Feminism doesn't threaten men...

[jhameia]

Patriarchy does.

So if patriarchy isn't about oppressing "thy neighbor's wife nor his cattle nor his manservant nor his maidservant nor anything that is thy neighbors" then what *is* it really about?

I'm going to say it's all about controlling other men. Using women as collateral, bait, status symbols, bribes, rewards, and just general all around leverage. Oh, and of course scapegoats (it's Teh Feminists, they're in ur officz, dilutin' ur pay raises!)

So that's what I mean when I say "worse."

What I mean when I say that might be worse in a productive way is... guys, you really want to play that game? You think patriarchy works for you? You think you can come out ahead? That you could ever "score" enough pussy? "Get lucky" enough? "Win" the hand of the fairest maiden? Get some father to "give away" the best bride?

No, even if you play that game you're not going to come out ahead.

Which is why, I figure, that feminism isn't anything like as big a threat to men as anti-feminism is... as patriarchy is.

Sure, they act ticked off -- you would too if you realized your designated role in life was to have your ass dangled in front of some tool to keep him in line. So the question there isn't why are *they* ticked off at patriarchy, it's why aren't more *men* ticked off at it -- the way we ought to be when we realize our designated role in life is to keep in line in hopes of getting what's dangled in front of us. *Especially* when, for the most part, if that wasn't the game... if the system wasn't almost entirely about making you think sex is scarce because women aren't available except as a reward... then we'd all of us -- men *and* women -- would almost certainly end up having, and *enjoying* sex... with our *fun, cool, human equals* and not other men's *assets*, a lot more often.

Just sayin'

OMG I love this man.

Comments

[salzara-tirwen.livejournal.com]

OMG I love this man.

yeah, I do too especially on Thursdays :D

[fantasyecho.livejournal.com]

Who doesn't on Thursdays??? :D

An alternate point of view.

[nosidagi.livejournal.com]

Or we could drop ALL the archies and isms and just BE.

Re: An alternate point of view.

[fantasyecho.livejournal.com]

What the devil else do you think feminism is trying to achieve here?

Re: An alternate point of view.

[nosidagi.livejournal.com]

FeminISM it's on the drop list just like PatriARCHY. In fact let's add ACY's to the list. TheocrACY, AristocrACY, etc...

Re: An alternate point of view.

[fantasyecho.livejournal.com]

Theocracy and aristocracy are upheld by the basic tenets of patriarchy.

Feminism gives us the tools required to "drop the -archies and -isms".

Re: An alternate point of view.

[nosidagi.livejournal.com]

*shakes head* One doesn't need "tools" one needs "common sense" and Feminism isn't a prerequisite for common sense.

Re: An alternate point of view.

[fantasyecho.livejournal.com]

Except that this so-called "common sense" isn't so common to people who subscribe to old-world views that systemetically oppress other people. You have the privilege of being brought up in a community where such ideas are commonplace. Others are still struggling to make this sensibility commmon in other places.

I honestly fail to see why the resistance to feminism is so strong in the face of a systemetic heirarchy that visibly oppresses so many.

[bonnietta.livejournal.com]

finally, somebody gets it!

[nolan-ash.livejournal.com]

I've long been a believer that patriarchy crushes men as much as it crushes women. "Real men" are allowed an abyssmally short list of subjects they're allowed to safely talk about without compromising their masculinity. So shall we talk about cars, pussy, beer, sports, or our jobs today? God forbid you have any interests outside this pre-prescribed sphere. Even worse is the emotional castration. Men are allowed to act: bored, angry, arrogant, or neutral, but forget about expressing grief or genuine enthusiasm. That's for fags.

Women are definitely a crushed and objectified second class, but at least they're allowed to express a wider range of interests, beliefs, and emotions. Kind of like a thriving slave culture.

So who's got it worse? The person who is made out to be an object to be collected or the one who's forbidden to express the basic human emotion of sadness? I couldn't say which is worse, but it's pretty obvious both parties are getting fucked by the system.

[fantasyecho.livejournal.com]

The problem IS that both parties are getting fucked by the system. It's really dumb for either side to complain about getting it worse - I mean, seriously, in the Oppression Olympics, all the prizes suck - but women have been limited to a specific range of interests, beliefs and emotions for a long time (i.e., marriage and kids, submission to men, fickle feelings that only illustrate their inferiority. Keep in mind that until around WWII and that imaginary 1950's era, men were the greatest poets, philosophers, critical thinkers, etc.). The only difference going on is that women have started to speak out about it starting with last century.

It makes me so sick when men get angry and complain that "if women can have shelters from abuse, why not men?" and use this reasoning to deprive funding to shelters - why the hell don't men start their own shelter instead? (There's actually a men's shelter in Halifax. I think it's brilliant.)

Anti-feminists and the Patriarchy hate men more than feminists do. Feminist at least want to enjoy really good sex with the men they love. Enthusiastic participation and all that.

[talkingfigleaf.livejournal.com]

Wow! Thanks for your kind words, FantasyEcho.

figleaf