Patriarchy's negative effects on men

[mollymae]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in Women's Struggle or not, so someone can move it there if they feel it is more appropriate.

Often we hear about patriarchy's negative effects on women, historical and current, as we should. But I wanted to look at how patriarchy has negatively affected men as well. For example, often we talk about women's role in society about 100 years ago and prior--forced to stay in the home and raise the children. But there is a flip side to this. Rarely do I see anyone consider how men too were forced to assume certain roles in the family. Men have historically been more liberated than women, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the fact that they (lower class men at least) were forced to work long hours at the farm or in the factory. They had less time to spend with their children. Not to mention that men have been pressured or forced to fight in wars. Hell, come to think of it, I'd rather be at home with my children than fighting some war I probably don't believe in, or working in some disgusting dangerous factory.

The fact that men have been pressured to work or fight in wars can ultimately be seen as another consequence of patriarchy, but that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed. I'm not saying that patriarchy's negative effects on men is as bad as its effects on women, but oppression is oppression. Do you agree that some analysis of patriarchy can be one-sided?

[GreenCommunism]

i think violence by men to men is an overlooked factor. not that i would downplay violence toward woman but i think it is socially much more acceptable to fight mens who may be just as non-violent and physically weak as certain woman are.

also i think that most figures place woman as being equally abusive of mens in couples, albeit they often use psychological abuse rather than physical abuse.

i also hate how feminist cannot get in their brain that all violence must be fought against, not just man violence, violence is always a cycle. it seems that they only scream bloody murder when a woman has violence directed against her and this sort of reinforce their role in society as fragile person who need to be defended, except that a man no longer defends such woman other womans do. if gender role break down woman will become more violent and mens will become less violent, men won't simply become less violent while woman stay the way they are. this is preposterous.

when there was the famous marc lepine school shooting where he targeted woman who studied for jobs traditionally done by mens. feminist jumped on this occasion to talk about violence directed against woman in society. the problem is none of them talked about men on men violence which marc lepine was victim of, eventually it is clear that he felt that he could not destroy other mens so he vented his frustration on womans which he also had trouble getting along with.

[065]

Women and their children suffer the most in wars, making up a greater percentage of refugees, often suffering from sexual violence at the hands of male soldiers. The reason you don't hear about men being 'disadvantaged' by patriarchy is because they aren't; the patriarch is in a position of economic advantage, and the simple fact of the matter is that feminism doesn't offer equal stakes to men and women because men and women aren't equal! Women are the ones who are structurally disadvantaged and hence have a greater stake in the destruction of the family. Whether you would prefer to stay at home versus staying in a family (where really, most women do both) is really your own personal opinion. But personal choice doesn't negate the fact that women who are sole stay-at-home mums really lack economic independence at all and are far more subordinate than their working husband. So far as them (male workers) being low-income workers, they're oppressed on the basis of them being part of the working class; them being male has little to do with it, whereas women do face oppression on the basis of being female, not just working class.

[mollymae]

So far as them (male workers) being low-income workers, they're oppressed on the basis of them being part of the working class; them being male has little to do with it, whereas women do face oppression on the basis of being female, not just working class.

This is a good point, but let's look at it from a social perspective instead of economic.
Here's another example: child custody cases.


There are: 11,268,000 total U.S. custodial mothers and 2,907,000 total U.S. custodial fathers
--Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991


"Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their children." Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D., ... National Institute for Divorce Research

We can arguably conclude that any overwhelming mistrust of fathers comes from patriarchy, because patriarchy places women as the nurturing parent whose job it is to take care of children. But it still leads to a very real (not to mention institutionalized) discrimination.

[Invincible Summer]

i think violence by men to men is an overlooked factor. not that i would downplay violence toward woman but i think it is socially much more acceptable to fight mens who may be just as non-violent and physically weak as certain woman are.

also i think that most figures place woman as being equally abusive of mens in couples, albeit they often use psychological abuse rather than physical abuse.

