Getting women (&men) to call themselves feminist

[surly74]

We're talking about equality, not female superiority. Like I pointed out above the current patriarchical system is giving men a really rotten deal as well. It's in both genders best interest to crush it!

to me we already have female superiority when it comes to laws. also, we can't be in a partriarchial system and have men penalized by it. that's the very definition and contradictory.

Agreed, 100%, but you didn't address the point of quotas. Gender quoats are inherently sexist, but they are a neccesary evil that must be used to break down barriers, because just as there might be professions that will just naturally appeal to one gender over the other, there are professions that might appeal to both - but one gender has not been made aware that it would be a natural path in life, if even a possibility. When we get to that point - which at least the western world is rapidly closing in on, just look at the changes over the last few decades - gender quotas will no longer be neccesaty (except in professions that will need a certain amount of one gender, regardless of interest from said gender).

when i read this i keep thinking "you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink". quotas give one segment an unfair advantage over another and that's not equality. this seems to be a forced equality for the sake of having equality.

Nope. These are the gender roles working, primarily. Women are not flocking to the sciences, despite having a higher average level of intelligence than men. This is one of the reasons we need societal equality, so that the best brains from both genders can will be attracted by science. It won't be that easy if it looks like one huge boys club.

a woman didn't invent facebook, google, apple, microsoft, any tech company really. The inventors of the black berry were men. There are opportunities to be on the leading edge of technological advances and they are all men. This is not because of an old boys club, or a woman who is being held back because she is a woman from inventing something. Women on average aren't naturally drawn into these fields. Women aren't in sciences to the numbers of men not because they can't be but because they don't want to be. If women, as you say, have higher average intelligence as men, aren't going into these fields, it's because they don't want to. Artificial incentives aren't going to change that.

As for high risk jobs, many might suit women just as much as men, societal equality will obviously have effect here as well.

This is exactly my point but women dont' go into them or have the physical requirements needed but should be paid the same as a man who does for a different type of job? This "anything you can do I can do better" is simply not true.

Why has no one looked at the most lucrative jobs out there? professional sports? why are they excempt form the equality argument? Professional sports are no different than real life except the people get paid alot more money. The same factors apply.

You seem to be confused about what patriarchy is. Patriarchy is NOT pro-man. It's as much anti-man as it's anti-women. Both genders are victims of it. Patriarchy is the system that forces men to be strong, emotionless breadwinners and family heads, while it forced women to be weak, subjugated ornaments who should just raise children and stick to the kitchen. Yes, it gives men a bit more "power and freedom", but it's the type of power and freedom you're tied to, can't give away and will become an outcast if you reject. Patriarchy is what forces men to have the dangerous and deadly jobs because in patriarchy men must be strong and women must be weak. Women will always be viewed as victim's, this is why they get shorther sentences, etc. Removing patriarchy removes all of this!

when i looked up the definition in google i came up with this:
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.

The second part is not consistent with what you want the definition to be. We can't be in a patriarchy and at the same time have men suffer from it. if men are suffering as a whole it, by definition is not a patriarchial society...it's matriarchial.

Partiarchy does not force men to have dangerous jobs. I'm a man and I don't have a dangerous job. Dangerous jobs exist because things are dangerous and it takes a certain type of person (mentally and physically) and typically that is a man. Working on an oil rig is dangerous and physically demanding, not every man is cut out for it but some are and they do it.

Women will always be viewed as victim's, this is why they get shorther sentences, etc. Removing patriarchy removes all of this!

no, if we were in a partiarchial society women would get harsher sentences, again the by the very definition. you can't say we are in a societal environment that benefits men while at the same time we are victims of it.

Why are you asking what women wants? Women =/= feminists. There are tons of women in favor of patriarchy. Are you gonna ask what "whites", "blacks", etc. wants next? (that's not being snarky, just demonstrating how weird your questions were). And yes, for there to be equality the draft would obviously need to include women as well.

ok, i'll change the "women" to "feminists" to make things more clear. stipulating that I really was asking what feminists want makes the questoins valid again. having said that, I don't hear alot of lobbying by feminists to have draft registration changed, sentencing laws changed while at the same time there are lots of noise for pay equality and so on.

