No really, this is purely academic.
'But to think Canada is terrible and racist is ignorant.'
'But to think Canada is terrible and racist is ignorant.'
not to mention the unjust way in which refugee claims by eastern european roma are brushed over/ rejected which includes billboards being put up in hungary to discourage people from even trying to claim refugee status
and the rising islamophobia
Dude, no offense, I don’t know where you’re from, But I’m from the US and we’ve done shittier things than that and I don’t understand why hate the people of a country when not everyone is responsible for other’s actions or the actions of their government if the government is at fault. Just chill.
that’s not…..that’s literally not what anyone was saying? also like…it’s totally accurate to characterize Canada as a racist country when you’re referring to the structures and apparatus of the Canadian state and the prevailing attitudes of Canadian society.
But is there some Highlander for the Most Racist Country in the World? It’s okay to say that both Canada and the US are racist countries… because it’s true. I’mma need for people to understand this, tbh.
The way our gov’t is completely IGNORING all those native women CONSTANTLY “disappearing” is absolutely disgusting. Our history is not perfect at all.
The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.
bell hooks (via afrometaphysics)
Forgive me, i rather thought citing definitions was a good way to gauge concepts. I’ve seen feminists do it before to clear up any “misconceptions” about what feminism is (Emma Watson did in her speech to the UN, for example). I apologise for thinking that i’d be extended the same privilege.
What you call “patriarchy”, i would all “social norms” - and would regard as generally less pervasive. The latter term referring to a gender-neutral societal consensus based on the culture. Is it a bad thing? Yeah, sometimes; it can oppress those who are different, and no one is denying this. Is it men’s fault, and did men devise it? No and no. At least, they did not more than anyone else.
I will say, though, that western society was a patriarchy, but that i have no reason to believe that it still is (or has been for more than half a century).
A poor analogy, certainly; recoil doesn’t harm (unless you’re being an idiot with the weapon), and recoilless weapons exist (such as bazookas) - why wouldn’t the patriarchy be harmless to men? Why doesn’t it just oppress women, and leave the men to literally do whatever they want (within reason - they might still be condemned for vandalism, for example)? If it does exist, it needn’t harm men at all, and in many cases women are favoured. This is illogical.
Yes. It is to imply that women have equal opportunity (as men) in all professional fields. The disparity, as i see it, is simply choice; women - as a whole - tend to not favour jobs in politics, the sciences, and similar. If they do want to run for president and become engineers i wish them luck, but most women tend not to want to. This is not a bad thing.
In the same vein, men tend not to want to become nurses, teachers, and the like. This is also not a bad thing.
It must also be said that both areas of work are becoming gradually more diverse. Is this a good thing? Yes, i think so; provided jobs are done well, i don’t mind who does them.
I will concede that that was indeed an educated guess; i wasn’t referring to that when i said that my views were not assumptions, and i did overlook that. My hypothesis referred to the internal differences in biological function between men and women (e.g. that oxytocin stimulates the amygdala in females but not males, and that females produce more oxytocin than males), but my evolutionary idea, and idea about testosterone, are conjecture - but that is not mean to say they are false. I apologise for any miscommunication, and i’m glad we cleared that up.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume the patriarchy exists and that is does have this effect; is it not possible that sexual dimorphism informs the ideas of the patriarchy? That biology influences culture, which influences society? I do not believe the three to be so very separate.
If this is not true, where does this patriarchy get its ideas from? How did the patriarchy come about? Why oh why does it also oppress men when such isn’t necessary?
You do not have to posit an insult for me to find your words insulting. And are you accusing me of misogyny and wilful-ignorance?
Well, okay then, but you’re gonna find me continue to be insulting, and I’ve run out of the patience to be polite because you’re talking bullshit now. To suggest that the gender disparity in jobs, politics, etc. is down to choice is insulting to all women. I am sick and tired of you pretending gender bias doesn’t fucking exist.
Why oh why does it also oppress men when such isn’t necessary?
First, the patriarchy doesn’t oppress men. At all. Sorry.
Second, what even is your fucking argument here? That the patriarchy isn’t real just because men aren’t 100% on top in society? That it can’t be real just because it hurts men in some ways? Is the patriarchy not good enough? That society holds no bias against women just because they benefit in some ways?
You can pretend it’s all down to fuzzy, innocent, non-gender-specific “social norms” all you fucking like, but it doesn’t change the fact that these social norms are patriarchal. They are sexist just as they are racist, heterosexist, cissexist, ableist, and just plain problematic. We as a society need to own up to this, and if you refuse to even recognise it then to call you a wilfully-ignorant misogynist is a fucking compliment.
Alright, i’ll make this simple. You are making a positive claim (that women are significantly more oppressed than men because of a patriarchy, correct?), so you will need to back this up with positive evidence. Thus far, you have only made assertions that the patriarchy is real and that i am just unable to see it - which isn’t an argument.
In my eyes, this is much the same as some religious folks claiming there is a god by saying “look around you, he’s in everything; you just can’t see him”. I’m aware that this isn’t how you see the matter, but i remain unconvinced. Your outrage isn’t evidence.
This is why i don’t believe your claims - not because i am a “wilfully-ignorant misogynist”. You mistake my skepticism for denial.
No one has time to cite 50+ years of research and literature which you just embarrass you for being a moron. Do a little research yourself and stop being a twat.
And a really cute girl :3