Masculism

[harmless]

Having said that, 'Kyriarchy' is a useful update of the Patriarchy idea.

Wikipedia on Kyriarchy:
"In essence, all peoples are in some form or another 'oppressors' to some group of people while simultaneously being oppressed by some other group of people. In an effort to end their oppression, they increase the oppression they inflict, thus creating a vicious circle of sorts."


I would agree that is an accurate description of what is happening. Would you?

I can't agree without reading the page in full, as you've just pulled a para out of context. Having said that, no, I don't agree that this statement is an accurate description of what IS happening. But I do think it can happen if someone doesn't completely understand what they're doing in using either 'intersectionality' or 'Kyriarchy'. It's a model, something that needs researching and learning, which some people are just loathe to do for their own reasons, but mostly out of apathy. I think the 'vicious circle' argument is used to discredit intersectionality, usually by people who don't understand the way(s) in which the Kyriarchy is usually organised. There are certain generally-agreed patterns and dynamics of systemic oppression, and we can know this by looking at concrete evidence in culture. In essence, I don't think everything should be made simpler just because some in the heavily-funded mainstream would want it to be.

[harmless]

I've just read the Wiki page. It's a very short Wiki page, and too short to really do the subject justice. Having said that, I'm not sure how the last para (which you've quoted, and which seems to be a critique, not a summation, of the previous quotes) really relates to the rest of the page. It seems that the author has said "Here's a short quote by an intersectional thinker, but this is why it's all just a complicated mess that doesn't work." Which I do not agree with. Having said that, I may be wrong. It is Wikipedia after all, and anyone with any opinion on anything could've edited that page, even added that paragraph.

[harmless]

This page is much better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

[broken iris]

Having said that, 'Kyriarchy' is a useful update of the Patriarchy idea.

Wikipedia on Kyriarchy:
"In essence, all peoples are in some form or another 'oppressors' to some group of people while simultaneously being oppressed by some other group of people. In an effort to end their oppression, they increase the oppression they inflict, thus creating a vicious circle of sorts."


I would agree that is an accurate description of what is happening. Would you?

I can't agree without reading the page in full, as you've just pulled a para out of context. Having said that, no, I don't agree that this statement is an accurate description of what IS happening. But I do think it can happen if someone doesn't completely understand what they're doing in using either 'intersectionality' or 'Kyriarchy'. It's a model, something that needs researching and learning, which some people are just loathe to do for their own reasons, but mostly out of apathy. I think the 'vicious circle' argument is used to discredit intersectionality, usually by people who don't understand the way(s) in which the Kyriarchy is usually organised. There are certain generally-agreed patterns and dynamics of systemic oppression, and we can know this by looking at concrete evidence in culture. In essence, I don't think everything should be made simpler just because some in the heavily-funded mainstream would want it to be.

I dunno, seems pretty accurate to me. For example, Shias in Iran oppress Sunnis but in Saudi Arabia Shias are oppressed by the majority Sunni theology there, yet between the two nations in Iraq it's flipped back and forth, suggesting that the designation of oppressor v. the oppressed is continually changing and subject to localization and population/cultural shifts and these are examples of what are essentially monocultures. In diverse multicultural societies like the US, it would be difficult to find a culture or "class" that is not somehow oppressed by another one. Thus one could suggest the unstated goal of Intersectionality is the creation of an alliance within oppressed classes (everyone but the group designated as "the devil") because that grants them more power than fighting for their share of privilege on their own and allows them to dismiss others arguments because the hydra-like chimera they have created is in effect more oppressed than any single group or class suffering from oppression by itself.

[harmless]

I'm not surprised it seems accurate to you. My feeling is that it might hold the key to better equality; I'm not asking you to agree with me, and I won't be surprised if you don't. But no, I don't agree that it's every group fighting for their own ends. That's the cartoon version. Decent intersectional writers will always consider how their own fight for equality bears upon and impacts others, that's the whole point. So in essence, minority oppressed groups find common ground and learn to interact with more care and nuance and knowledge of one another's impact. I see little issue with that. I can't speak for Iraqis or Shiites in Saudi Arabia, you'd have to ask them what they think. (Again, that's the point; intersectional thinkers from those places and religions are already thinking about Intersectionality, we need to learn from them and not make pronouncements from a white Western perspective.)