Yeah I agree. Essentializing violence as a masculine trait is not exactly the best analysis of gender relations.


i also hate how feminist cannot get in their brain that all violence must be fought against, not just man violence, violence is always a cycle. it seems that they only scream bloody murder when a woman has violence directed against her and this sort of reinforce their role in society as fragile person who need to be defended, except that a man no longer defends such woman other womans do.

I do see your point - and i agree to an extent - but at the same time you can look at it this way: women have less power in society than men, and thus acts of oppression against women are "worse" than acts of violence against men. It's just like why police brutalizing a minority is "worse" than someone from the majority.


if gender role break down woman will become more violent and mens will become less violent, men won't simply become less violent while woman stay the way they are. this is preposterous.
Okay you totally lost me here.

You want gender roles to be reinforced because you think women will become more violent if gender roles are broken down? What makes you think this?

[Quail]

I think that reinforcing the idea that men have to protect and look after their family financially can be detrimental because if for whatever reason a man can't get a good job and buy nice things for his family, he could feel inadequate/useless. Moreso than if both men and women were "meant" to support the family and share the housework and childcare. Certain expectations are placed on men as well as women, which can be tough on the men. Living up to an idealised stereotype is difficult for anyone.

I realise I've worded that really badly. My brain isn't working properly, so sorry if my point is unclear.

[GreenCommunism]

I do see your point - and i agree to an extent - but at the same time you can look at it this way: women have less power in society than men, and thus acts of oppression against women are "worse" than acts of violence against men. It's just like why police brutalizing a minority is "worse" than someone from the majority.
i agree, but then again i don't think they are oppressed violently like in the ol times where domestic violence was more or less normal. it is not because they are oppressed in society that they are defended anymore, it is because it became a taboo, and perhaps a good one, people said enough was enough, domestic violence will no longer be tolerated.

Okay you totally lost me here.

You want gender roles to be reinforced because you think women will become more violent if gender roles are broken down? What makes you think this?
i do not want them to be reinforced, i think it is an inevitably sad part of breaking down gender roles. either way bringing down violence in society as a whole is better than focus on which gender is responsible for more violence and to whom it is aimed. of course i don't think they will ever be more violent than mens, i just think there are some negative aspects to breaking down gender roles, even if the positive outweighs the negative.

also i mostly criticize how that incident in quebec was hijacked by feminists who claimed it had anything to do with society. if anything it had to do with society's gender roles breaking and some were unhappy with it. just like we can expect some reactionary in a communist society to do some damage as reaction to a strong leftist movement.

[Meridian]

The reason you don't hear about men being 'disadvantaged' by patriarchy is because they aren't;
I would agree that if society was fundamentally patriarchal, men would not be oppressed. And to the extent society was patriarchal, to the same extent men would not be oppressed. Men would hold power, qua being a man.

But wait... In most of the more (so-called) "developed" countries, that is not so. Society is capitalistic and male individuals are oppressed constantly, side by side with female individuals. It is vital to look at the material conditions that leads to situations in society where males are in positions of power and females vica versa. What constitutes an ability to exercise authority over others are material conditions creating situations of dependency, while reinforcing norms. Those material conditions, and the means of production that gives rise to them, are oppressive. The terms "women" and "men" should not be employed here, because they are generalizing and necessarily inaccurate, unless you believe there is something biological causing oppression.

Therefore I disagree with using the term "patriarchy".

[Invincible Summer]

i do not want them to be reinforced, i think it is an inevitably sad part of breaking down gender roles. either way bringing down violence in society as a whole is better than focus on which gender is responsible for more violence and to whom it is aimed. of course i don't think they will ever be more violent than mens, i just think there are some negative aspects to breaking down gender roles, even if the positive outweighs the negative.


What are these negative aspects to breaking down gender roles? That some people may not like it? :confused:

[mollymae]

I think that reinforcing the idea that men have to protect and look after their family financially can be detrimental because if for whatever reason a man can't get a good job and buy nice things for his family, he could feel inadequate/useless. Moreso than if both men and women were "meant" to support the family and share the housework and childcare. Certain expectations are placed on men as well as women, which can be tough on the men. Living up to an idealised stereotype is difficult for anyone.

