture, whatever the hell it means to be a woman) to act like a female.  So what does that make me?

If you're a woman, and you have a female body, then you're cis. Standards of femininity don't come into it (which is good, because they're a bit shit). A cisgender person is someone who identifies as they gender/sex they were assigned at birth.

So you're including the intersex babies who were maimed and ended up being mostly okay with the gender/sex they got?  I swear I'm not being obtuse on purpose, but you need to type slowly and with small words when you talk to me. I'm a bit dense when I don't grasp something.

That is... a really good question, actually. Hold on.

(I'm aware that, like, no time is passing to you while I look this up. Feel free to find some shitty elevator music and stop reading for a while if you want, though.)

Okay, just having a quick look around, there doesn't really seem to be a definitive answer (not that there's ever really a definitive answer to anything). I know that in the queer communities I'm involved in, "assigned at birth" usually translates to "this baby has a vagina, therefore it is a girl", which is obviously not always the case, as that child could actually be a trans male. The issues surrounding intersex babies being assigned one gender or the other at birth has always been treated as a separate issue, in my experience. HOWEVER, from what I can see just in the references that I have bookmarked, intersex doesn't seem to be considered to fall under either trans or cis. I know there are also differing opinions on whether people who are genderqueer/agender can claim to fall under the trans* umbrella, though it's generally agreed that they're not cis. I'm (obviously) not the expert, though, and it'll be interesting to research a bit further.

I guess the only thing is that I disagree with your description, mostly the words "assigned at birth."  You don't get assigned a sex, you grow that way.  Otherwise, thanks for clearing that up for me.

I agree with the POV that divisive labels aren't good for the common W/E right now, as there are bigger battles to fight, but I also see how the term "normal" in a conversation like this isn't helpful at all, and alienating to people who don't fit "normal."  Outside of this kind of dialogue, it is as pointless as Roger was saying earlier.

[Freeky]

Ah, maybe. I read Net's comment as sarcasm; that those things systemically oppress cis white guys. I don't agree. There's a high chance I misinterpreted the post, though.

Admittedly, I was a bit pissed off when I wrote my reply, because people implying that I don't know what's going on in my own country is a bit of a hot button, but that's more to do with my shitty misogynistic family patting me on the head whenever I express a vaguely political opinion and it wasn't really Net's fault that it fucked me off so much. So, yeah, apologies if I missed something blindingly obvious there.

No, he linked to some articles that backed up what you were saying, and ended his argument with "These are all things that cis white men are mostly immune to," which is the same thing you essentially said.

I can understand hot buttons, everybody has them.

I thought "are" was a typo because it didn't fit with how I read his post. Might be I didn't understand his point.

If "are" was supposed to be "aren't," he undermined his own argument with the links he posted, which would have made him look like a huge asshole.  I think you two were trying to read his post that way on purpose, so that you could feel completely indignant and attacked, and continue attacking people who don't totally agree with you.

[Signora Pæsior]

Ah, maybe. I read Net's comment as sarcasm; that those things systemically oppress cis white guys. I don't agree. There's a high chance I misinterpreted the post, though.

Admittedly, I was a bit pissed off when I wrote my reply, because people implying that I don't know what's going on in my own country is a bit of a hot button, but that's more to do with my shitty misogynistic family patting me on the head whenever I express a vaguely political opinion and it wasn't really Net's fault that it fucked me off so much. So, yeah, apologies if I missed something blindingly obvious there.

No, he linked to some articles that backed up what you were saying, and ended his argument with "These are all things that cis white men are mostly immune to," which is the same thing you essentially said.

I can understand hot buttons, everybody has them.

I thought "are" was a typo because it didn't fit with how I read his post. Might be I didn't understand his point.

If "are" was supposed to be "aren't," he undermined his own argument with the links he posted, which would have made him look like a huge asshole.  I think you two were trying to read his post that way on purpose, so that you could feel completely indignant and attacked, and continue attacking people who don't totally agree with you.