[harmless]

My experience of people who undermine and critique intersectionality is that they tend to always want to identify 'others' in order to do it, because only social 'others' use it, so it can be dismissed outright.

[harmless]

Three interesting tweets from Bridget Minamore:

Bridget Minamore ‏@bridgetminamore 5m
[TW] So, why do more men die at their own hands than women? Men tend to use more violent, quicker methods eg hanging. Women? Overdoses etc.

Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Bridget Minamore ‏@bridgetminamore 4m
…basically, men tend to use methods that give them less time to be saved. & that makes me sadder than simply 'men kill themselves more'.

Bridget Minamore ‏@bridgetminamore 4m
I mean, patriarchy is so entrenched into our consciousness that men use more violent methods even when it comes to committing suicide? Wow.

[surfndestroy]

Three interesting tweets from Bridget Minamore:

Bridget Minamore ‏@bridgetminamore 5m
[TW] So, why do more men die at their own hands than women? Men tend to use more violent, quicker methods eg hanging. Women? Overdoses etc.

Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Bridget Minamore ‏@bridgetminamore 4m
…basically, men tend to use methods that give them less time to be saved. & that makes me sadder than simply 'men kill themselves more'.

Bridget Minamore ‏@bridgetminamore 4m
I mean, patriarchy is so entrenched into our consciousness that men use more violent methods even when it comes to committing suicide? Wow.

I find these to be micro-agression attacks on men. She had no experience being a man, so she should just be quite and listen to men and their experience. She can't even take a moment and be concerned for the mental health of the victims but instead points to an unsubstantiated cause.

[harmless]

[BurtReynolds]

zup, bro-sefs. Alex Jones delivers:

The War On Men: 10 Ways Masculinity is Under Attack
And why the elite – not women – are to blame

Infowars.com
February 19, 2014

Men are facing a full frontal assault on their rights, health and culture like never before. The war on masculinity has never been so brutal – but it’s not a war being waged by women. The attack is coming directly from the top, as the establishment desperately attempts to emasculate and disempower men in order to force women to be more dependent on the state, thereby enabling more power to be centralized and aiding the growth of big government.

Here are ten ways in which the state has declared war on men and masculinity;

1) Falling Fertility

Sperm counts amongst men have significantly decreased over the last half century and particularly over the last 25 years. In some European countries, sperm counts have dropped by as much as a third since 1989. Part of the fall can be explained by exposure to pesticides, endocrine-disrupting chemicals like Bisphenol A, and the many other artificial horrors that increasingly pervade our water and food supply. Many have made the connection between falling sperm counts and the open calls by innumerable elitists to drastically reduce world population by as much as 95%. Research shows that underpopulation, not overpopulation, will be the major demographic crisis of the 21st century as a result of humans failing to achieve the replacement rate of 2.1 children.

2) Chemical Warfare “Feminizing” Boys

Exposure to phthalates, which are found in many plastics, is “feminizing” boys by blocking normal male testosterone and causing genital abnormalities, according to scientists. “Boys exposed to high levels of these in the womb were less likely than other boys to play with cars, trains and guns or engage in “rougher” games like playfighting,” according to a BBC News report. According to Elizabeth Salter-Green, director of the chemicals campaign group CHEM Trust, phthalates are a true “gender-bender” because they lead to a reduction in “male behavior”.

3) Degradation of Positive Masculine Role Models

Whereas 50 years ago, advertising, Hollywood and television was filled with examples of positive masculine role models that young men could look up to, today’s entertainment industry routinely portrays men as clueless and bumbling oafs at best (think Homer Simpson, Everybody Loves Raymond, Married With Children) or at worst as aggressive sexual predators. Since advertising is primarily aimed at women, men in commercials are also now routinely depicted as either being emasculated losers or stupefied morons. Young men consuming this content grow up thinking that it is acceptable and even encouraged to aspire to these character traits. In doing so, they are robbed of their natural masculinity and find it extremely difficult to attract well-rounded women, who are rightly disgusted by such behavior. The entertainment industry is largely controlled by men, again underscoring the fact that this assault is a top down trend that has little or nothing to do with the gender war.