[surly74]

I was not referring to wage differences within a profession, but the choices of professions that still lead to men taking higher paid jobs than women. In other words, why don't women have a similar average incentive to get higher paid jobs. In other words, I'm not talking about discrimination, but rather what choices come natural to members of a gender because of the society they live in.

because high paying jobs required long hours, away from family, more risk, more everything of what the average women typically doesn't do. that's life.

Also, making the blanket statement that babies need their mother's more than their father's is rather insulting to men. Could be true,  but I don't buy it. And how would gay couples solve this if they used a surrogate mother? Exactly how terrible and unfit to take care of their children are fathers of infants?

it is true. it's just life so i can understand why courts are less lilely to award custody to fathers but there times when it should be done and it wasn't.

this comes back to men and women physically not being equal. i can't breast feed no matter how much that offends you. In the middle of the night when the baby wakes up and is hungry, my wife gets up. could happen 5 times a night. I sleep, why? because I get up for work in the morning and she doesn't. i didn't decide that, she did. on the weekend it's a whole different story because I don't work weekends.

I'm not unfit, or unable to take care of my three kids but there are times that a baby just wants it's momma. Are you offended (no snark intended) that in the delivery room once the baby is born it goes to the mother first? if you have ever seen a baby just born then you will understand when I say...fine with me. it's a natural bond baby has with mom. i don't see that i have less of a bond with my three kids...it's just different but no matter how much wishing takes place that's life.

i don't know how gay couples do it. it must be hard.

[La Dolce Vita]

We're talking about equality, not female superiority. Like I pointed out above the current patriarchical system is giving men a really rotten deal as well. It's in both genders best interest to crush it!

to me we already have female superiority when it comes to laws. also, we can't be in a partriarchial system and have men penalized by it. that's the very definition and contradictory.

Before I reply to the rest, how is this in any way contradictory? Patriarchy isn't pro-man. It's not about giving men the best benefits. It's about viewing men as the strong protectors that got to fight to survive, and women as their "possessions" who should be taken care of and not have any power. Within patriarchy women are seen as weak, defenseless and often (if not "corrupted") "innocent". It makes perfect sense that this could lay the foundation for preferential threatment of women by the law in a huge number of instances. So again, what is the contradiction here if what you claim is the case (which it clearly isn't in huge portions of the world, but let's not even address that. We need to get a certain understanding of what patriarchy is!).

[La Dolce Vita]

I was not referring to wage differences within a profession, but the choices of professions that still lead to men taking higher paid jobs than women. In other words, why don't women have a similar average incentive to get higher paid jobs. In other words, I'm not talking about discrimination, but rather what choices come natural to members of a gender because of the society they live in.

because high paying jobs required long hours, away from family, more risk, more everything of what the average women typically doesn't do. that's life.

Exactly! And that is why we need drastic change! You don't find this wrong and harmful - for both genders?

Also, making the blanket statement that babies need their mother's more than their father's is rather insulting to men. Could be true,  but I don't buy it. And how would gay couples solve this if they used a surrogate mother? Exactly how terrible and unfit to take care of their children are fathers of infants?

it is true. it's just life so i can understand why courts are less lilely to award custody to fathers but there times when it should be done and it wasn't.

this comes back to men and women physically not being equal. i can't breast feed no matter how much that offends you. In the middle of the night when the baby wakes up and is hungry, my wife gets up. could happen 5 times a night. I sleep, why? because I get up for work in the morning and she doesn't. i didn't decide that, she did. on the weekend it's a whole different story because I don't work weekends.

I'm not unfit, or unable to take care of my three kids but there are times that a baby just wants it's momma. Are you offended (no snark intended) that in the delivery room once the baby is born it goes to the mother first? if you have ever seen a baby just born then you will understand when I say...fine with me. it's a natural bond baby has with mom. i don't see that i have less of a bond with my three kids...it's just different but no matter how much wishing takes place that's life.

i don't know how gay couples do it. it must be hard.

The baby either gets used to the bottle or you can use very simple technology that simulates breastfeeding. Not hard. A father doesn't have to be as useless as you think.

And since you bring it up, why not bring it to the father first? Would that change anything? Ruin the kid? Of course, the woman just spend hours getting it out, so it makes sense she wants to hold it first, but I doubt it would be that destructive and dangerous for the father to bond with the child first.

