ALICE WALKER EXPOSED BY DAUGHTER...

[jackson35]

obligatory cornball insult

I swear yall nikkas put more efffort into that than your actual post as a whole.

No....check my posting history I don't even believe in the term and it doesn't cover the nuance of what;s going on in america as a whole. I'd say that personal and institutional racism is real (both things that would constitute as "white supremacy" in your book) but the bolded is one reason why the term lacks validity to me.


This is the stuff I mean when I say I can't take feminism seriously. This whole portion I quoted is pretty much rephrasing women's history in america to make it sound similar to recent black history in america.

There is no "system" of patricarchy. When people refer to a "system of white supremacy" they refer to the way branches of government, policy makers and other entities controlling law and resources enact multiple, sometimes coordinated actions that intentionally disenfranchise black people and slow their growth. Things like redlining go hand in hand with housing discrimination, which go hand in hand with poorly funded neighborhoods and schools; Separate areas all working in synergy to present poor conditions to as many blacks as possible.

There is no system that allows such discrimination on women, there is no evidence of coordinated effort against their rights or very lives like the abundance of evidence found for racism, right down to documents instructing cops to discriminate against black men and how to do it.

You don't need to use statistics, there hasn't been a female president in 45 attempts because females could only vote until like 30 presidents into it. Common sense. That isn't evidence of a system, it's evidence of a slowly amended constitution. Keep in mind black people (male and female) weren't allowed to vote until 10 whole amendments later, AFTER womans sufferage and multiple bills that use coded language to systematically reject black people from voting during the time.

This is kinda my point. How can someone observe the history of civil rights and the actual effects of systematic disenfranchisement in black americans then look at the painless and bloodless transition of gender equality and tell me they're the same? People were beaten, killed and imprisoned fighting actual systematic discrimination, where is the coordinated effort to deny women's rights by....anyone? If you look at world history many women's sufferage moments all happened around the same time (1920s-30s) with no pushback. There were no coded language laws being passed to restrict their voting post suffrage unlike what black people had to deal with for decades afterward to this very day. WTF does this patriarchy actually do?

I mean this country was founded by a group of people that came from a place where they served multiple female monarchs. That's as far from the idea of partiarchy as you can get.



Social theory =/= science


You don't know shyt about science. I can tell because your explanation stopped at hypothesis and never mention how you'd have to PROVE said hypothesis countless times and account for every variable before it's given any credibility. I'm sure if you even began typing that you might have realized how full of shyt the crap you wrote is.

The burden of proof is not on me to disprove their theory, it's on them to prove it. But they don't instead the playbook is name calling.

I already said what explains the observations: "patriarchy" is just a reframe on society claiming males and their interest are promoted at the expense and disenfranchisement of women and society reinforces that. So whenever there is a male with power in his workplace that's underqualified for his position it's assumed to be from sexism instead of the myriad of equally bad yet equally viable interpersonal explanations like him being an ass kisser, the boss being related to him, blackmail etc. If feminism was worth a fukk it would be able to prove sexism as the driving force in the situations the way racism was proven and well documented. But....they don't.

Other fundemental holes in the patriarchy theory

- If men are given preferential treatment in society why are they the ones called to give their life in wars 99% of the time
- Average living conditions for males are worse than females
- Laws that were enacted with social welfare of females in mind but not necessarily men (public housing, alimony, child support)
- Affirmative action benefits white women more than all minorty males combined
- Male exclusive events/organizations/benefits are considered inherently sexist and rarely exist. Female versions of the same things are numerous and normal
-The person in charge of hiring in majority of american companies is female. (75%) American males are doing worse in the job market

^ Again, what kind of oppressive force let's the above happen? Black america has already shown me what real coordinated oppression is. Real oppression left horrific events, documents, speeches, laws and dead bodies to prove it. And it persists to this day. Where is the proof of the kind of coordination that makes patriarchy possible?

just a bunch of half assed analogies, half baked theories and name calling.

but there is documented proof when legal session are called to address certain claims. A ceo have admitted that they don't believe women should be making the same as man. there are power men who admitted in every facet of industry who dont not believe women and men should have equal access

 

[Indiglow Meta (R$G)]

but there is documented proof when legal session are called to address certain claims. A ceo have admitted that they don't believe women should be making the same as man. there are power men who admitted in every facet of industry who dont not believe women and men should have equal access

Stop it. Rationally analyze the text. Understand that the paradigm is flipped for black men, and more black women/gay black men are hired in that environment.
Sorry, but no.

 

[Taadow]

I thought everbody knew this.

 

[jackson35]

Stop it. Rationally analyze the text. Understand that the paradigm is flipped for black men, and more black women/gay black men are hired in that environment.
Sorry, but no.

why don you stop bicthin and provide context instead of generalization. black men were able to start private entitys and eat off of consignments that beneficial to them but not to black women

 

[Pirius Black]

I only regret that I only have but one rep to give. OP has g checked Nazis in the belly of the beast and stay in foot on neck mode. Give this man poster of the year.