I'm too tired to attack anyone, or to enjoy feeling indignant, and I definitely wasn't "reading his post that way on purpose". Also, the only thing I'd said that he was responding to was that Paes is a straight white cis guy. The articles he linked didn't back up what I was saying, because I hadn't said anything yet. As I've already said, I thought Net was being sarcastic because of the structure of his post, and I've already fucking apologised if I got that wrong.

Edit: To me, "Those all are things that white cis guys are immune from, see." reads as sarcasm. Because of course white cis guys are affected by the links Net posted, they're just not the ones who are going to suffer the most.

[Cain]

I lost the thread of this thread about 30 pages ago, but somewhere since then, between Pixie, P3nt, Roger and Ratatosk, what I was saying has been made pretty clear.  While I'm not a huge fan of the term "patriarchy", because in the way it gets misued and appropriated via popular culture into stupid arguments (I haven't looked into Kyriarchy enough to know what to think - it's 8am in the morning), my essential point is this:

Any sexist system will invariably have a negative influence on all genders, regardless of which one is favoured.  This influence will not be the same, the negative consequences of it will not be evenly distributed.  Nevertheless, an essentialist discourse on gender and sexuality puts everyone into neatly labelled boxes.  If one's behaviour does not match the box one is labelled as, then the identity will take precedence over the behaviour in the essentalist discourse, and will seek to correct the behaviour, rather than the perceptions one has of that label.  If people of the favoured gender do not act in gender appropriate ways, they will be punished for it.  Those of the lower-ranking gender will be considered to not "know their place", to be "uppity" and "disrespectful", and will often be policed by members of the higher ranking gender in order to create compliance, via various social and political arrangements involving ownership of property, voting rights, the ability to move independently and so on.  Those of the higher ranking gender will be associated with the negative qualities of the lower-ranking gender, and may be treated as such in social, political or other situations.

You'll notice the above can be applied to pretty much any sexist system, regardless of its particular viewpoints or beliefs.

[Signora Pæsior]

Any sexist system will invariably have a negative influence on all genders, regardless of which one is favoured.  This influence will not be the same, the negative consequences of it will not be evenly distributed.  Nevertheless, an essentialist discourse on gender and sexuality puts everyone into neatly labelled boxes.  If one's behaviour does not match the box one is labelled as, then the identity will take precedence over the behaviour in the essentalist discourse, and will seek to correct the behaviour, rather than the perceptions one has of that label.  If people of the favoured gender do not act in gender appropriate ways, they will be punished for it.  Those of the lower-ranking gender will be considered to not "know their place", to be "uppity" and "disrespectful", and will often be policed by members of the higher ranking gender in order to create compliance, via various social and political arrangements involving ownership of property, voting rights, the ability to move independently and so on.  Those of the higher ranking gender will be associated with the negative qualities of the lower-ranking gender, and may be treated as such in social, political or other situations.

You'll notice the above can be applied to pretty much any sexist system, regardless of its particular viewpoints or beliefs.

The above can be applied to pretty much any oppressive system at all.

Basically, this comment is very good.

[Cain]

Well, with a few tweaks it could be made to apply to race, as well.  I'm not sure it has universal validity, but in any system where there are essentialist elements at the forefront (which in the modern world is usually gender/race/ethnicity/culture), it would no doubt have applications.

[Pæs]

Ah, maybe. I read Net's comment as sarcasm; that those things systemically oppress cis white guys. I don't agree. There's a high chance I misinterpreted the post, though.

Admittedly, I was a bit pissed off when I wrote my reply, because people implying that I don't know what's going on in my own country is a bit of a hot button, but that's more to do with my shitty misogynistic family patting me on the head whenever I express a vaguely political opinion and it wasn't really Net's fault that it fucked me off so much. So, yeah, apologies if I missed something blindingly obvious there.

No, he linked to some articles that backed up what you were saying, and ended his argument with "These are all things that cis white men are mostly immune to," which is the same thing you essentially said.

I can understand hot buttons, everybody has them.

