Is society really run "by men for men"?

Inspired by this tangent in another thread, (first quote-and-response in that post; everything else is irrelevant to this one) I figure it may be worth making a thread about this question; both the "by men" and "for men" part and the connections between the two. First off, I tend to see this as somewhat subjective by its very nature, since one's answer will depend on things like one's priorities, etc.

With that out of the way, it often strikes me as selective when people focus specifically on things like business and politics, and men having more top jobs in them, but more so when people assume it follows from this that they are acting on behalf of men.

For one thing, business is influenced by the customers, and politics is influenced by the public. Women make up half the vote; regardless of whether or not the politicians themselves are male, would they not have incentives to try to win over the female vote? To focus on the gender of the politicians, in that sense, strikes me as selective.

Even putting that aside, if we stay in the context of careers, there are other careers that are comparably influential; elementary-school education, for example. If most teachers for that age group are female, would that not also affect what is taught to young children, affecting the impression these kids get for the rest of their lives?

And even outside careers, what about power in the bedroom? This point tends to be treated more dismissively, which frankly leaves me more inclined to take it seriously, not less; if it were really so silly, its opponents should gain, not lose, from an open discussion of it. The idea is that some guys (including those in political power) often act on behalf of their wives and girlfriends, and this is based on the idea that women are (generally) the more "sexually desired" partner and in turn have more to bargain with in that aspect of life. I'd personally go further, and suggest that perhaps they are the more "romantically desired" partner as well. We often hear of women saying that a woman needs a man as much as a fish needs a bicycle. How often, for comparison purposes, do men tend to make similar statements regarding how little they would need girlfriends?

As I said in the other thread, 'I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing is for sure; it is NOT just that simple!'

edited 6th Jun '11 5:13:48 PM by neoYTPism

Neo, since Fighteer shot down the last thread you made about your personal bedbugs, I guarantee you this one is doomed too.

But for what it's worth, I think a lot of your post makes the unwarranted assumption that no women are ever sexist against women.

All societies are ultimately run by people for people. The rules and technicalities of how men rule, how women rule, how men are ruled and how women are ruled and how all of that works are what change between society and society.

edited 6th Jun '11 5:19:10 PM by annebeeche

Well I'm not sure if such logic works. Afterall, technically everybody has one vote but would we say that some people have more power than others in the various democracies that inhabit the west? This we know is clearly true but it's the specifics we're caught on.

Not all power is political.

For example in the Puritan days women had social power. If the women talked of you negatively you were basically screwed.

That's one way to take The Crucible, and upon reflection makes quite a bit of sense. However, men in most Puritan societies had absolute control should they have the will to use it.

"Neo, since Fighteer shot down the last thread you made about your personal bedbugs, I guarantee you this one is doomed too." - Black Humor

I thought that was Morveen. In any case, whoever it was seemed to be misinterpreting or misrepresenting the point of my previous thread, and I feel that reflects poorly on the decision to close it. (In hindsight though, somehow I'm glad it was closed anyway.)

However, this thread is VERY different, as it is much more general, (personal bedbugs? What do you base this on?) so the point is moot.

"But for what it's worth, I think a lot of your post makes the unwarranted assumption that no women are ever sexist against women." - Black Humor

I said no such thing.

edited 6th Jun '11 5:53:29 PM by neoYTPism

That will can be crushed by being socially unfavored.

True, but the law would come down on the man's side.

Glad we did away with that.

Or, rather, that women act in concert for the interests of women.

For example:

• Women make up half the vote; regardless of whether or not the politicians themselves are male, would they not have incentives to try to win over the female vote?
  • What if some women base their vote on things other than sexism? What if some women themselves are sexist?
• there are other careers that are comparably influential; elementary-school education, for example. If most teachers for that age group are female, would that not also affect what is taught to young children, affecting the impression these kids get for the rest of their lives?
  • What if school teachers just don't care? Or worse, what if elementary-school teachers are themselves sexist? Wouldn't that just make it worse?
• And even outside careers, what about power in the bedroom? This point tends to be treated more dismissively, which frankly leaves me more inclined to take it seriously, not less; if it were really so silly, its opponents should gain, not lose, from an open discussion of it. The idea is that some guys (including those in political power) often act on behalf of their wives and girlfriends, and this is based on the idea that women are (generally) the more "sexually desired" partner and in turn have more to bargain with in that aspect of life.
  • What if their wives want them to screw over other women?

