Why do women blame men's issues on the patriarchy?

Why do women blame men's issues on the patriarchy?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Nonviolent_Coordinating_Committee
loonybird.com/schools_leftist.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs
money.cnn.com/2016/08/03/technology/credit-card-chips-flaw/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

define "the patriarchy" objectively.

the same reason the church blames satan, they need someone to blame

Red pill: Student_Nonviolent_Coordinating_Committee expelled the whites in 1966, but before becoming violent, helped create separatist groups (Feminist, La Raza, Southern poverty Law). Black Lives Matter is the resurrection of SNCC, supported by its founding separatist groups. Verify by visiting SNCC's wiki page. Sheriff Clarke was right.
A sign of abuse is when your attacker claims you made them abuse you so you deserve to be controlled. These groups don't represent anyone but justifying their own pro-abusive lifestyles. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Nonviolent_Coordinating_Committee

Because they're so used to being constantly pitied and coddled, that when people focus on men for one second the throw a tantrum like spoiled brats.

Also, there is absolutley no validity to the claim that men's issues are caused by the patriarchy. Notice how literally every think mentioned in that post is promoted entirely by women. It's just an excuse for them to make men's issues all about themselves.

loonybird.com/schools_leftist.htm

entitlement, class warfare, ect.

Because women are incapable of accepting responsibility for anything.

Why did Chad give you the toilet flush? Why did he fuck your crush? Why did it make you sad? Why do you feel insecure about your virginity, your wage, and your performance at just about anything? Why has your dad used to call you a little bitch when you cried? Why do you have to be scared to get beat up and robbed by other men when you are alone at night? It's all about hierarchy. It's patriarchy.

You realize that women are socialized into being sexuall attracted to those shitty traits in men or considering them normal because of patriarchy? Why do you think women stay in abusive relationships with violent cunts? I doubt they would do it if they thought it through. Face it, in patriarchy everyone is hurting themselves by considering shitty behaviour normal.

>women have absolutely no power or agency

that's third wave feminism for ya!

You know the concept of internalized sexism? Most feminists who have actually read stuff will admit that women are reproducing patriarchy too. Patriarchy isn't a myth about men deciding how to opress women, it's a social structure, produced by all members of a society, in which men are the dominant gender.

Yeah I've heard all the bullshit before. Keep telling me how the double standards held against men are because of the "patriarchy", which is supposedly a system designed to benefit men.

gonna add some more, you feminists are so full of shit

>patriarchy says men are monsters incapable of controlling themselves, not feminists!
>that's why we need to teach men not to rape!

It's not. It's a social structure in which men are the dominant gender. There are forms of opression experienced by men that are not experienced by women (usually), but in general men are less oppressed, which you can't deny if you look at how men are dominant in most relevant fields.

>patriarchy says men should be emotionless bastards!
>I DRINK MALE TEARS LOL YASSS

fuck. off.

>fuck. off.

No dog in the fight for me, really. I'd like to remind you that your claim does rely on the assumption (that I neither support nor reject) that females and males within a population (the US in this case) are completely equal in terms of average capability, demeanor, and eptitude.

Generally this is where the insurmountable impasse occurs between these two groups; the presence or lack of that assumption.

All women are prone to fantasy--it's more inclusive than the truth because it doesn't have any rules.

That's not even an argument. "Teach men not to rape." is a response to victim shaming, which is proven to be a real thing. It's not a general accusation of all men being rapists, but a hyperbole that is supposed to shed light on the fact that we still are a culture that does barbaric things such as blame rape victims because they dressed immodestly (you know why muslims invented the burqa right?). Do actually have arguments against a strong feminist argument or just against the weak strawman that the degenerate alt-righ has constructed?

Explain to me the oppression of the average Western women.

I'd like to add something funny. You can understand sociology and still be a right winger. It's easy. You can aknowledge that there is such a thing as patriarchy and that it indeed is a social construct, and still be a right winger by arguing that this is the best social construct. Respectable right wing arguments actually do this. They aren't anti-academic drivel. And every intelligent person knows that arguments against the weakest representation of a theory are the easiest way to disprove yourself. If you argue against something you take it seriously.

