No, the other one.
![]()
Generally speaking, if a large number of people use a word or phrase to mean one thing, and a large number of people use it to mean a different thing, then the word or phrase means both of those things. And when a word or phrase acquires too many definitions (not counting very obscure ones), it's not unreasonable to say we should just stop using the word or phrase, since no one actually knows what we mean by it.
Then let me adjust my answer: why are you letting people who misuse the term determine how seriously you take it?
EDIT:
It wouldn't matter what we called it. I've used the term "androcentrism" before, and gotten the same type of response. I honestly don't care what word we choose to call it, so long as we acknowledge that it is a thing. Quite a few people who dismiss the terminology do so to dismiss the entire idea.
edited 2nd Mar '14 2:44:11 PM by KingZeal
You asked why we should differentiate between patriarchy and gender bias. My point was that if we don't do that, we would have to see statements like the one I made as true. Simple as that.
It's in opposition to what you said because you used the term patriarchy when you could have used gender bias. Many people, like me, take offense to the term used in that way because the fact that men are more likely to assume positions as leaders is not seen as the primary or even the most important reason we treat men and women differently. What the term used like that does is alienating men, and women who agree with them, who might agree with you because you appear to blame them on the basis of their gender for problems both genders contributed to, which you acknowledged yourself and it gives excuses for people who want to make this out to be men vs women, when the system harms both, resulting in more defensive attitudes from said men and women. Right now, it's used in a divisive fashion and there is little good in using it like that.
Edit:
Who does? And do the people who do that matter more than the ones who could be one your side with annother terminology? Note that androcentrism faces the exact same criticisms than the ones I noted for patriarchy.
edited 2nd Mar '14 3:07:27 PM by Mastah
@Zeal: In the context of such debates.
On an unrelated note, different topic, inspired by this:
I find how video games treat females interesting, and how they're supposed to be treated according to various opinionated people. Having a female star in an action game does help. Even if she's essentially a man with boobs. To pick a non-game examples, that's how Ripley was written. But on the other hand, she was also interpreted by a female actor.
I mean, there's room for improvement. You don't have to either have a man with boobs, or a Princess Peach action hero. You could have a proper character. But while the former reinforces the idea that those male traits are strong, and the latter stereotypes women, if the situation really is as bad as people claim (which it is in some areas), isn't either better than nothing at all? The former still also says that even women can be strong action stars, and the latter says that women can still be stereotypically feminine and strong.
The former has another aspect that is often forgotten. It lessens the gender identity of those traits. That's a goal many egalitarianists strive for: Traits without gender identity. On the other hand, the problem with that is that it reinforces the idea of the male standard. Those traits become neutral, but there are more gender specific traits left for women. But neutral is still better than glorifying one gender, isn't it?
Saying that both are wrong and everyone should be ashamed of themselves for even trying is kind of whiny. If someone's at least trying, throw them a bone. Emphasise the benefits of what they're doing, so that other people can follow the right idea, rather than just give up and go back to status quo.
It's also a whole lot easier to point out problems than it is to propose solutions. There are so many of the above-mentioned opinionated people who're great (give or take some sarcasm) at pointing out the problems, but don't even get to the point of asking for a solution, let alone suggesting one.
Bottom line, if a problem can't be solves in one, big swoop, you need smaller steps. Take them, and don't whine if people aren't stretching their legs too much. More carrot, less stick.
edited 2nd Mar '14 3:10:19 PM by AnotherDuck
Check out my fanfiction!Nope, the correct method is to stop whining that people point out your stuff might have a flaw. Media creators are usually adults, they can handle a little criticism. You don't need to "throw them a bone". Doing that only reinforces the idea that something is only problematic if it is extremely bad.
Don't dismiss gender issues just because there not readily apparent to you. Yeah their are ridiculous overreactions like people objecting that not all heroines are flat chested, but that doesn't make Lara Croft's constant objectification not problematic.
edited 2nd Mar '14 3:16:28 PM by Wildcard
I don't recall that being the specific thing that I asked or said. Also, I have a problem whenever anyone says something is "simple as that" in a social justice conversation. Because nothing is ever that simple, and the fact that they assume it is is part of the problem.
For example, a patriarchy is a gender bias. A gender bias is not always a patriarchal. Within the context of Women's Issues, however, we cannot discuss one without discussing the other.