[La Dolce Vita]

Agreed, 100%, but you didn't address the point of quotas. Gender quoats are inherently sexist, but they are a neccesary evil that must be used to break down barriers, because just as there might be professions that will just naturally appeal to one gender over the other, there are professions that might appeal to both - but one gender has not been made aware that it would be a natural path in life, if even a possibility. When we get to that point - which at least the western world is rapidly closing in on, just look at the changes over the last few decades - gender quotas will no longer be neccesaty (except in professions that will need a certain amount of one gender, regardless of interest from said gender).

when i read this i keep thinking "you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink". quotas give one segment an unfair advantage over another and that's not equality. this seems to be a forced equality for the sake of having equality.

Are you reading my posts? I have already pointed out on numerous occasions that it's not eequality, and that it's sexist/a neccesary evil. I have also explained time upon time again why it's needed. It's not equality, it's a process that leads to equality becoming a reality much sooner than otherwise.

Nope. These are the gender roles working, primarily. Women are not flocking to the sciences, despite having a higher average level of intelligence than men. This is one of the reasons we need societal equality, so that the best brains from both genders can will be attracted by science. It won't be that easy if it looks like one huge boys club.

a woman didn't invent facebook, google, apple, microsoft, any tech company really. The inventors of the black berry were men. There are opportunities to be on the leading edge of technological advances and they are all men. This is not because of an old boys club, or a woman who is being held back because she is a woman from inventing something. Women on average aren't naturally drawn into these fields. Women aren't in sciences to the numbers of men not because they can't be but because they don't want to be. If women, as you say, have higher average intelligence as men, aren't going into these fields, it's because they don't want to. Artificial incentives aren't going to change that.

Again? Reading my points. You are writing eexactly the same as I am, only with a different slant. The fact that women aren't currently naturally drawn to the sciences was the entire point of what you are replying too ... This is why we need to make it tempting for them. Make them see it as a viable choice.

As for high risk jobs, many might suit women just as much as men, societal equality will obviously have effect here as well.

This is exactly my point but women dont' go into them or have the physical requirements needed but should be paid the same as a man who does for a different type of job? This "anything you can do I can do better" is simply not true.

I don't understand this reply. I never stated that all high risk jobs were equally suited for both genders, or that the average woman has the potential to be as strong as the average male has the potential too. I never claimed any of that. I said that some high risk jobs might be suited for women, and that societal change making it natural for women with fitting abilities to go after such jobs would make it more likely for women to do so. Your replies don't seem to match what I write.

You seem to be confused about what patriarchy is. Patriarchy is NOT pro-man. It's as much anti-man as it's anti-women. Both genders are victims of it. Patriarchy is the system that forces men to be strong, emotionless breadwinners and family heads, while it forced women to be weak, subjugated ornaments who should just raise children and stick to the kitchen. Yes, it gives men a bit more "power and freedom", but it's the type of power and freedom you're tied to, can't give away and will become an outcast if you reject. Patriarchy is what forces men to have the dangerous and deadly jobs because in patriarchy men must be strong and women must be weak. Women will always be viewed as victim's, this is why they get shorther sentences, etc. Removing patriarchy removes all of this!

when i looked up the definition in google i came up with this:
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.

The second part is not consistent with what you want the definition to be. We can't be in a patriarchy and at the same time have men suffer from it. if men are suffering as a whole it, by definition is not a patriarchial society...it's matriarchial.

Partiarchy does not force men to have dangerous jobs. I'm a man and I don't have a dangerous job. Dangerous jobs exist because things are dangerous and it takes a certain type of person (mentally and physically) and typically that is a man. Working on an oil rig is dangerous and physically demanding, not every man is cut out for it but some are and they do it.

There are numerous definitions of patriarchy, we are talking about the one making sense in the current discussion. And no, women getting the most benefits would not be matriarchy. Women being the natural choise as the heads of families, leaders of states, etc. because they were women - would be a matriarchy. A society where men are expected to be the breadwinners/leaders while women have more rights/benefits, would still be a patriarchy.

And yes, not all men are being forced into dangerous professions, but patriarchy is what makes this a much, much more natural choice for them.