You are not thinking far enough. Inequality in individuals arises from their position in social hierarchies. That's why kids of poor parents perform worse on IQ tests for example.

I could, but you would just deny it, so let us do it like this: I will name a form of opression experienced by women and you tell me your argument of why it really isn't oppression.

So first example: Women are expected to play a submissive role to men and generally assumed to be less competent. Keep in mind you can argue that this is the way it should be and that the social construction of a gender equal society is in reality worse to patriarchy, and that would be a position you can argue for like a respectable person rather than denying social realities.

Kek, you're so full of shit.
>rape still happens

By the way have you noticed how opponents of feminism usually reproduce sexism a lot? Again: you can argue it should be that way because a society in which women are submissive to men is the one that functions the best. If those men didn't subconciously know that it's just social constructions, they wouldnt feel the need to reproduce them.

Also I don't know why I'm teaching right wingers how to strenghten their position.

>Inequality in individuals arises from their position in social hierarchies. That's why kids of poor parents perform worse on IQ tests for example.
This is extremely controversial. I know you wish to believe otherwise, but reality does not always conform to your wishes.
>Women are expected to play a submissive role to men and generally assumed to be less competent.
That is because they, generally speaking, are less competent. Morever, why must you use such stilted language?
>people have a bad opinion of me, that's oppression
Meanwhile I could name a million social advantages that women have.

>Women are expected to play a submissive role to men and generally assumed to be less competent.

Yeah these are called gender roles. For every double standard held against women there is a sort of reverse one held against men. How does this constitute oppression?

It's a scapegoat used by feminists to remove all responsibility from their problems

Let me add that these gender roles did not arise because of some nebulous "patriarchy", but rather just natural human behavior and heuristics.

Am I not thinking far enough? I'm well-versed in things like this. I'm a fucking pseudo-science major, for Christ's sake.

I'd like to ask you if you'd be willing to make some form of concession.

I'm willing to concede that "social constructs" do exist and aren't to be classified wholesale as a leftist buzzword used for nefarious ends.

I'm also willing to concede that, historically, there has even been something that could be entitled "patriarchy".

Are you willing to concede that males and females may not be entirely equal on all facets of competence, demeanour, and eptitude?

Furthermore, I'd like to ask you what tangible measures that the federal government should take to rectify or mitigate this unsavory situation that you claim to be reality?

Denying that the position one has in hierarchy influence the competence and skills one acquires is illogical as it goes against well established facts of psychological and medical research. Women are less competent because they are raised that way. Again you could defend your position better if you accepted this and said that it should be that way. The very behaviour of people proves that right, if you observe how children are raised you will notice that the gender roles have to be enforced. Also if you look at history you will see lot's of actual change in gender roles over time which proves it a malleable social construct.
Feminism btw does not want women to have advantages that men don't. Radical queer-feminism for instance, calls for the total deconstruction of gender if thought to it's logical conclusion.
>Morever, why must you use such stilted language?
Because I'm not a native speaker and know my english mostly from literature. I don't get to talk to native speakers a lot.

>Are you willing to concede that males and females may not be entirely equal on all facets of competence, demeanour, and eptitude?

Yes, but I hold the position that this is caused by social structure to the largest part.

You are forgetting that other things influence societies, and that societies influence themselves, and each other and whatever. It's no jewish conspiracy that sociology has been a respectable field for decades. If you want, I can post the names of some conservative sociologists.

>Denying that the position one has in hierarchy influence the competence and skills one acquires is illogical as it goes against well established facts of psychological and medical research.
Not really.
>Women are less competent because they are raised that way.
How can you raise anyone to be bad at chess or overly emotional? You think the street urchins of centuries past, like Dickens or Gorky, were shaped by better environments?
> The very behaviour of people proves that right, if you observe how children are raised you will notice that the gender roles have to be enforced. Also if you look at history you will see lot's of actual change in gender roles over time which proves it a malleable social construct.
What surprises me about history is the extreme degree of similarity between gender roles. You'll find similar positions from Europe to India.
Of course, some primitive communities were matriarchal.
>Because I'm not a native speaker and know my english mostly from literature
That is not what I meant. American marxists and feminists also do this. The word "oppression" for simple social norms, for example. It sounds like the sort of readily assimilable terminology given out in university courses. I do believe that we can improve the position of women in society, but it doesn't help anyone to call girlishness "oppression."