I realise I've worded that really badly. My brain isn't working properly, so sorry if my point is unclear.

I think you're perfectly clear and I agree with your point.

[gorillafuck]

Patriarchy negatively effects men who don't or can't fulfill the male gender role of family provider, as well as men who pretty much just aren't heterosexual masculine men. Same goes for women who don't fulfill the female gender role and aren't feminine straight women. Look around, you can observe men who aren't as masculine as they're expected to me be called "faggots" and be harassed (and beaten).

That being said, I'd say that what patriarchy does is put men/masculinity in a position of power over women/femininity and so principally it oppresses women, but there's a lot of side effects of it that effect men in a very negative way too.

[GreenCommunism]

What are these negative aspects to breaking down gender roles? That some people may not like it?
woman lose their non-violent reinforced attitude. men and woman both become just as much violent. thus instead of just making men less violent, and woman staying non-violent, they become equal. then again society becomes less violent as a whole, so of course this is much more positive.

though isn't there a link with violence and testosterone? anyway.

[Invincible Summer]

woman lose their non-violent reinforced attitude. men and woman both become just as much violent. thus instead of just making men less violent, and woman staying non-violent, they become equal. then again society becomes less violent as a whole, so of course this is much more positive.

though isn't there a link with violence and testosterone? anyway.

But this assumes that "non-violence" and "violence" are inherent characteristics of women and men respectively.

And tearing down gender roles doesn't mean telling women to be more violent or anything like that... it just promotes the negation of supposedly inherent characteristics of gender (e.g. women being passive, submissive and men being violent, aggressive). Gender is socially constructed - you can even see across cultures that the roles men and women play can be vastly different.

Why do you assume that everyone would choose to be violent and sociopathic if "allowed" to? Does this not fall into the argument that people are "violent and selfish by nature," which I'm assuming most communists disagree with?

I think it's pretty incredible that you're basically saying people should be confined to what Society X says are the "proper" roles for a woman/man, especially since these norms and roles are generally constructed through ruling class ideology. What good is it to a woman to be told "no, stay submissive because that's what you're supposed to be" if she doesn't want to be? What good is it to a man to be pressured to be aggressive when he can't stand the thought of it? This line of thought goes down a slippery slope... would you justify a woman being told to "stay in the kitchen" just because it might be "better for society as a whole?"

Violence is not great, but I think you've got a bit of a phobia and are being a bit unreasonable in your view of how to eliminate violence.

Communists - hell, even progressive people - should be striving for the elimination of ascribed gender roles as a form of liberation for humanity, nothing less.

[counterblast]

woman lose their non-violent reinforced attitude. men and woman both become just as much violent. thus instead of just making men less violent, and woman staying non-violent, they become equal. then again society becomes less violent as a whole, so of course this is much more positive.


Why are women presumed to be nonviolent?

And why are men presumed to be violent?

Where do Valerie Solanas and Ghandi fit into these classifications?

And most importantly -- why are violence and nonviolence seen as lifestyles or overarching ideologies, rather than two possible choices?

Can someone not be violent in one situation but nonviolent in another? Why?

[al8]

I think that reinforcing the idea that men have to protect and look after their family financially can be detrimental because if for whatever reason a man can't get a good job and buy nice things for his family, he could feel inadequate/useless. Moreso than if both men and women were "meant" to support the family and share the housework and childcare. Certain expectations are placed on men as well as women, which can be tough on the men. Living up to an idealised stereotype is difficult for anyone.

I realise I've worded that really badly. My brain isn't working properly, so sorry if my point is unclear.

I take it that you mean to say that the being a consistent provider and protecter is a stressful and strenuous cultural expectation put on men rather than women. So in that case the male counterpart is significantly disadvantaged compared to the woman.

[al8]

woman lose their non-violent reinforced attitude. men and woman both become just as much violent. thus instead of just making men less violent, and woman staying non-violent, they become equal. then again society becomes less violent as a whole, so of course this is much more positive.

though isn't there a link with violence and testosterone? anyway.