I thought "are" was a typo because it didn't fit with how I read his post. Might be I didn't understand his point.

If "are" was supposed to be "aren't," he undermined his own argument with the links he posted, which would have made him look like a huge asshole.  I think you two were trying to read his post that way on purpose, so that you could feel completely indignant and attacked, and continue attacking people who don't totally agree with you.

Um, no, because I didn't express an opinion on his post at all. I don't feel attacked or indignant or even particularly strongly against either interpretation of his post, so either you're misreading something or pulling that out of your arse to support the "you are attacking people" point. I'm not attacking Net and am in fact interested in discussion of his comment once it is cleared up... I'm open to either reading.

It seemed to me to be a criticism of the dismissive attitude toward oppression of white cis straight males that could be read into Signora's post (or was actually in her post, idk). This criticism would be supported, via kyriarchy, by evidence of oppression that affects cis males which a submission to only patriarchy would blind someone to.

Does anyone who has been attacked by me for their opinion (rather than for perceived conduct in this conversation, which has been addressed and is the only intentional attack I recall) want to express that or nominate Freeky as their advocate?

If I wanted to misinterpret Net and attack him based on that, I'd have actually responded more substantially than by saying I wasn't clear on his point... but go ahead and do exactly that, misrepresenting me and attacking me for it... that's cool if that's the conversation you want to have.

[Signora Pæsior]

If I wander too close to antifeminist tropes, Signora turns up the voltage.

That's why you gotta keep them wimenz in their place!!! If she was barefoot, pregnant and makin' you a sammich, she wouldn't have time to hook your genitals up to those electrodes.

I beg to differ, good sir. We wimmenz are apparently quite good at multitasking 

[Pæs]

Hopefully he doesn't come back and say he was describing things that affect striaght white cis males because then he would "look like a huge asshole".

"People say things like this when X... It probably helps if you turn a blind eye..." doesn't sound like agreement to me. I don't disagree with that as a criticism of Signora's post, so have nothing invested in reading it this way.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Signora Paes (BTW I thought you were Paes in Drag, I got a confused)

Nah, we keep that for the bedroom.

HAWT! FUCK YEA BOYS IN DRESSES! 

If I wander too close to antifeminist tropes, Signora turns up the voltage.

That's why you gotta keep them wimenz in their place!!! If she was barefoot, pregnant and makin' you a sammich, she wouldn't have time to hook your genitals up to those electrodes.

I beg to differ, good sir. We wimmenz are apparently quite good at multitasking 

I'm not. I suck at multitasking. for srs.

I lost the thread of this thread about 30 pages ago, but somewhere since then, between Pixie, P3nt, Roger and Ratatosk, what I was saying has been made pretty clear.  While I'm not a huge fan of the term "patriarchy", because in the way it gets misued and appropriated via popular culture into stupid arguments (I haven't looked into Kyriarchy enough to know what to think - it's 8am in the morning), my essential point is this:

Any sexist system will invariably have a negative influence on all genders, regardless of which one is favoured.  This influence will not be the same, the negative consequences of it will not be evenly distributed.  Nevertheless, an essentialist discourse on gender and sexuality puts everyone into neatly labelled boxes.  If one's behaviour does not match the box one is labelled as, then the identity will take precedence over the behaviour in the essentalist discourse, and will seek to correct the behaviour, rather than the perceptions one has of that label.  If people of the favoured gender do not act in gender appropriate ways, they will be punished for it.  Those of the lower-ranking gender will be considered to not "know their place", to be "uppity" and "disrespectful", and will often be policed by members of the higher ranking gender in order to create compliance, via various social and political arrangements involving ownership of property, voting rights, the ability to move independently and so on.  Those of the higher ranking gender will be associated with the negative qualities of the lower-ranking gender, and may be treated as such in social, political or other situations.

You'll notice the above can be applied to pretty much any sexist system, regardless of its particular viewpoints or beliefs.

I am unsurprised that Cain nailed it in 2 paragraphs.