Women will always be viewed as victim's, this is why they get shorther sentences, etc. Removing patriarchy removes all of this!

no, if we were in a partiarchial society women would get harsher sentences, again the by the very definition. you can't say we are in a societal environment that benefits men while at the same time we are victims of it.

Incorrect. Being viewed as victims is not the same as always being the victim.

Why are you asking what women wants? Women =/= feminists. There are tons of women in favor of patriarchy. Are you gonna ask what "whites", "blacks", etc. wants next? (that's not being snarky, just demonstrating how weird your questions were). And yes, for there to be equality the draft would obviously need to include women as well.

ok, i'll change the "women" to "feminists" to make things more clear. stipulating that I really was asking what feminists want makes the questoins valid again. having said that, I don't hear alot of lobbying by feminists to have draft registration changed, sentencing laws changed while at the same time there are lots of noise for pay equality and so on.

In Norway we just recently got a majority vote on making the draft gender neutral. I believe sentencing laws are the same. We also have state sponsored safe houses for battered husbands, and we often have women get the blame and jail time for spousal abuse.

[surly74]

because high paying jobs required long hours, away from family, more risk, more everything of what the average women typically doesn't do. that's life.

Exactly! And that is why we need drastic change! You don't find this wrong and harmful - for both genders? [/quote]

this will probably blow your mind but no. if a woman wants to make the same scarafices as a man to become a partner at a law firm go for it (example). They will make partner. I have no issue with people working however they want to work. i have issue with wanting the same thing (prestige, pay, power) someone else has without doing the same thing to get it no matter male or female.

family important to you? spend time with them, don't get as large an increase as someone who didn't spend time with their family? no discrimination.

The baby either gets used to the bottle or you can use very simple technology that simulates breastfeeding. Not hard. A father doesn't have to be as useless as you think.

if you don't mind my asking...how old are you?

I'll tell my seven week old that, as well as my wife who has gone through this twice before this that it's not hard and that Charlie should be weaned off the breast and on to the bottle to asauge the feelings of someone on the internet. That's snark over.

And since you bring it up, why not bring it to the father first? Would that change anything? Ruin the kid? Of course, the woman just spend hours getting it out, so it makes sense she wants to hold it first, but I doubt it would be that destructive and dangerous for the father to bond with the child first.

i'll repeat...you haven't seen many babies the second they come out of the womb have you? It's not like in the movies. I take it you also haven't spent nine months with a woman who is pregnant. They go through alot, and I don't fear my wife but I will not tell her that I get to hold the baby first after what she went through just so I can make a social statement.

[La Dolce Vita]

because high paying jobs required long hours, away from family, more risk, more everything of what the average women typically doesn't do. that's life.

Exactly! And that is why we need drastic change! You don't find this wrong and harmful - for both genders?

this will probably blow your mind but no. if a woman wants to make the same scarafices as a man to become a partner at a law firm go for it (example). They will make partner. I have no issue with people working however they want to work. i have issue with wanting the same thing (prestige, pay, power) someone else has without doing the same thing to get it no matter male or female.

family important to you? spend time with them, don't get as large an increase as someone who didn't spend time with their family? no discrimination.

Your complete disinterest in everything I write is becoming beyond tedious. Please, please, I never mentioned discrimination. Why aren't you reading what I am writing???

I agree with everything you just said - which is obvious as you just rewrote my entire argument and made the same point I did. In the society we currently have women aren't as interested in working and making sacrifaces as men. This is patriarchy working. Or regardless of what you want to call it, these women are being raised and given experiences different from the men that causes them to do this. This is the reason why we need societal change.

Can you please start reading what I write now. What you are putting forward is the reason society needs to change!

The baby either gets used to the bottle or you can use very simple technology that simulates breastfeeding. Not hard. A father doesn't have to be as useless as you think.

if you don't mind my asking...how old are you?

I'll tell my seven week old that, as well as my wife who has gone through this twice before this that it's not hard and that Charlie should be weaned off the breast and on to the bottle to asauge the feelings of someone on the internet. That's snark over.