I think it is more situationally dependent. Picture a tired, tense, stressed out overworked husband with a short fuse, coming home to a stressed out, tense, overworked housewife that then bombards the husband with somewhat incoherent complaints, predicaments and problems. Then the use of violence is quite unsurprising.

What I can't understand is how shuffling shitty burdens between overworked people is going to make a difference. I can only imagine a more pleasant and equal relation between the genders when work hours have been collectively reduced for everyone and domestic labor socialized.

[Quail]

I take it that you mean to say that the being a consistent provider and protecter is a stressful and strenuous cultural expectation put on men rather than women. So in that case the male counterpart is significantly disadvantaged compared to the woman.
Yes, that was what I meant. I just didn't put it very eloquently :blushing:

[Foldered]

I think it is more situationally dependent. Picture a tired, tense, stressed out overworked husband with a short fuse, coming home to a stressed out, tense, overworked housewife that then bombards the husband with somewhat incoherent complaints, predicaments and problems. Then the use of violence is quite unsurprising.
That sounds like a '40s B&W film justifying spousal abuse (through explaining why it isn't surprising). I don't think that's how things actually work, or worked.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Everyone is just arguing over definitions. The reality is that the structures in modern society put women at a disadvantage relative to men, but men "are" nonetheless disadvantaged in some areas of society. And it's not just men who deviate from the stereotypical gender roles. Average, "manly" men are still put into unfair situations in society.

I don't understand why some leftists insist on trying to discredit the idea that patriarchy and social structures can and do negatively impact men in a variety of ways. The way some individuals argue, it seems like they are saying men working in their self-interest would not support feminism. I'm not an egoist, but I still think the goals of feminism are aligned with the interest of both sexes.

Inevitably, the examples of difficulties men face are always spun. People point out that everything goes back to "female oppression." Of course it does, it's a 2-way relation, and a sufficiently creative individual could conceptualize modern gender inequality solely in terms of how it relates to men. It's merely a perspective variance. Consider some problems men face:

1. Men are assumed to be violent and aggressive. People defend this because women need to defend themselves, but they don't defend racial profiling when it's justified with identical arguments.

2. Men are assumed to be unsafe to have around children because they are likely to be sexual predators. Hiring discrimination is incredibly commonplace in industries related to childcare, such as becoming a maid or babysitting.

3. The legal system frequently resolves divorces by giving excessive compensation to a spouse that did little to contribute to the acquiring of said wealth. This primarily hurts men because they tend to make more money, but it's nonetheless seen as more socially acceptable for women who "worked hard to support the man emotionally" while men are seen as leeches.

4. Women are in many regards becoming the figurehead in marriages. Men are expected to listen to women even when they have bad reasons for believing something. Otherwise they'll "pay for it later, be on the couch, etc" Even mainstream low-quality shows like Oprah, Dr. Phil, etc, are now reflecting this "women don't have to explain themselves mindset." Male stereotypes are typically laughed at while female stereotypes are more prone to criticism.

5. There are interesting trends developing with regards to women being less likely to be fired from jobs. Some argue they receive higher pay despite doing less work, and there are variables that explain aspects of pay-gaps that are largely ignored.

6. Men have higher suicide rates, perhaps linked to the excessive responsibilities linked to having the role of "master." The stresses and responsibilities men are given are not necessarily outweighed by the benefits of patriarchy. This is not given enough attention, nor is prostate cancer in comparison to breast cancer.

7. Men are made to feel guilty for their position of advantage. They are often expected to continue to that position in the same way women are expected to continue in a position of disadvantage.

8. Sexual objectification of men is becoming more acceptable.

9. Men are not given post-conception options for opting out of the child-rearing process, even in cases where lying is a factor.

10. Men are discouraged from reporting domestic abuse due to stereotypes regarding manliness.

11. Violence against men is depicted as humorous. Slapping or punching men is generally seen as acceptable even in non-satirical contexts.

**

It should be noted that I am not sure all those examples are relevant. Particularly those related to wealth are a little unusual given that they might not be relevant from a communist perspective (I am not sure). I did try to get rid of the typical examples that I know are either false or unjustified (false rape accusations, child custody battles, etc). That said, I think it's rather difficult to claim patriarchy does not harm men.