Social structure has little to nothing to do with it, it's mostly down to sexual dimorphism. Society is originally influenced by nature, why do you think things ended up the way they did in the first place

>Doesn't mention circumcision
>Doesn't mention alimony and child support
>Doesn't mention parental rights
fucking useless.

>You are forgetting that other things influence societies, and that societies influence themselves, and each other and whatever.

Are we going to get into Nature vs Nurture now? Cause that's more or less where I'm coming from. A lot of this "social construct" stuff is just a way of abstracting the most basic parts of human nature -- in this case the fact that we are a sexually dimorphic species.

>Also if you look at history you will see lot's of actual change in gender roles over time which proves it a malleable social construct.

Can you give me some examples to work with here?


>
I'd still like you to explain how any of this constitutes oppression.

So lads what is the objective analysis of this Patriarchy concept?

As far as I can understand it's a system a bunch of civilizations have come up with to ensure high fertility rates and social cohesion. The left doesn't like it because it usually oppresses women in some way or another. When they get rid of it, society tends to fall apart, but for a while everyone can do whatever the fuck they want, which is sort of fun.

Morally, or practically, or whatever, what are the implications of this, and what am I missing here

I can give a very concrete example: The number of female gamers has grown in the past years, while in the earlier years it was a boys things. Because it was considered a boys, girls didn't have an interested in it because they are thaught to like what's considered girl things. Naturally, a human doesn't want to break social code. Apply this thinking to things like mathematics or chess, both of which has been men's stuff for long time.

The similarity of gender roles, I grant that, do arise partially from biological differences and their influence on the early gender roles. Tthink about how easy a primitive person might have assumed sperm is actually the only seed and a womans womb is just where it grows, so it is the woman who bears the child made by man or how men are physically stronger and thus seen as the better choice for warfare. But I also think that the development of technology makes these roles obsolete. Matriarchal communities, just by the way, are also opressive, just not as big a problem.

And yes, I guess "opression" is a term mostly used by marxist and feminist scholars, but it is needed, as it describes very specific social norms.

So the women who glare at me like I'm a sex offender are men's fault? That's what she said.

>patriarchy is when men are the dominant gender
Do you differentiate dominance from "privilege", or do you equate them?

I rather be stoic than some faggot who cries over dumb shit.

Listen, women talk about how they care that men can't cry, but do you honestly see any woman want to date a man that cries at the same shit women do?
Women want to shape and mold men into being feminists, but do you see them date the same men that they helped create?

>gender roles are learned and have to be enforced
If we assume this to be true, why do you think that this is the case?

OP left, but in case ze returns, can you specifically determine what constitutes "oppression" in your worldview?

None of those points are to do with the patriarchy

It's how the genders evolved

She does not care about mens issues

Women only care if a son or possibly husband is effected

A female who considers male issues in an abstract sense, is not mentally healthy; females who don't put themselves first damage their genetic legacy

Technology is key. What removes mankind from the mercy of nature is it's astounding capacity to invent and refine tools to an extent that nature can be rewritten. Look around you: nothing is natural in the original sense of the term.

>Can you give me some examples to work with here?
Pants on women. Pink t-shirts worn by Chad. Single fathers. The very existance of those things proves me right. You can only argue about wether they should or should not be.

>I'd still like you to explain how any of this constitutes oppression.

I guess the most basic explanation would be the submisiveness to men. It just doesn't feel good to be in a lower place in social hierarchy.

Technology. Think of technology. It will make those traditional ways of lives obsolete (just as the discovery of agriculture has made hunter gatherer societies obsolete). Man constantly finds ways to make nature his bitch other than the other way around, and that's why eventually the world will be there solely for humans.

Women's attraction to men is more complicated than just stereotypical masculinity. Yes they like confident men, but everybody likes confidence, it just makes all social situations better. I've noticed in my attempts to get girls that what they like more than anything is to feel excited in some way, or intrigued, emotionally stimulated I guess. This is not really so different than men, it's just men are stimulated usuallly simply by beauty, and while women are too, it is easier to find other ways to do so than with men.