4) Metrosexual Malaise

Second wave feminism was a creation of the establishment itself and at its core has little whatsoever to do with genuine concern about women’s rights. Radical feminism deliberately confuses gender roles and makes young men apprehensive about exercising their masculinity for fear of being seen as overbearing or aggressive towards women. This has contributed to an entire generation of “metrosexual” men who are promiscuous, unwilling to commit to a relationship and unable to fulfil a women’s basic needs for healthy companionship, destabilizing society and making it more difficult for women to find suitable long term partners with whom to have children.

5) Cultural Marxism

Establishment-controlled second wave feminism also advances the doctrine of cultural marxism, which claims that oppression emerges from patriarchal society and culture, and not the state. Governments love cultural marxism because it absolves them of blame. The true source of all oppression has always been the state, but by blaming it on men or western culture in general (which is primarily shaped by men), the state hides its own responsibility.

6) The ‘Men are Paid More’ Myth

The establishment promulgates the myth that men are paid more than women because of discrimination, feeding into feminist doctrines about patriarchal systems oppressing women in the workplace. In reality, the “wage gap” of around 19 per cent between the two sexes in the United States is explained by a number of reasons that have nothing to do with discrimination, including the fact that men work more hours and men seek less desirable jobs that pay higher. As a result, men account for 93% of workplace deaths despite being only 54% of the workforce. 94% of workplace suicides every year are also men. The establishment buries these shockingly high male workplace fatality figures because they completely contradict the myth that the jobs market discriminates against women.

7) The “Privilege” Trap

Statists, collectivists and their mouthpieces in the media and the establishment claim that western men (in particular white men) cannot express a valid opinion on any issue related in any way to a “minority” (such as feminism or immigration) because they have “privilege”. The “privilege” talking point is a stunt through which liberals and feminists attempt to shut down free speech. In essence they are asserting the ludicrous notion that a man’s viewpoint has no value because of the color of his skin, his gender or his country of origin. This is an inherently racist position, yet it is routinely used by leftists to shout down their ideological adversaries and silence male voices.

8) The Legal System Discriminates Against Men

In both divorce and child custody proceedings, it is widely acknowledged that courts heavily favor women and discriminate against men. Men are routinely hit with onerous alimony payments even if women are capable of working and earning a good paycheck. Men only receive custody of their children in around 10 per cent of divorce cases in the United States. The ironic thing about this system is that it has primarily been instituted by other men, emphasizing again how the war on men is being waged not by women, but by the primarily male-dominated establishment itself.

9) Masculinity as a Dirty Word

Dissident feminist Camille Paglia recently wrote a Wall Street Journal piece in which she warned, “What you’re seeing is how a civilization commits suicide.” Paglia was referring to how the emancipation of masculine virtues by the establishment threatens to create massive destabilization in society due to less and less men being able to fill traditionally “masculine” roles in the jobs market. Paglia points to schools cutting recess, the effort to deny the biological distinctions between men and women, and the left’s characterization of controversial opinions as “hate speech” as examples of how masculinity is being deliberately eroded. “Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There’s nothing left. There’s no room for anything manly right now,” warns Paglia, adding that young men have, “no models of manhood.”

10) Domestic Abuse Against Men

Whereas women have numerous safety nets to turn to if they become victims of domestic abuse, men have virtually none, despite the fact that domestic abuse against men is a huge and growing problem. In the UK for example, 44 per cent of domestic abuse victims are male, while more married men suffer abuse at the hands of their spouse than married women. While domestic abuse against women is constantly highlighted by the mass media, domestic abuse against men is a complete non-issue.

Conclusion

A totalitarian society can only survive if the male population has been gelded, emasculated and disenfranchised. With this natural bulwark against tyranny removed, the elite can centralize power and pursue collectivist tyranny unopposed. This is why men and masculinity are under assault on every level – and why both men and women should join forces to fight back against this common enemy.

It's all part of the nerd-iarchy conspiracy.

[McParadigm]

Three interesting tweets from Bridget Minamore:

Bridget Minamore ‏@bridgetminamore 5m
[TW] So, why do more men die at their own hands than women? Men tend to use more violent, quicker methods eg hanging. Women? Overdoses etc.

Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Bridget Minamore ‏@bridgetminamore 4m
…basically, men tend to use methods that give them less time to be saved. & that makes me sadder than simply 'men kill themselves more'.