I tend to associate patriarchy with the system that creates gender inequalities. I mean, one can give a story about how other explanations can account for these problems. However, critics of feminism regularly do the same thing to feminist objections. It's not difficult to create a multiple sets of plausible explanations for a variety of social phenomenon.

[mollymae]

Stellar post Dooga, but I must ask, why are false rape accusations and child custody battles false or unjustified examples of discrimination?

[al8]

That sounds like a '40s B&W film justifying spousal abuse (through explaining why it isn't surprising). I don't think that's how things actually work, or worked.

Then you list every scenario! Social problems spring from work. Every time someones prime-time is gobbled up by work there is in turn less time and energy left to cultivate other human relations in healthy and sane ways. Rest is history.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Stellar post Dooga, but I must ask, why are false rape accusations and child custody battles false or unjustified examples of discrimination?

Now I'm not 100% sure, but I was informed by a fairly reliable source that child custody battles actually favor men. The reason men have custody less is they assume the system is biased and don't fight for custody "or" they simply don't want custody. Apparently, men who actually fight for custody win more frequently than women.

False rape accusations do occur, but they are rare. The data suggesting they are more common is biased by a system to requires an incredibly high burden of proof on the victim to substantiate rape. It's also possible to sue for false accusations.

Perhaps these are somewhat relevant examples in certain contexts. I left them out because they are misrepresented as "extreme" examples of discrimination men face. Certainly the fact that someone was even accused of rape is a lifelong difficulty to live with.

[mollymae]

Ah, okay.

What kind of, or amount of evidence do you (by 'you' I mean anyone who happens to be reading this) think should be required to substantiate a rape?

[Quail]

It's difficult to say what would be sufficient evidence. I guess DNA from swabs or signs of a struggle would be good evidence, but demading that evidence wouldn't necessarily stop someone from falsely accusing someone else (although I'm not convinced that false accusations are all that common). The problem with rape is that a lot of people don't report it immediately (or at all) so concrete evidence can be pretty difficult to obtain.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'd really have to study the legality. I did a quick search and it's unfortunate that lie detection is not accurate from a scientific standpoint. I'm somewhat inclined to allow the tracking of sexual activity through government, private, or public devices. Essentially, let people electronically consent to sexual activity prior to the act. Some mechanism could be devised I suspect to prevent rapists bypassing the system (within reason). My sympathies to this are outside the realm of rape as STDs are a growing concern as are pregnancies, etc.

To be honest, I'm almost inclined to let DNA evidence convict people straight-up based on word of mouth. Few women would actually falsely accuse people, and those they did accuse may deserve punishment for other reasons.

Innocent until proven guilty is not utility maximizing. If the prison system was abolished in favor of humane treatment and reforms, individuals who get wrongfully accused wouldn't be subjected to such an evil existence. All "prison" should be is the least intrusive means of ensuring someone is no longer a threat. It may be "evil" but it's better than prison. Track them with a device that injects sedative in accordance with mood/brain patterns related to their behavior, cameras, what not. It's still better than prison and that's a 5-minute solution idea. I'm sure experts could create something far less 1984.

[mollymae]

With false rape accusations, I'm more inclined to believe that they come from misunderstandings or miscommunication than anything else. For instance, if there was a situation where both individuals were intoxicated and engaged in what seemed like consensual sex at the time, but later the woman accuses the man of rape, even if that truly wasn't his intention. I think this kind of situation is more likely to cause false rape accusations as opposed to a woman outright lying about it. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think it is more situationally dependent. Picture a tired, tense, stressed out overworked husband with a short fuse, coming home to a stressed out, tense, overworked housewife that then bombards the husband with somewhat incoherent complaints, predicaments and problems. Then the use of violence is quite unsurprising.

What I can't understand is how shuffling shitty burdens between overworked people is going to make a difference. I can only imagine a more pleasant and equal relation between the genders when work hours have been collectively reduced for everyone and domestic labor socialized.

The relations between the genders won't become "equal" and "pleasant" until we no longer have people like you who spread social darwinist propaganda about fixed "normative" gender roles for both sexes.