I'm not saying that you're forced to stay at home, I'm certainly not saying that we should force it to be 50/50, and I'm even more certainly not saying that anyone should do or not do anything because my feelings about what a random couple does makes me sad ... It does not offend me in the least. What I stated was offensive was your comment that father's are useless in regard to infants and can't take care of them as well as a mother can. At the very least you must see how this is you spitting in the face of gay parents! As well as stay at home fathers or single fathers! Men are not useless, men can be caring, men can take care of their infants. Your family arrangement seems to be working out fine, I have no problem there, but if father's had more of an incentive to do it I'm sure they could handle it just fine - as many demonstrably do right now.

[Plu]

On the topic of babies...

a) Breastmilk is better than powdered milk, so breastfeeding is better for the child than bottles. And men don't make it, so it's on the mother. At least if you want the best of your kid.
b) You could give the baby to the dad first, and the mother would still have a +-7 month head start. Bonding begins long before birth. Which is also why mothers can quiet a child a lot better, the child has already bonded with them, not so much with the dad.
c) The bonding goes both ways. It's generally much harder for the mother to leave the child behind than it is for the father. As such, mothers are far more likely to give up their job to stay home than fathers.

Fathers can handle and raise the child just fine, but the mothers simply have a huge headstart and more of a vested interest. That's not gender discrimination, that's simply how a real pregnancy works.

[surly74]

I'm not saying that you're forced to stay at home, I'm certainly not saying that we should force it to be 50/50, and I'm even more certainly not saying that anyone should do or not do anything because my feelings about what a random couple does makes me sad ... It does not offend me in the least. What I stated was offensive was your comment that father's are useless in regard to infants and can't take care of them as well as a mother can. At the very least you must see how this is you spitting in the face of gay parents! As well as stay at home fathers or single fathers! Men are not useless, men can be caring, men can take care of their infants. Your family arrangement seems to be working out fine, I have no problem there, but if father's had more of an incentive to do it I'm sure they could handle it just fine - as many demonstrably do right now.

regarding everything we've gone back and forth on: it's a good discussion but may have run it's course. lots of quotes, lots of back and forth. I'm will to agree to disagree and if there is another line to take it disucss it. i may be missing points and might be best to take a break.

i never said I was useless as a father or that father's are useless (you said that), i just said there are things I can't do that my wife can and that there a times the baby wants mom and not me. i change diapers...some really really horrible diapers plus i also have a two year old and a nine year old so while my wife focuses on the newest screamer I have the other two. such is life. I also work 40 hours a week, spend two hours a day in the car to get to work and back, coach on two football teams (american football not that other thing), and find time to spend with my family. I'm not complaining, wouldn't have it any other way. I also do the grocery shopping, cook most of the meals, half of the laundry. my day starts at 6:00am when i get up for work (5:00am in September)  and ends sometime around 11:00pm. I do it because the baby doesn't sleep through the night, my wife is up with it when it needs feeding. she could be up at 4:00am and back to sleep at 6:00 only to have the two year old wake up at 7:00. by then i'm off to work.

you take what I say i do with the seven week old baby and wonder aloud why I don't do this or that. Most fathers (including me) want to be at home more but that is the price for having my wife not have to work...as most fathers probably find as their situation and if they have other kids as well, they need to be cared for too. the good dads, have plenty of incentive.

[La Dolce Vita]

I'm not saying that you're forced to stay at home, I'm certainly not saying that we should force it to be 50/50, and I'm even more certainly not saying that anyone should do or not do anything because my feelings about what a random couple does makes me sad ... It does not offend me in the least. What I stated was offensive was your comment that father's are useless in regard to infants and can't take care of them as well as a mother can. At the very least you must see how this is you spitting in the face of gay parents! As well as stay at home fathers or single fathers! Men are not useless, men can be caring, men can take care of their infants. Your family arrangement seems to be working out fine, I have no problem there, but if father's had more of an incentive to do it I'm sure they could handle it just fine - as many demonstrably do right now.

regarding everything we've gone back and forth on: it's a good discussion but may have run it's course. lots of quotes, lots of back and forth. I'm will to agree to disagree and if there is another line to take it disucss it. i may be missing points and might be best to take a break.