Feminist men are just a problem because inherent in the ideology is a repression of a large portion of themselves, which is the violent part, and any kind of claim to authority. Both women and men need to express violence in some way, and men usually more so than women, and repressing that creates a host of psychological problems.

But it certainly isn't as simple as crying or showing emotion.

I feel bad for you.

Really really bad for you.

Yeah I'm with you on technology being very important, but on the other hand the similarities between late Rome or Baghdad and the current metropolises in the West are too striking when you consider the vast change in technology between those periods.

Unless the industrial revolution truly ruptured the fabric of human history, which it is too early to say, (and of course the singularity if that ends up being a thing), then the best models we have of human behavior are still the great civilizations, with their life cycles, and the comparison of them to more tribal living.

What she calls patriarchy is a matriarchy

The "anglo saxon" nations especially are very female-centric

It's primarily about advanced safe societies

Patriarchy was ancient Greece and Rome before the decline; romantic love between man & woman was a laughable concept

That changed with Christianity and feudalism

...

where are you getting these theories from, or are they your own? also elaborate if you will

Source on romance in ancient rome?

I differentiate it. Dominance is the general position of the male gender. Priviledge is where concrete forms of opression don't apply, an example would be the right to act more freely. Think about how people would react to a female Trump. My guess, is Donalda Trump would be called an annoying bitches. So that's one form of priviledge, when your gender allows you to behave more like you want to.

Because historically, it's what created societies successfull at spreading, thereby spreading it's social structure too. Kinda like meme evolution, but technology has a huge influence.

Opression is when members of a certain demographic experience negative things that solely or mostly happens to that demographic because of it's position in society.

Technology only goes so far

Yes we are maladapted as a species to many aspects of the modern world

But consider that human females will always seek high status male partners. Even a woman who can meet all her material needs singlehandedly in a technological society, seeks a mate. Even if she lives in gated community with 24/7 security.

>What removes mankind from the mercy of nature is it's astounding capacity to invent and refine tools to an extent that nature can be rewritten.

How arrogant, man will always be at the mercy of nature. We are part of nature.

>pants on women. Pink t-shirts worn by Chad. Single fathers. The very existance of those things proves me right. You can only argue about whether they should or should not be.

I don't know about you, but every society I can think of, both now and throughout history, follows the basic gender dynamic of: male=dominant/expendable female=submissive/valuable
There is minor variance but never an absence or reversal of this these roles. This basic part of human nature, sexual dimorphism, is supported by the most basic evolutionary theory.

For something to be a social construct, I would imagine it would have to vary between cultures, correct? This absolutely does not seem to be the case with gender roles.

These are some pretty pathetic examples. Fashion, really? Of course that changes from generation to generation. Single fathers? I don't understand your point here, there have always been kids with absent parents, for some reason or another.

Yes, I think with the current level of tech there can't be complete equality, but we are working towards it. It's looking good though, when you can literally create organisms in a lab or print out organs.

Because everything is the fault of men. And this is because women have no power. None, not even a small bit as mothers. We men are on control, all the time, no exceptions.

The answer of course is to hate men until they change themselves. Even men should hate men as self-loathing encourages empathy and discourages sadism. Hate men and all will change. Chad will change, too.

jews

Wait what you want complete equality? what does that even mean, nothing in the world is equal, it is inherently hierarchical, and everything is different from each other, how could it be equal?

> We are part of nature.
Precisely the reason we can shape it so much.

>For something to be a social construct, I would imagine it would have to vary between cultures, correct?

No there is something about the very basic structure of how humans are as an organism that has led to similar socially constructed entities develope independently. Kingdoms, marriages, slavery, money, gender roles are all social constructs that develope out of neccessity. Then they create societies which develope new techniques which in turn influence the constructs back.

>Single fathers?
Sorry, I meant that it has become more acceptable for men to be the main caretakers.

Think of the implications of advanced biotechnology. Sex becomes meaningless when you have the possibility to programm an organism on a computer and print out it's fetus. (DNA printers are an actual thing already)
Transhumanism will probably be the logical conclusion of what we can do with technology, and you can hopefully see how that will eradicate gender roles. I suppose that's not all that great though, as it makes economic opression even worse. Likely class difference will be the last form of opression to go.