So in other words, you have a problem with it because of things I never said and because of more incorrect understanding of patriarchy as a whole. Okay. We seem to have cleared that up.
Such as Duck. Who flat out said that he doesn't take the term seriously anymore because of it. So instead of actually talking about real patriarchal problems, we're wasting time debating the definition. With people such he, and yourself, using definitions of patriarchy that no one in this thread has used.
Such as?
There is no "or". As I said, I have used other words instead of "patriarchy", and the same people who oppose the latter terms tend to oppose the alternatives. That isn't the say you are doing that, or will, but for any social justice conversation to get started, you have to understand that SJ terms change and grow over time as new forms of oppression appear or are noticed. Using a new word is fine, but it's useless if the people arguing against it are dismissing the idea out of hand regardless of definition.
edited 2nd Mar '14 3:51:11 PM by KingZeal
![]()
I'm not saying you should dismiss problems because there are bigger ones. I'm saying you shouldn't dismiss improvements because they're not perfect.
What does the phrase, "readily available to you," refer to? Not what I wrote, at any rate.
@Zeal: Do not misrepresent what I think based on your misunderstandings. Do not argue what my position is, because you do not understand it.
Check out my fanfiction!You asked "Why?" when presented with a demand that you shouldn't treat patriarchy and gender bias as interchangable.
Is patriarchy relevant in a discussion about women's issue? Absolutely. Should it be the only thing being discussed at the detriment of other issues? I think not, especially not when there is disagreement over the origins and effects of it.
I have problems with the usage of the term patriarchy as the be all, end all cause of everything that is wrong with treatment of gender because that has certain implications, if you want that or not. You haven't really cleared anything up, just excused your usage of the term with assumptions we don't agree on.
Duck said that he doesn't agree on the terminology. That he doesn't agree on the ideas behind it is your, very negative and dismissive, interpretation. And you could just as easily end the discussion by agreeing that we should use a different term. Don't put the entire blame on the side you're not on, especially when I just gave you an explanation as to why the term is off-putting to a lot of people.
It places all the blame on men (OK, not as strong as patriarchy but it's still there) and thus makes it easy to turn it into an us vs them discussion.
![]()
If I misrepresented it, say where. Or don't, if you don't feel like it.
But if you choose not to, then I'm going to use what you've said in the topic proper to form arguments if it fits the context.
Okay? Again...so?
Detriment of what other issues?
So once again, you have a problem with the term based on arguments no one has made.
To my knowledge, I didn't say anything about him "disagreeing with the ideas behind it." Where did you get that from? Please quote me.
He, however, has said that he "doesn't take the term seriously" because of how often it's "misused". Which, again, means that we have to waste time on a definition rather than actually talking about the issues affected by the thing we should be discussing.
And as I said, the term is "off-putting" to people thus far for the reasons of either misunderstandings of the term, or prior misuse that has colored perception.
No it doesn't. Again, you are arguing things no one has said and completely misunderstanding what the term means.
As I said before, it doesn't matter what word we choose to call it, because every word will have the same opposition as "patriarchy".
edited 2nd Mar '14 4:11:40 PM by KingZeal
I kinda found this interesting.
I have done time in the same trenches as the author, and I've seen all the shit she talks about...Hell, as a security guard I drove some "random drunk broken girls" home and had some insane adventures because of it. Most - fuck, ALL- of those adventures weren't the fun kind. Suffice it to say I want to shake the author's hand as being totally right.
why I post this; I'm curious to know how people into feminism would react to it, and how they'd put this lady's words into the wider context of achieving feminine empowerment.
I can vouch for this kind of shit totally happening in the bar scene, but I'm wondering what it means.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~So, you now have your question answered. And then pretended, for some reason, that you never asked the question in the first place. What do you want now?
Everything that isn't "men in leadership roles".
I asked you "who does [dismiss the terminology do so to dismiss the entire idea]?" You're answer was "such as duck".
So you don't think any fault falls on the people who misused the term and that it is important to establish a fair dialogue in the first place?
Everybody acknowledges that partriarchy is used as a shorthand for systematic gender bias. Nobody is misunderstanding the term, we just disagree that it should be used in such a way. Annother reason for not using it is also that it's used specifically for a situation where men are in positions of power. If we want to talk about this specifically, without the additional baggage feminists have added to the term, we don't have a specific term for that anymore.
As I said before, it doesn't matter what word we choose to call it, because every word will have the same opposition as "patriarchy".
