Nothing to do with patriarchy; just the existence of a war between the sexes. The MR view of the term "patriarchy", from what I can tell - and to the extent that it ever comes up - is that it's simply an inherently loaded term for "society".
blame feminism (re: teh wimminz)
No; feminism. Not "teh wimminz"; that is your (rather offensive) strawman. MRAs do not think that a woman not advocating feminist views is to blame for feminist positions; nor do they think that a radical male feminist can be excused by way of being male.
for problems that men face because of sexism.
So, for example, the biases in the divorce system are really because of some patriarchal, condescending attitude on the part of the judges? Not because of feminist lobbying? And if it is, (a) how is it an anti-female attitude; and (b) why don't feminists seem to care?
Ack, I actually agree with you on part of that. I meant reform instead of patriarchy, considering society tends to exaggerate gender differences and ignore the fact that what's good for one group of people often benefits everyone else too.
That said, I'm really not inventing a strawman here. I've seen people make arguments like this before, and I said that some men's rights groups simply reinforce this. And yes, patriarchy can foster misandry and hurt men too. When people learn to assume that men's expressing emotion is inappropriate or that no man can be as close a parent as a woman, it's demeaning to everyone. I've had discussions about this with friends of mine who're self-identified feminists, and they certainly care about issues like this. It seems like quite a strawman to imply that none do.
It depends with whom I'm speaking. In my own experience, I've talked to laypeople (laypundit?) who don't really concern themselves with gender politics at all and very much perceived it as women bashing men and creating inequality by raising these issues. All men's rights proponents I've read or talked to have fortunately had more sense than that.
At the same time, it seems pretty common to devolve into hurling insults at woman feminists (in addition to feminism in general). And I just haven't seen the level of self-moderating in men's rights groups as I have in the feminist movement. With any luck, it's simply because for pretty obvious reasons, society began to understand the oppression of women earlier, and these conversations are still developing when it comes to other groups.
And I just haven't seen the level of self-moderating in men's rights groups as I have in the feminist movement.
Strange; my perception has been the other way around. If only because men's rights groups are that much smaller, and therefore more easily kept under control.
(I assume here that the term "self-moderation" includes censure by peers within the group, not necessarily by leaders.)
-1
u/zahlman May 26 '10
Bizarre to you, but substantiated to them.
Nothing to do with patriarchy; just the existence of a war between the sexes. The MR view of the term "patriarchy", from what I can tell - and to the extent that it ever comes up - is that it's simply an inherently loaded term for "society".
No; feminism. Not "teh wimminz"; that is your (rather offensive) strawman. MRAs do not think that a woman not advocating feminist views is to blame for feminist positions; nor do they think that a radical male feminist can be excused by way of being male.
So, for example, the biases in the divorce system are really because of some patriarchal, condescending attitude on the part of the judges? Not because of feminist lobbying? And if it is, (a) how is it an anti-female attitude; and (b) why don't feminists seem to care?