Yikes. A technofeminist. Almost as bad as ecofeminists.

But why would oppression ever leave? Isnt inequality just a basic fact of reality, why do you think we're above that. The very fabric of reality is hierarchical

>Kingdoms, marriages, slavery, money, gender roles are all social constructs that develope out of neccessity.

Kingdoms, marriage, slavery, money, all things that vary between cultures. I think it still stands that gender roles do not, and have never, shown any significant variance.

I think I'll probably call it here. This seems to be the most fundamental difference between conservative minded people and leftists. One respects human nature for what it is, and the other sees human nature as something we can mold into whatever we'd like it to be.

Gender roles will disappear if women either disappear or stop being inferior to men.

Kek, you're right, ecofeminism is worse.

>The very fabric of reality is hierarchical
What do you mean with that?

No all those things don't vary significantly. Sure they can take different roles but still be the same at the core since they derive out of physical neccessity. Humans beings social animals = kingdoms, Men need heirs = marriage, biological sex = gender roles and so on

>This seems to be the most fundamental difference between conservative minded people and leftists.
Not neccessary, for example, when you have a worldview influenced by Hobbe's Leviathan, you can be a conservative who thinks man is a wild beast that has to be tamed by civilization. On the other hand you could be a marxist who argues that dialectical materialism arises from the very nature of humans by which they create tools.

They can take different forms, I meant

>colors, pants
Nice straw man you have there.
Differences in risk taking habits between men and women are well documented and have not demonstrably changed through history.

Furthermore the very concept of laws and order, the rules and regulations so necessary in modern society, is entirely a patriarchal construct. Women ruled societies, meaning consistently female centered and not a woman temporarily holding power in a succession of predominately male leaders or women tasked with taking care of the home while the men are away fishing, fail to formalize the morals and ethics of society thus limiting technological and economic progress, if you can call it that. The matriarchies of history are really just matrilineal societies. You will also notice that such societies are also utterly powerless to keep their men from leaving as they so overwhelmingly do once capitalism arrives at the doorstep. Only the weak stay behind. Men in such societies are even less involved with child rearing than under actual full patriarchies. The women seem utterly averse to using physical force against men to control them. Even the Igbo revolt petered out after a few months since women lack the intensity and thus the psychoses of men.

To expand what my personal position is. I think human nature can be molded, but not to whatever we like, rather to what becomes neccessary due to how the world works.

I mean nothing in reality is equal. It is always something forcing something else because it is more powerful, larger, whatever. What would equality even mean, I mean I understand equality as in like 'treat everyone the same in the legal system' or something like that. But people will never be equal, how could that even possibly happen. It would be like every tree in a forest being exactly the same.

Feminists consider literally every aspect of our society to be the patriarchy. Men control everything. Therefore, if there is any problem, it's men's fault in some way.

The ONLY aspect of society that they consider outside of this destructive oppressive force is post-modern feminism. The only way to not be "problematic" is to see the light that is 3rd wave feminism, and submit to the ideology with unquestioning faithfulness.

Feminists have a lot in common with religions in that sense. The common psychology could help explain why they are bizarrely pro-muslim.

And while they prescribe everything negative to the patriarchy, they completely ignore the positives. Literally every aspect of their life is enabled by this so-called patriarchy.

Men are in power because they create power. Men invented cars, planes and light bulbs. These women seem to forget that their cushy lives are completely enabled by men.

>Differences in risk taking habits between men and women are well documented and have not demonstrably changed through history.
I'm not even going to deny that this might be due to biological differences, because that's beside my point.

If you can prove all those bad things are not due to socialized gender roles and and can't be overcome with technology, I will concede that patriarchy is neccessary.

Sure. Every life has the same potential. BUT, certain things will always be easier for some than for other. More precisely, efficiency and readiness of application matter as much for us ugly bags of mostly water as for unfeeling computers as both must obey the laws of physics in the end. No free college for all.