 

[GPBear]

This is the stuff I mean when I say I can't take feminism seriously. This whole portion I quoted is pretty much rephrasing women's history in america to make it sound similar to recent black history in america.

There is no "system" of patricarchy. When people refer to a "system of white supremacy" they refer to the way branches of government, policy makers and other entities controlling law and resources enact multiple, sometimes coordinated actions that intentionally disenfranchise black people and slow their growth. Things like redlining go hand in hand with housing discrimination, which go hand in hand with poorly funded neighborhoods and schools; Separate areas all working in synergy to present poor conditions to as many blacks as possible.

There is no system that allows such discrimination on women, there is no evidence of coordinated effort against their rights or very lives like the abundance of evidence found for racism, right down to documents instructing cops to discriminate against black men and how to do it.

You don't need to use statistics, there hasn't been a female president in 45 attempts because females could only vote until like 30 presidents into it. Common sense. That isn't evidence of a system, it's evidence of a slowly amended constitution. Keep in mind black people (male and female) weren't allowed to vote until 10 whole amendments later, AFTER womans sufferage and multiple bills that use coded language to systematically reject black people from voting during the time.

This is kinda my point. How can someone observe the history of civil rights and the actual effects of systematic disenfranchisement in black americans then look at the painless and bloodless transition of gender equality and tell me they're the same? People were beaten, killed and imprisoned fighting actual systematic discrimination, where is the coordinated effort to deny women's rights by....anyone? If you look at world history many women's sufferage moments all happened around the same time (1920s-30s) with no pushback. There were no coded language laws being passed to restrict their voting post suffrage unlike what black people had to deal with for decades afterward to this very day. WTF does this patriarchy actually do?

I mean this country was founded by a group of people that came from a place where they served multiple female monarchs. That's as far from the idea of partiarchy as you can get.



Social theory =/= science


You don't know shyt about science. I can tell because your explanation stopped at hypothesis and never mention how you'd have to PROVE said hypothesis countless times and account for every variable before it's given any credibility. I'm sure if you even began typing that you might have realized how full of shyt the crap you wrote is.

The burden of proof is not on me to disprove their theory, it's on them to prove it. But they don't instead the playbook is name calling.

I already said what explains the observations: "patriarchy" is just a reframe on society claiming males and their interest are promoted at the expense and disenfranchisement of women and society reinforces that. So whenever there is a male with power in his workplace that's underqualified for his position it's assumed to be from sexism instead of the myriad of equally bad yet equally viable interpersonal explanations like him being an ass kisser, the boss being related to him, blackmail etc. If feminism was worth a fukk it would be able to prove sexism as the driving force in the situations the way racism was proven and well documented. But....they don't.

Other fundemental holes in the patriarchy theory

- If men are given preferential treatment in society why are they the ones called to give their life in wars 99% of the time
- Average living conditions for males are worse than females
- Laws that were enacted with social welfare of females in mind but not necessarily men (public housing, alimony, child support)
- Affirmative action benefits white women more than all minorty males combined
- Male exclusive events/organizations/benefits are considered inherently sexist and rarely exist. Female versions of the same things are numerous and normal
-The person in charge of hiring in majority of american companies is female. (75%) American males are doing worse in the job market

^ Again, what kind of oppressive force let's the above happen? Black america has already shown me what real coordinated oppression is. Real oppression left horrific events, documents, speeches, laws and dead bodies to prove it. And it persists to this day. Where is the proof of the kind of coordination that makes patriarchy possible?

just a bunch of half assed analogies, half baked theories and name calling.

You’re arguing that women aren’t being oppressed, because feminists aren’t murdered like civil rights leaders.

“Real oppression left horrific events, documents, speeches, laws and dead bodies.”

All those things have happened to women. You’re just using the true Scotsman fallacy. “That’s not true oppression”. Just because black people suffered a level of oppression beyond pretty much all others throughtout history, doesn’t mean that other sectors of Society aren’t also oppressed. They just aren’t as oppressed as black people.

And then you offer more ways feminism fails, after I already pointed out feminism isn’t a perfect theory, it’s the best theory there is that explains the domestic violence, sexism in politics, women being objectified to sell cheeseburgers.

You’re rewriting history to serve your purpose. There’s definitely a wake of blood following women’s rights. It’s nowhere n at the same level of agony that African-Americans experienced.

Male politicians enact anti-female policies everyday. Homeless women don’t get tampons, things like that.

We’re the same society that within recent memory had (male) politicians arguing against abortion because in a “real rape” women can’t get pregnant.