How do you know people wouldn't accept any term when you never tried to use an un-biased one? I am very willing to call it "gender-binary", because who will disagree that the problem arises from treating men and women differently solely on the basis of their genitals? But your terms tend to refer to very specific problems, such as the male role of the leader.
![]()
My interpretation of that is basically that she asks women to take responsibility and stop leaning on others all the time if they want to be respected. That she's willing to help out if you need it, but that they should step up to the plate and do their part too. And stop playing the victim.
That kind of is the basis for gaining respect no matter what gender you are. It's what men are taught their entire lives, and behaviour like what she described is why many men don't respect women whether they deserve it or not.
Check out my fanfiction!Haha! I love that post! She's also railed into guys too so that is just due course.
Calling people out is needed to get people and those around them to examine their behavior and others just to be aware and make better judgments.
I'm all for it.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurWhat are you talking about?
Be more specific.
Yes. Not taking something seriously is "dimissing" it. "Dismissing" is not the same thing as "disagreeing".
What does that even mean? The people misusing the term weren't in this conversation, so why are they important? No one in this topic, from what I can tell, has used it that way. Again, why are we wasting time on things that aren't even being said?
Annother reason for not using it is also that it's used specifically for a situation where men are in positions of power.
Gender-binary means something completely unrelated to what we're talking about. Gender binary is the assumption that men and women are opposite spheres and that there are clear and distinct lines between masculinity and femininity.
What we're discussing is a more specific problem: the glorification of masculine virtues in opposition to feminine ones. As I said before, both patriarchy and androcentrism essentially mean that masculinity is considered the central or prioritized gender value. Again, it not only creates the assumption that Men Are Tough, but that men should be tough, and if you aren't, then you're a pussy, a fag, a wimp, etc, etc. It also creates the assumption that men should be breadwinners, do all manual labor themselves, should ignore pain or harm, and that any man who fails to live up to these standards is unworthy of help or brought it upon themselves.
If you want to make up a new word for that, be my guest. I honestly don't care what you call it.
How do you know people wouldn't accept any term when you never tried to use an un-biased one? I am very willing to call it "gender-binary", because who will disagree that the problem arises from treating men and women differently solely on the basis of their genitals? But your terms tend to refer to very specific problems, such as the male role of the leader.
Yes we do. It's called "androcentrism". A term you rejected.
edited 5th Mar '14 7:11:16 AM by KingZeal
On that we simply have diverging opinions. Men who follow masculine ideals are seen as good, just as women who follow feminine ideals. And even then, patriarchy isn't the term for that. Androcentrism would work.
You're also a bit late with claiming that you never talked about gender bias in general. This whole discussion started when you used patriarchy interchangable with gender bias and you never said until now that you weren't talking about the topic in a non-general manner.
Anyway, I'm done with this discussion for now.
Again, androcentrism is not just "men should be masculine". It's also the assumption that masculinity is the default, or most important, virtue and should be catered to. For example, media producers ignoring a female audience under the assumption that only men like their works or have the money to pay for them, which in turn is also related to the exclusion of women from jobs or practices that grant social mobility, which in turn is related to the assumption that femininity is associated with prettiness while masculinity is associated with power or practicality.
Both men and women make these assumptions, so blame isn't a factor, and both genders suffer for it.
edited 5th Mar '14 7:51:21 AM by KingZeal
You can Rage Quit if you feel like it, but please don't point fingers at me and then outright call me a liar.
Your response to the term "patriarchy", from the beginning of this conversation, has hardly been about discussing the term as it was being used. Instead, in your own words, you said that it's been misused by self-appointed feminists that it's lost all meaning, and it's why you hesitate to call yourself a feminist.
Based on the context of what you said, not taking it seriously is equivalent to dismissing it.
edited 5th Mar '14 8:04:11 AM by KingZeal
@Duck, Zeal & Mastah: Jesus, you three need to get a room.
@thread: I ran across this article the other day.
I think it is right on target. What say the rest of you?
Nah, that post's pretty legit - it's the whole reason the third wave of feminism kicked in, because the second wave was too narrowly geared to the experiences of white middle-class women and assumed that what worked for them worked for everyone else. It's why there's less emphasis in international feminism these days on charging in and saving women and teaching them The Right Ways, and more on checking for grassroots feminist movements in the relevant countries and cultures, seeing what they want to happen, and then funding the hell out of them.
What's precedent ever done for us?