Bridget Minamore ‏@bridgetminamore 4m
I mean, patriarchy is so entrenched into our consciousness that men use more violent methods even when it comes to committing suicide? Wow.

That logic doesn't quite jive with certain statistics.

1. Suicide rates run especially high with certain psychological concerns (ie schizophrenia), which appear more frequently in men than women. So some of the discrepancy in male/female suicide rates is likely connected to other gender-related factors.

2. If you delve into the actual research concerning gender differences and suicide attempts, you'll find that most of the data support of the "women attempt more, men succeed more" truism is based on a combination of 'death by suicide' stats (which skew male) and survivor SELF-REPORTING (which skews female). Males, however, are far less likely to self-report and far more likely to lie in order to hide past failed attempts (one survey of KNOWN past-attempt survivors found that fewer than 30% of men acknowledged having attempted, while more than 80% of women did). Because of this, the extent and accuracy of the "women attempt more, men succeed more" belief is considered highly uncertain. Just to drive it home: several studies of hospital admittance for intended self-injury have found the numbers across gender to be completely equal. In other words, men and women are hurting themselves with equal measure....men are just dying more.

3. Women survivors are more receptive to support and outside assistance than men.

4. Two independently conducted studies (done simultaneously, without knowledge of each other) found shockingly similar numbers, when they organized suicide behaviors by their likelihood to produce death. They used factors such as the length of time it took for fatality to become likely and the possibility for rehabilitation or non-injury if survival did occur to determine what types of suicide behaviors people were engaging in. In other words, they were attempting to step back from looking at the behaviors solely as "violent" or "nonviolent." Their results showed a GREATER CORRELATION of male suicide behavior to the likelihood of fatality than is traditionally shown for degree-of-violence. In other words, men aren't choosing acts because of their level of violence...they're choosing the ones that are most likely to end their lives, and violent acts are more likely to fall into that category. Violence is correlative, not a cause.

[harmless]

It's not as simple as correlation vs. causation. The argument is that patriarchy is so all-pervasive in culture, it's a demonstrable factor. No one's saying there aren't other factors, or that patriarchy is a singular 'cause' of male suicide.

[harmless]

Also, that 'men and women are hurting themselves with equal measure....men are just dying more' doesn't disprove Minamore's point; it could support it, actually.

[broken iris]

The argument is that patriarchy is so all-pervasive in culture

In Western cultures or human cultures?

[McParadigm]

The argument is that patriarchy is so all-pervasive in culture, it's a demonstrable factor.

So walk me through the logic then. How are these suicides statistics illustrating patriarchy as demonstrable?

[broken iris]

My experience of people who undermine and critique intersectionality is that they tend to always want to identify 'others' in order to do it, because only social 'others' use it, so it can be dismissed outright.

We get it, anyone who doesn't agree is a bigot. But there is a certain amount of irony in this statement, given that Insectionality works so hard to further subdivide oppressed classes.

[harmless]

The argument is that patriarchy is so all-pervasive in culture, it's a demonstrable factor.

So walk me through the logic then. How are these suicides statistics illustrating patriarchy as demonstrable?

I don't need to 'walk you through it'. You could just do some reading on the subject of patriarchy, what people actually mean when they use the term, instead of thinking that every mention of it means 'McParadigm'.

[harmless]

Same goes for everyone, really, who feels like they are personally being blamed in every conversation about patriarchy. I mean, look, no one is saying male deaths in America are McParadigm's fault.

[harmless]

My experience of people who undermine and critique intersectionality is that they tend to always want to identify 'others' in order to do it, because only social 'others' use it, so it can be dismissed outright.

We get it, anyone who doesn't agree is a bigot. But there is a certain amount of irony in this statement, given that Insectionality works so hard to further subdivide oppressed classes.

If you want intersectionality to allow for uniting with the people who constantly undermine and disagree with it, you might be waiting a long time. Do you seriously expect every theory to allow for the opinions of its detractors? I very much doubt that you do. If you're not a fan of the intersectional model, that's fine, it's no skin off my nose.

[harmless]

As for the word 'bigot', well, don't be upset when people call you a bigot when you meet their criteria of what a bigot is. I never brought the word up.