You’re absurd. You go “women couldn’t vote until the 1920s, but then after they could and there wasn’t a pushback, I see no patriarchy.” Completely ignoring the fact that for thousands of years, women weren’t allowed to vote in democracies. You can find misogyny in Plato’s Symposium. Keeping women down is a fundamental cornerstone of western civilization.

I’m not suggesting women are oppressed to the level of black people.

You’re suggesting that because women haven’t been oppressed to the level of black people, that it’s not oppression.

You even try and somehow say that women not being allowed to vote isn’t evidence of a system, but a slowly amended constitution. As if that was the first time women were left out of a democracy. As if America was in a vacuum and wasn’t taking lessons from ancient systems of government. What caused women to be excluded in the first place? The fact that there’s been a system in place throughout history which excludes women from making decisions for themselves in the societies they live.

“They were just slow to getting around to givin the women the right to vote” that doesn’t make any sense. Why didn’t they give it to them in the first place? Because they were men, and they were in control, and wanted to keep a hold on power.

Men using political power they have to maintain political power is the patriarchy. It has absolutely nothing to do with a slow amendment process.

 

[GPBear]

@Kenny West You remind me of a 9/11 truther. You sound like a guy who thinks he’s intelligent because you have a large amount of “arguments” to support your case, when really you just have too much time on your hands to come up with stupid little ideas that you think poke holes in people’s ideologies.

“GPbear, the patriarchy doesn’t exist in America. How could it?
The founding fathers came from England, and England has queens!”

England has Queens, so America can’t have a patriarchy. - Kenny West, 2017

That’s just so, so, childish and willfully naive.

Only a person disconnected from reality would say such nonsense. You obviously live in your own little fantasy world where you’re always right, and everywhere you look you see evidence to support your theories.
First of all, they separated from England, stupid, so it doesn’t really matter where they came from, because they wanted to be completely independent from it.

But more importantly, this just demonstrates how you’re ignorant. And you only view history on the most superficial level. “They have queens, they love women!” Shows such a childish view on history. Why do they have queens, breh? Because of the Divine Right of Kings (same as the Chinese “Mandate from Heaven”), which states that power is to be handed down through patrilineal lines, because the original king was ordained by god himself. Boys get the power. If a king marries, their wife becomes queen. If a queen marries, that guy is just the queens husband (queen consort). Patrice had a bit on this, he used it as an example of how it “should be” and Patrice was a misogynist, so you can assume if he supported the system, then it probably wasn’t the best for women.The fukking fact that queens exist is because they are related to men, who are supposedly ordained by god almighty. If anything, having a successive line of strictly male presidents mimics this idea.

“Men are god” is the general idea. Meanwhile, you’re so simple, all you do is see a queen and go “oh they love women!” It’s sad, really. You’re the kind of simpleton that would suggest women should be subordinate to men, because Eve came from Adam’s rib.

 

[Indiglow Meta (R$G)]

why don you stop bicthin and provide context instead of generalization. black men were able to start private entitys and eat off of consignments that beneficial to them but not to black women

When were these *ENTITIES created strictly for black men?
Are there no equivalent black female entities considering that black women own more businesses and attain more (value pending) degrees, whilst being praised in the media for beating us in every metric including life expectancy?
You're grasping for straws and you can't even spell. Get on a grown level before you engage in this type of discourse.

 

[Indiglow Meta (R$G)]

"Men are God" is not a general idea unless you're talking about the black man being the original man and cream of the earth, along with the earth meaning the BLACK WOMAN, but that would require Knowledge of Self for you, and you'd have to study for 40 years, Mr. Devil on a predominantly black message board.
Long paragraphs don't erase the years young Rebecca Walker had to endure neglect and abuse from a revered parent.

 

[jackson35]

When were these *ENTITIES created strictly for black men?
Are there no equivalent black female entities considering that black women own more businesses and attain more (value pending) degrees, whilst being praised in the media for beating us in every metric including life expectancy?
You're grasping for straws and you can't even spell. Get on a grown level before you engage in this type of discourse.

please show me in the 60's 70's or 80's where black women own more business then black men? you are repeating silly narratives that you heard from the other side and you nothing to back that up. you do realize that black men had a head start before the women right? you do know multiple black man started hedge funds and business while the women were still talking about jobs right?

 

[Indiglow Meta (R$G)]

please show me in the 60's 70's or 80's where black women own more business then black men? you are repeating silly narratives that you heard from the other side and you nothing to back that up. you do realize that black men had a head start before the women right? you do know multiple black man started hedge funds and business while the women were still talking about jobs right?

Where are the RECEIPTS?

 

[MostReal]

Toxic Femininity

nothing

I mean nothing is like The Coli

 

[SeveroDrgnfli]

@Indiglow Meta (R$G) put up a triple-double in this thread, with no assists.