i never said I was useless as a father or that father's are useless (you said that), i just said there are things I can't do that my wife can and that there a times the baby wants mom and not me. i change diapers...some really really horrible diapers plus i also have a two year old and a nine year old so while my wife focuses on the newest screamer I have the other two. such is life. I also work 40 hours a week, spend two hours a day in the car to get to work and back, coach on two football teams (american football not that other thing), and find time to spend with my family. I'm not complaining, wouldn't have it any other way. I also do the grocery shopping, cook most of the meals, half of the laundry. my day starts at 6:00am when i get up for work (5:00am in September)  and ends sometime around 11:00pm. I do it because the baby doesn't sleep through the night, my wife is up with it when it needs feeding. she could be up at 4:00am and back to sleep at 6:00 only to have the two year old wake up at 7:00. by then i'm off to work.

you take what I say i do with the seven week old baby and wonder aloud why I don't do this or that. Most fathers (including me) want to be at home more but that is the price for having my wife not have to work...as most fathers probably find as their situation and if they have other kids as well, they need to be cared for too. the good dads, have plenty of incentive.

I never said you didn't do anything, nor did in any way even imply that your arrangement with your wife wasn't the best option. You were the one stating that it should be the mother and that you can't even figure out how a gay couple could do it - but they do.

My sole point is that it's damaging to society and to everyone involved that men and women don't have the same incentive to be the one staying home with the child. Yes, certainly, women might in general have more instincts and a closer bond to the child than men. I have absolutely nothing against the majority of people choosing to stay at home is the mother - what I do care about is that it's the person most qualified - and that both parents, regardless of gender, will be able to come to this decicion without the pressure of gender roles.



Re: Plu. I did not mention discrimination, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I agree that the evidence support most of what you are saying in regard to instincts and bonds - and I never argued anything different. All I want is for gender roles to stop limiting people.

[Nonsensei]

At this point you're in water treading mode. This is utterly pointless. Everyone decided long ago to "win" this argument and when that happens no minds will be changed. This thread is just furious masturbation now.

[La Dolce Vita]

Well, I've decided to get my points accross, but if faced with logical arguments/facts I'm still open to change my mind on any aspect here - I hope the rest are as well, as long as they read what I write that is. :P

I think the most important aspect of this debate is to clear up some people's fundamental misunderstanding of how patriarchy can work. That a societal system where men are expected to be in positions of power, be the breadwinners, etc. neccesarily leads to women getting the short end of the stick in every single aspect of life - and that anything else is a contradiction and shows that patriarchy doesn't exist - is absurd.

So if it absolutely has to be all about winning points:

Within patriarchy men are considered strong, women are considered weak - One perfectly natural conclusion from this is that women need more protection. The man's place is to support of protect the weaker members of his household - and this was a very common view in Europe way back when women were just property without any rights at all. Just read the old fairy tales about knights slaying dragons and risking their lives' saving a maiden. You can hardly deny that societies where essentially every position of power had to be held by a man and where women were to be seen, not heard, was anything but a patriarchical society - yet they obviously cared for women, and their romaticized literature essentially shows that they viewed a "pure" woman's life to be more valuable than men's. Of course this wasn't exactly the reality of the times, but it showed their views.

Go back to 50s USA. That was patriarchical right? Again women were to be seen, not heard. Men where the only ones expected to do any kind of valuable work above secretary. Yet, I'm sure you could even then - in a pretty much 100% patriarchical society, find that the law in many instances went easier on women commiting crimes.

Of course this is not what happens in all patriarchical societies. Patriarchy can lead to numerous completely different outcomes, as it's just a very basic starting point. I have heard people who don't believe in patriarchy argue that you can't sight one thing as the explanation of opposites - but that's just ludicrous and not at all true. For example, look at Germany before Hitler took power, out of the troubling economic times grew both communism and nazism. They were caused by the exact same causes, but had very different aims.

As it's all about winning I believe I have demonstrated my point to be correct. YAY me.

 

[Nonsensei]

Its easier to read what you write when you keep it short. Only angry people are willing to read your PhD dissertation length posts and respond to them point for point. Everyone else just looks at the clusterfuck of text and leaves.

[La Dolce Vita]

It's a complicated issue, I don't think I'm dragging it on that much. If you think some short paragraphs is a dissertion I'm a bit worried about you though. But ok, cut down:

Surly's claims:
Patriarchy cannot exist as women get off easier for the same crimes men commit, etc. He thinks if Patriarchy existed men would have it the best and come out the winner everywhere in society.

