Today I was disappointed by yet another attempt at a 'male rights' movement.

Don't you feel enriched by the knowledge Hooker?

I wish I had a time machine.

Basically, it stands for "HE-MAN WOMAN-HATER'S CLUB"

People need to explain this kinda shit when you bring it up.

pussy be yankin'

It's almost like these malformed reprobates are incapable of healthy human relationships or something.

"Pot calling kettle.

Pot calling kettle!

Come in, kettle?

You're black!"

-oddeye

It's funny how you expect this video sharing site to rationally discuss the hypothetical advice we'd give the subjects, rather than point and laugh at the youth of today going through the motions of teen sociology.

Why make this about me? Regardless I am in no way malformed, merely the perfect construct of the ultimate battle between what is considered good and what is considered evil. Such values do not exist yet we all feel bound by them and thus I must appear to be bound by them too. Compromise with a world that is impure. The world must be remade into the very image of perfection, my image of perfection.

Fuck yall.

Google doesn't work that way. Your results are personalized based on geography and previous searches, so if you think this is something you think we should see (that's unclear) please link/

I'll submit the David Foley interview now, he was married to a real freak.

jhm: i find your lack of googelfu disturbing

googelfu???

'pure patriarchy':
as used, an extensive metaphysical/religious concept, rooted in actual misogyny but with its branches soaring off through the clouds and deep into the ether, where anything can be true, and patriarchy is co-identical with the Bad.
See also:
Philosophical Idealism
It's All Nurture
Externalization (various meanings)


There's absolutely no way that those 3 very different things you mentioned are all pure patriarchy.

1. Economic dependence on the male.

2. Military power is male by definition

3. Women are to be treated as "special" (except when they're not)

PURE MOTHERFUCKING PATRIARCHY

(or at least close enough that only someone with asperger's could be so relentlessly literal as to dispute it. I suppose you could make a case based on the meaning of "purity", but that would be pretty aspergerish )

In everyday speech, I'm more inclined to use the word "patriarchal" than "patriarchy". Unlike some feminists, I don't believe that "patriarchy' defines our society as a whole today, but certain traditions and mores remain. When I say that these customs are "pure patriarchy", it's a reference to the past that created them.

I can remember my elementary school principal telling me not to hit girls back in the 60s, and it was hardly the first time I'd heard it.

1 Women worldwide *tend* to heavily, heavily prefer tokens of affection and to marry up in class. Women's earning power likely has little to no bearing on how they prefer being pampered over not being pampered in courtship, all things being equal.
If this is patriarchal, then humans are patriarchal and the term loses its meaning. Furthermore, the women in these situations have agency, and women are currently not so economically dependent on the male. If you're saying it's a cultural hold-over from when they did, what does this say about the women who currently insist on men buy drinks and dinner if they want to date them? That they are automatons of the patriarchy, right?!?
This is what I meant by "It's all nuture" according to you, when the facts bear out that it's simply not all nurture. Richer, taller, better-educated, better-looking women tend not to find mates, and there are studies to back this up, because they're wired up to not settle for someone 'less than them'. There are side-effects to female psychology as well. Not every last bit of humanity is determined by male psychology and its side-effects.
This doesn't mean what you said about #1 is false, it just means there are other factors.

2 It is not the case that most women make as good a soldier as most men do, for a wide variety of reasons. Key word being most, not all.. It just isn't the case.
It would be absolutely stupid to draft everyone if the point of a draft is to bump up the number of infantry.
"Military power is male by definition" isn't really a phrase I can understand.
If you want to argue that 100-randomly drafted women would make as good soldiers as 100-randomly drafted men, knock yourself out.

3 What are you saying about #3? That "don't hit women" as a general rule is patriarchal, where you think the better version would be to be gender-blind about it? The solution is what....?
So you spot a problematic issue, and you don't know what to say about it, but one thing's for damn sure: "PURE PATRARCHY".

It's a cute rhetorical move to say that if I quibble with your use of the world 'pure' I'm an aspie. But you can both go hyperbolic AND mean what you're saying, right?

Just because conservatives are generally shitty doesn't give you much excuse to be a cookie-cutter, knee-jerk liberal.
Be a liberal that leads centrists your way, instead of just handing out red and blue jerseys all the time. That's what those metaphysics that quack about patriarchy do best, just carve up teams.

Stop it. You're arguing against a whole bunch of stuff I didn't say. You're not following my argument. I'm not the one who was complaining about these customs, so I don't feel the need to debate you as to their wisdom. I was responding to people who seem to incorrectly blame feminism for these customs, as in the case of the video link I posted, which, I'm guessing, you didn't watch.

Patriarchy isn't really all good or all bad, it's just the way things used to be, and now that it's dying, I'm all for shooting it in the head, because men and women seem to be living in two different worlds, but that's neither here nor there. These customs, which certain MRAs on the internet find disagreeable, date back to that period, and have nothing to do with feminism. That's my argument, so that's all I'm trying to prove here.

I wasn't responding to MRA-tards. I don't think these things are purely from patriarchy, or feminism; and I don't think they're all nature or all nurture.

I don't really have to pick sides between MRA-tards and crit studies hyperbole. I don't believe in dummy equalties any more than I believe in the dummy freedoms that righties trot out.

But I'm pretty sure that I'd rather argue with people on poetv than on some right-leaning site where everyone thinks the government shouldn't take away their freedom to eat olestra or drive a tank or engage in duels or sign themselves into slavery or any of those stupidest "give me my freedoms!" ideas.

I just think that blue-staters don't know when they're doing their own version of that shit.

And I'm positive I don't know when I'm doing my version of it.
(surely not now, though)

Trying to reasonably debate gender issues with JHM, oh man are you in for a jolt.

and JHM expects 'that guy' not to make idiotic assumptions about or horribly misinterpret his statements.

There was no debate. I made my point, and he made his completely unrelated point. He did a terrible job of reading what I wrote, but at a glance (I'm too busy to give it my full attention), what he wrote was not uninteresting or badly thought out.

JHMF: Poetvs own crazy (liberal) Grandpa!

^ esoteric and wise. i'm going to work rollin coal into arguments, sadly it could work a lot.