Because you might not understand the concept of democracy, but there are a lot of people out there (such as myself) who frankly find your entire paradigm reactionary.

[al8]

The relations between the genders won't become "equal" and "pleasant" until we no longer have people like you who spread social darwinist propaganda about fixed "normative" gender roles for both sexes.

Because you might not understand the concept of democracy, but there are a lot of people out there (such as myself) who frankly find your entire paradigm reactionary.

Very well then but your being quite unnecessarily hostile and enigmatic. I'd prefer it if you'd just patiently explain to me, what this paradigm of mine consists of and why I am being such an impediment to progress, instead of writing indignant proclimations that amount to troll baiting. I intend to be respectful regardless and not troll you.

[manic expression]

To be honest, I'm almost inclined to let DNA evidence convict people straight-up based on word of mouth. Few women would actually falsely accuse people, and those they did accuse may deserve punishment for other reasons.
What possible sense does that make? It's an insane argument for so many reasons. You might as well make male ejaculation a crime. Let people get convicted on the word of one very un-objective person, brilliant idea. Next up: if I buy something from a store, they can throw me in jail for shoplifting if they say I'm guilty. :rolleyes:


The relations between the genders won't become "equal" and "pleasant" until we no longer have people like you who spread social darwinist propaganda about fixed "normative" gender roles for both sexes.
As far as I'm aware, social darwinism is about lassaiz-faire economics. Plus, having gender roles doesn't necessarily mean they're fixed, unchanging and inflexible. They can be open to interpretation and rejection. Just because there's an accepted way for someone to dress in public doesn't mean it's mandatory, after all.

[Hiratsuka]

I'd really have to study the legality. I did a quick search and it's unfortunate that lie detection is not accurate from a scientific standpoint. I'm somewhat inclined to allow the tracking of sexual activity through government, private, or public devices.

Talk about invasive government prying its dirty head into the bedroom!


To be honest, I'm almost inclined to let DNA evidence convict people straight-up based on word of mouth. Few women would actually falsely accuse people, and those they did accuse may deserve punishment for other reasons.Now that is total, misandric bullshit. If a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, he probably deserves to be punished for some other inexplicable offense? Holy shit, it doesn't get more inane than that.

[Wolf Larson]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in Women's Struggle or not, so someone can move it there if they feel it is more appropriate.

Often we hear about patriarchy's negative effects on women, historical and current, as we should. But I wanted to look at how patriarchy has negatively affected men as well. For example, often we talk about women's role in society about 100 years ago and prior--forced to stay in the home and raise the children. But there is a flip side to this. Rarely do I see anyone consider how men too were forced to assume certain roles in the family. Men have historically been more liberated than women, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the fact that they (lower class men at least) were forced to work long hours at the farm or in the factory. They had less time to spend with their children. Not to mention that men have been pressured or forced to fight in wars. Hell, come to think of it, I'd rather be at home with my children than fighting some war I probably don't believe in, or working in some disgusting dangerous factory.

The fact that men have been pressured to work or fight in wars can ultimately be seen as another consequence of patriarchy, but that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed. I'm not saying that patriarchy's negative effects on men is as bad as its effects on women, but oppression is oppression. Do you agree that some analysis of patriarchy can be one-sided?
It's not that men have been more liberated than women, not in all societies, our freedom, man or woman, depends on our relation to the means of sustenance or production.

In many non capitalist cultures women held equal standing because they grew vegetables/foraged and built the homes while the men simply hunted.

Today (American/western) women have more access to the means of production and hence freedom BUT although this is a great thing most all of us are not in democratic control of the means of production and thus are still slaves both physaclly and emotionally. Men such as Edward Bernays have even managed to further distort, atop of capitalism itself, what it means to be a woman/man. Do we really know what we want or is reality being spoon fed to most of us via subversive PR campaigns and perpetual advertisements?

Our reality itself is dictated by our relation to the means of production. In short, Americans and most advanced capitalist nations are totally mind fukt as to what it means to be human. What should motivate us, what or how we perceive the social construct.