<Mod Hat ON>

We'll give this thread one chance to not go south.

<Mod Hat OFF>

Personal opinion: Neo, your whole OP seems to stem from the assumption that all women are the same and all women want the same things. That is a fundamental and fatal flaw in your reasoning. We aren't and we don't.

edited 6th Jun '11 6:30:30 PM by Madrugada

In my humble opinion...

@Black Humor: What if they want them to screw over other women?

[/thread]

Savage and Black Humor both have a point: one of the main opponents of the ERA was a woman.

edited 6th Jun '11 6:38:46 PM by HungryJoe

@ Deuxhero: You know full well that that wasn't what the OP meant. GIFT does not a good debater make.

Other women specifically, or treating both genders as equal targets?

Maddie said everything I could want to say. Except reverse the pronouns because, you know, I'm not a woman.

Other women specifically. Our society traditionally had girls being trained from a young age to see boys as more important. Her parents, both mother and father, would show favoritism for her brothers over her. Many girls internalized this and cut down other girls because 'they're not important' and cutting them down gets her more status. Women can be incredibly cruel to each other. Why do you think feminists were so big on 'female solidarity'? Because women were supporting sexism against other women.

So... everyone is screwing each other over because everyone is screwing each other over. Yay.

edited 7th Jun '11 8:31:47 AM by Ekuran

I really don't understand moderation in this forum sometimes. This is a perfectly polite thread, and whether you agree or disagree with the premise it's still a lot less potentially hostile than the recent racial intelligence one, which has gone on for over a hundred posts now. Kneejerk moderation threats don't exactly help grow polite discussion, and Neo was practicing good netiquette by making this thread its own thing instead of going further OT in the original one.

The major dissenting point, that women are perfectly willing to vote themselves out of power and be sexist against themselves, is a fair counterpoint. But it's also kind of an easy point to score and ignores what seems to me to be the bulk of Neo's post - which was an attempt to address whether current societal imbalances could still be considered primarily male-favored or not.

And on that extent, I would offer that A) it's very difficult to note an imbalance when you have no confirmed neutral basis for comparison, B) it's even more difficult to judge an imbalance when biological differences necessitate not treating two sides identically, and C) labels are hurtful for both sides.

I was following the original thread too, and I expect MMM and Neo would agree on individual scenarios of clear injustice and ideal solutions in practical circumstances. But because of the ideological framing, the discussion gets bogged down in vaguery. If people on either side worried less about the framing and more about pointing out specific problems that should be taken care of, then I think men and women would both feel less threatened of each other. By contrast, arguing about which side has it worst or to exactly what percentage of badness a side has it is not, to my mind, productive.

There is a place for discussing overall favoritism in society, but it has to be when there's not even a question of potential equality. Not that long ago there was no question that a black man was considered inferior to a white man. That's when it's time to bring up systemic favoritism and prejudice as an ideology, when no one is seriously challenging the assumption in the first place. In current society, at least as far as the US is concerned, gender debates have fragmented too much for ideology to be very useful in and of itself.

By way of contrast, ideology is still useful for, say, discussing prejudice against Muslim Americans, because they're not so close to equality that you can squint and miss the differences.

Well I was under the impression the premise of the OP was that, just because it is primarily men at the top that it doesn't mean society is primarily favoured toward men. I tend to disagree with the sentiment. If the top positions in society don't properly reflect the composition of those below, I would tend to err on the side of "something isn't right".

@Kardakinn: Not going to get into the substance of the post, but although this thread is definitely civil, if you've seen neo's posting style in the past, you'd know it's likely to balloon out into five different-but-similar threads that all have vehemant arguments going in them.

And since I know neo isn't the topic, that's all I'm gonna say about that.

I'd say our society is sexist against both sexes in different ways.

Women get shut out of power and denied opportunities, men get cut off from themselves and denied self-expression. Both are very damaging, and both should be fought against.

men get cut off from themselves and denied self-expression

To an extent, but it's really pretty easy to resist, which is why I don't usually view this too seriously.

You say that again after 20 years of indoctrination........... :P