My reply:
Patriarchy only means that men are the breadwinners/in the positions of power. That's a basic premise that can be taken in pretty much every direction. In patriarchy women are considered weak, while men are considered strong. Men are also (generally) expected to provide for and protect their women. As a woman is considered weak and someone that needs protection her getting off easier for crimes than a man would is a pretty reasonable conclusion as she is not seen as a threat.

The above post which you described as too long had some examples of 100% patriarchical societies of the past, and their views on women - that would contradict Surly's conclusion.

Bonus
The concept that men should be the breadwinners, etc. also places a lot of pressure on men and it should hardly be considered pro-man. Putting them up as the protector can also jeapordize their lives. And there are tons of other consequences of patriarchy that are just plain destructive to men. But I talked about that in my very first post on the subject. Patriarchy is against, and limits both genders!

[WitchSabrina]

I was not referring to wage differences within a profession, but the choices of professions that still lead to men taking higher paid jobs than women. In other words, why don't women have a similar average incentive to get higher paid jobs. In other words, I'm not talking about discrimination, but rather what choices come natural to members of a gender because of the society they live in.

because high paying jobs required long hours, away from family, more risk, more everything of what the average women typically doesn't do. that's life.

Also, making the blanket statement that babies need their mother's more than their father's is rather insulting to men. Could be true,  but I don't buy it. And how would gay couples solve this if they used a surrogate mother? Exactly how terrible and unfit to take care of their children are fathers of infants?

it is true. it's just life so i can understand why courts are less lilely to award custody to fathers but there times when it should be done and it wasn't.

this comes back to men and women physically not being equal. i can't breast feed no matter how much that offends you. In the middle of the night when the baby wakes up and is hungry, my wife gets up. could happen 5 times a night. I sleep, why? because I get up for work in the morning and she doesn't. i didn't decide that, she did. on the weekend it's a whole different story because I don't work weekends.

I'm not unfit, or unable to take care of my three kids but there are times that a baby just wants it's momma. Are you offended (no snark intended) that in the delivery room once the baby is born it goes to the mother first? if you have ever seen a baby just born then you will understand when I say...fine with me. it's a natural bond baby has with mom. i don't see that i have less of a bond with my three kids...it's just different but no matter how much wishing takes place that's life.

i don't know how gay couples do it. it must be hard.

All three of our girls were handed to their daddy immediately out of the shoot.  We had discussed that other than the Dr the first human touch should be their father.  Why?  Because the first touch - first hug - is so important and I had already had them quite a bit to myself being the pregnant one.  We also put each one of them on One bottle per evening that daddy gave so he was also a source of nutrition and comfort since we were breast feeding.
Years later when my husband and I were briefly separated I made sure that his money was His and mine was mine.  We both worked and we both *paid* for whatever our girls needed. No balance sheet was kept nor discussed.  When my attorney started the "I can get you this and I can get you that" sort of talk I reminded him:
(1) You work for me.  We'll do it my way or not at all.
(2) You are speaking about the love of my life.  There will be no ugly insinuations.  Just because we're having trouble doesn't suddenly make him some sort of asshole.
(3) This is the father of my children and we will discuss him with respect. I will only agree to joint custody for this trial separation.

The true power that belongs to women is in the defining of their world.  Not letting outside sources dictate (whenever possible) how she designs her existence.  If More women would simply stand up for what IS equal and what IS right - feminism would run strong and true.  Fairness and respect are the only needed ingredients.  Whenever a women has the chance to live as no victim - she should do so.  And in that time period she should prove what fairness and respect are by making good choices.

I have only been a victim twice in my lifetime.  Both were crimes of violence - rape. My victimization was unavoidable and out of my hands.  But since those were only moments in my long and happy life........ I've enjoyed living as No Victim.  The reason I support feminism is to explain to women that they, too, can live as no victim.   But - to truly have that - they must break free from old school thinking and Think and ACT for themselves and others around them.
When I travel and give lectures - I start with "Do you wish to be treated with respect?"  The rest of the talk explains how THEY Must first SHOW respect - design their lives using respect for other people - then and only then will they become respected themselves. (I also discuss the healthy self respect that comes when you treat others fairly)


sorry..........  think I was just rambling in this thread.