I want to know what the earth looks like in 300 years. What do you think the most likely scenario is? Not the most hopeful but most likely.

I'm hoping for equality and abundance but expecting nuclear holocaust.

[Queercommie Girl]

What possible sense does that make? It's an insane argument for so many reasons. You might as well make male ejaculation a crime. Let people get convicted on the word of one very un-objective person, brilliant idea. Next up: if I buy something from a store, they can throw me in jail for shoplifting if they say I'm guilty. :rolleyes:


As far as I'm aware, social darwinism is about lassaiz-faire economics. Plus, having gender roles doesn't necessarily mean they're fixed, unchanging and inflexible. They can be open to interpretation and rejection. Just because there's an accepted way for someone to dress in public doesn't mean it's mandatory, after all.

Social darwinism is worse than lassaiz-faire liberal capitalism, it is usually based on imperialism and fascism. Of course, from a Marxist perspective liberal capitalism naturally leads to imperialism eventually.

[Queercommie Girl]

Very well then but your being quite unnecessarily hostile and enigmatic. I'd prefer it if you'd just patiently explain to me, what this paradigm of mine consists of and why I am being such an impediment to progress, instead of writing indignant proclimations that amount to troll baiting. I intend to be respectful regardless and not troll you.

I'm sorry if I came across as "hostile". I feel that on forums it is difficult to truly express the tone of a statement accurately. I meant no personal offence at all. My tone was (in my own eyes) firm but objective. I was referring to your rigid bi-genderal paradigm on courtship in the other thread on this sub-forum.

[manic expression]

Social darwinism is worse than lassaiz-faire liberal capitalism, it is usually based on imperialism and fascism. Of course, from a Marxist perspective liberal capitalism naturally leads to imperialism eventually.
Social darwinism predates imperialism and fascism. I'm actually curious as to how you're defining the term, I've never seen it used in such a way before.


Now that is total, misandric bullshit. If a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, he probably deserves to be punished for some other inexplicable offense? Holy shit, it doesn't get more inane than that.
Very well said.

[Queercommie Girl]

Social darwinism predates imperialism and fascism. I'm actually curious as to how you're defining the term, I've never seen it used in such a way before.


Ever heard of "base determines superstructure"? Social darwinism is just an abstract ideology, but such an ideology is underpinned by the economic basis of imperialism and fascism, the worst kinds of capitalism.

[praxis1966]

I'm somewhat inclined to allow the tracking of sexual activity through government, private, or public devices. Essentially, let people electronically consent to sexual activity prior to the act. Some mechanism could be devised I suspect to prevent rapists bypassing the system (within reason).

I was with you until the above. As Jefferson once said, "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."


To be honest, I'm almost inclined to let DNA evidence convict people straight-up based on word of mouth. Few women would actually falsely accuse people...

Well, you sure have an awful lot more faith in humanity than I do. I've seen more than my share of people do horrible, vindictive things to others for the most trivial of reasons. I'm not saying women are more prone to this kind of behavior than men, but I would never say they're immune to it either. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "No generalization is worth a dam, inclunding this one."


...and those they did accuse may deserve punishment for other reasons.

Just. Fucking. Wow. Punishment for what? Shoplifting?


Innocent until proven guilty is not utility maximizing. If the prison system was abolished in favor of humane treatment and reforms, individuals who get wrongfully accused wouldn't be subjected to such an evil existence. All "prison" should be is the least intrusive means of ensuring someone is no longer a threat. It may be "evil" but it's better than prison. Track them with a device that injects sedative in accordance with mood/brain patterns related to their behavior, cameras, what not. It's still better than prison and that's a 5-minute solution idea. I'm sure experts could create something far less 1984.

I almost don't know where to begin with this. Suffice to say I believe this kind of thinking is an extremely dangerous path to totalitarianism. What you're advocating is a kind of police state worse than currently exists anywhere in either the first or second world. Do me a favor, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.

[Franz Fanonipants]

dogg this reminds me i need to get to writing that one thread:

capitalism's negative effects on the rich

it is an unexplored goldmine