I understand equality is a society free of hierarchy. Since hierarchy is a social thing, the forces of nature are not really part of it, even though they most likely influenced the neccessary developement of hierarchies in the past.

>No all those things don't vary significantly. Sure they can take different roles but still be the same at the core since they derive out of physical neccessity. Humans beings social animals = kingdoms, Men need heirs = marriage, biological sex = gender roles and so on

Kingdoms vary. Western nations are democracies, Arab nations are theocracies, others monarchies, dictatorships, etc.

Marriage varies. In Western countries, gays are allowed to marry. In other countries they aren't, or polygamous marriage is allowed, etc.

Slavery varies. Obviously some countries have slavery, some don't. There are different kinds of slavery -- indentured servitude, chattel slavery, economic slavery etc.

There are not different kinds of gender roles, there just are gender roles. Every civilization has some form of the classic gender roles, men dominant/expendable, women submissive/valuable. In the West, you have gender roles. In the middle east you have the same. In east Asian countries you have the same. In Africa you have the same. In south america you have the same. In the Roman empire you had the same. Ancient Greeks had the same. In the Ottoman empire you had the same. Etc

Free college for all will have to become a neccessity as unskilled labour becomes automatized, and human labour increasingly demanding and specialized.

And a hierarchy less society is phsyically possible, I don't see why not.

But everything is hierarchical, a quark is a part of an atom is a part of a molecule, is a part of a crystal, or a DNA thread, is a part of a cell, is a part of etc.

Everything is hierarchical that is how things work, why would society be different, how could it

Did she just say stoicism is bad? No wonder feminism sucks lel

I don't think patriarchy is necessary and that's not my argument. The risk taking is well documented with no evidence of women going on risky overly optimistic voyages across the sea in rickety sailboats, for instance. Optimism is linked to testosterone and to psychopathy, both of which are more common among men. Psychopathy and nearness to it yields greater confidence, thus risk taking. No, this isn't everything, but it is not good news for equality either. Whether they are "good" or "bad" is besides the point. Evolutionary success, still relevant even today, depends upon fitness within ones habitat. Good and bad as far as genes are concerned is thus highly relative.

Anyway the point about rule is that if men and women are radically equal, why are there not matriarchal societies in the way that there are patriarchal societies? Joss Whedon's conspiracy theory about all men agreeing to oppress women while fighting over literally everything else is historical nonsense.

For any human regardless of gender, living stoically is a virtue.

Men, particularly in the western world, are obviously perfectly capable of curbing their libidos. Something which is supremely encouraged by society, certainly not put in the hopelessly too hard basket.

Men can't be raped by women. Maybe a little boy can, and maybe that can have a negative affect on a weak mind.
But regardless of this, women can still be - and are - charged with rape.

Ontologically, these are superficial differences. As I said, the core is the same. Gender roles vary in the same way. The variation you described are differences in how, not what. If you apply the same to gender roles the differences would be tools to perform housework, different techniques of raising children, or producing food and clothing.

Firstly: It is spelt aptitude, not eptitude.

Secondly: Aptitude and Capability are synonyms.

>you can cry, user. I'll totally keep respecting and supporting you
Is feminism one big shit test?
If so, the white man failed.

Janitorial services are on the rise. Agriculture away from cash crops is still highly dependent upon manual labor. Even picking tomatoes is too hard for our engineers given readily available technology. This automation forecast -which incidentally stretches very far into the patriarchal past of Western European society -may well be one of the overly optimistic visions of the mad men.

A flat level society? Temporary elevation of authority through democratic means will still be necessary for some time. But even this seems extremely unlikely with the limits on resources on this planet. If we somehow dodge global warming we will need to put out an absolutely herculean effort to realise a real space age, or at least get a fusion reactor commercially viable.

And, should we fall into another dark age, it will probably be a warlords world, and thus a strongman's world, again. More amazons this time, but that kind of activity makes child bearing difficult. And men still have an advantage in muscle growth, though this is not behavioural.

Societies, while obeying physical laws, are bound like particles, atoms, and molecules to always work the same way.

Yes gender roles were originally caused by sexual dismorphism. You can also probably have a statistical likelyness of men to be one way and woman the other. But this doesn't justify opression, and can be overcome through technology.
>conspiracy theory about all men agreeing to oppress women while fighting over literally everything else is historical nonsense
Yes I said this above already. Thats not what patriarchy is, it's what alt-righters and some crazy pseudo-feminists think it is.

>For any human regardless of gender, living stoically is a virtue.
Yes, in fact I think it might even be a problem when men don't do that.

>Men can't be raped by women.
Wrong, imagine you get drugged against your will and have a woman perform sexual acts on you. Maybe you have that fantasy, but surely there must be at least one woman you would never want to have sex with?

No need for discussion. Just watch this. youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs

/thread

They're just regurgitating what they learned in 'higher education'. Pay them and their worthless, strawman, non-argument opinions no mind.

anyone who wastes time arguing with feminists or taking them seriously should be hang

>female ((((gamers))))

I think I've made my case. The differences I was outlining were not in any way superficial as you are suggesting.

The difference between slavery and the absence of slavery or economic slavery is superficial in the same way fashion trends and technological advances in housework are? And since when are stay at home dads accepted? They're not.

There are stories about men who end up dating girls they meet online. Only to be ambushed by said girl and a couple of her male friends. After being drugged or beaten they are tied up to a chair and are abused and played with.

There was a bunch of articles about several cases like i mentioned in norwegian newspapers but i can't be assed to look them up right now as i gotta go to work in 10.

But yeah. I would not like to have sex with some STD or aids ridden whore against my will. I agree you can get raped as a man. Not likely against a single female. But if you're drugged then god knows.

Also, female domination in kindergartens are bad. Female workers in kindergartens get away with child molestation much easier than male kindergarten workers because "women can't be pedophiles/rapists" meme.

t. male nurse with experience from kindergarten and female dominated workplaces in general.

The patriarchy IS structured hierarchical civilisation.
Destroying the patriarchy is basically destroying the whole system
Its the equivalebt of communism destroying capitalism

>Yes I said this above already.
I doubt I've read all your posts. To be clear though, I'm not against equality, I'm just for realism, which is of course the best way to achieve technological equality. But the tech will enable new inequalities as well. Should IQ be fixed for everyone? IF so how will this be enforced? Technology will enable yet further advances, allowing some to move ahead of others at blisteringly high speeds. The moral problem of equality is even further out of reach than the tech itself as I see it. We're not necessarily good people from birth, or otherwise.

I suppose the big innovations will be biotechnology. Billions of years of evolution have proven organisms to be superior systems to anything that can be built out of metal. I suppose organic cells will be the main material of machines and they will be able to perform that delicate work. Here is an example how you could engineer a machine that is essentially an organism that performs a specific task.
>Have a database of genes and what they do
>Run an evolutionary simulation where you programmed the optimal performance of the task you want to get solved as the goal
>The simulation will spit out the perfect organism for that after processing enough
>Have the DNA printer print out a cell that will grow into said organism

Sound sci-fi as fuck, but all this technology is already avaible at a basic level, it's just a matter of time until it becomes sophisticated enough to perform what I described.
>

"these women seem to forget.."

A healthy normally functioning female -will not- be grateful for these modern conveniences or wonder how they arose or be curious as to how they work.

You expect something which is not in the power of women to grant.

Given our troubles to get even security chips and operating systems to work as intended, I shudder at the thought of the parade of missteps that may lie ahead.

money.cnn.com/2016/08/03/technology/credit-card-chips-flaw/

Slavery was perfectly normal everywhere at one point. It required a lot of effort to make it the taboo it is today. And the same can happen to gender roles, but yes you are right, it's not as superficial as argued that it is in this form. Stay at home dads are accepted by enough people. Certainly more than 50, 30 or even 10 years ago.

Yes, I'd argue that meme is part of patriarchy, as it's works only because we assume women are too weak or kind by nature to do such a thing, or biologically programmed to be good caregivers. >yfw when the red haired meme feminist was right

Yes you are right, highly advanced technology will certainly cause a lot of ethical issues, and we should certainly put thought into it even though. Philosophers are already applying the trolley problem to self driving cars, or thinking about the implications of biotechnology making death essentially into a choice.

...

meant to say "put thought into it even now"