LMAO, remind me to never debate you breh. The directness of your language and questions was

You had people launching childish personal attacks against you, disowning Alice Walker from the ideology she modernized and is championed in.

had me reading the responses to your questions. Did anybody actually answer your questions other than @GoldCoastSaint? Btw, I agree with her definition of Feminism as an ideology that believes men and women should be treated as equals.

NOUN
mass noun

• The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
  feminism | Definition of feminism in English by Oxford Dictionaries

I'm all for equality, but I'm seeing the negative effects of feminism in our community and I see why some men are responding to it as you are. Black men are under attack and our only hope is the black community. When there are competing ideologies that cause splintering in the black community it worsens the situation for black men. Black should be the only way we identify ourselves because the people trying to exterminate us identify us that way. IDGAF if someone is mixed, a feminist, a socialist, a racist, or whatever. As long as they put black first and ride for our community I will support them.

I will not support anything I view as destructive to the health of our community. Black women being discouraged to do what they were designed to do is not healthy for our community. Motherhood is the most beautiful and useful station a woman can hold. It defines feminism, even women who can't have kids can be mothers or help raise kids.

A lot of girls have cats, careers, and lofty goals because they're trying to compensate for not having a kid to raise. LOL they think they can ignore it too. A cat is not a fukking child. Degrees will not hug you and having a career means very little when you're old. Their legacy dies with them.


It's disgusting that people view genitals as sex toys. Our bodies are vessels designed to create and support new life. That's God shyt my brother.

 

[Kenny West]

but there is documented proof when legal session are called to address certain claims. A ceo have admitted that they don't believe women should be making the same as man. there are power men who admitted in every facet of industry who dont not believe women and men should have equal access

This is nothing new, these same type of "power men" typically think little of non- whites as well and have similar beliefs that make them hate things like affirmative action quotas. As a black man being realistic, that isn't proof systemic oppression , if anything it's indication of an old social norm. And those comments expressed publicly could lead to them getting in hot water which I do appreciate as a citizen. The thing is, it doesn't matter what he thinks, women can, and have made strides in this country, and some beyond men especially in today's world. The country's laws and policy making were not cooperating with that man's belief in women.

The fact that affirmative action laws actually work for women prove that there isn't systematic oppression at work here. And use of the quota can be used to SYSTEMATICALLY shut out straight black men through black women and gay black men.

Which plays into family destabilization, which plays into crime, which plays into private prison industries etc

Systematic.

You’re arguing that women aren’t being oppressed, because feminists aren’t murdered like civil rights leaders.

“Real oppression left horrific events, documents, speeches, laws and dead bodies.”

All those things have happened to women. You’re just using the true Scotsman fallacy. “That’s not true oppression”. Just because black people suffered a level of oppression beyond pretty much all others throughtout history, doesn’t mean that other sectors of Society aren’t also oppressed. They just aren’t as oppressed as black people.
And then you offer more ways feminism fails, after I already pointed out feminism isn’t a perfect theory, it’s the best theory there is that explains the domestic violence, sexism in politics, women being objectified to sell cheeseburgers.

You’re rewriting history to serve your purpose. There’s definitely a wake of blood following women’s rights. It’s nowhere n at the same level of agony that African-Americans experienced.

Male politicians enact anti-female policies everyday. Homeless women don’t get tampons, things like that.

We’re the same society that within recent memory had (male) politicians arguing against abortion because in a “real rape” women can’t get pregnant.

You know, I'm not mad at the take with the True Scott Fallacy. It's an interesting thought to keep in mind with anything relating toward others in my black experience, but it doesn't apply there.

First let's get on the same page with vocabulary.


Secondly you're using a ton of reductionism on a example I used only to show the depth of how different they were, while intentionally missing the point of what I'm saying.

I'm saying there were speeches outright confirming the existence of the actual system of oppression when it comes to black folks, not just sexist comments.

There were documents describing the architecture of the system of oppression for black folks, not just half baked unproven social theories.

There were actual horrific events and dead bodies by people representing the law defending the system of oppression for black folks, not just jilted lovers and spree shooting victims.



The context is systemic oppression. This is the word you used. The "Patriarchy" theory is supposed to describe collusion by men in power against large numbers if not all women due to gender. Collusion against large populations being what makes it systemic.

I think black women illustrate the difference. Every black woman will tell you that their role in society is unique/tougher because they have to deal with the bullshyt from being both black (being born in an intentionally destabilized community) and being a woman (navigating through sexism in interpersonal interactions and being a target for sex crime). They are two different elements that make their experience unique.

Each present unique challenges but one she is born in and can do nothing about while being attacked by entities much bigger than her, the other being more concerning individual entities/situations like that creepy guy, the manager at work who wants to fukk, or sexist ceo.

You’re absurd. You go “women couldn’t vote until the 1920s, but then after they could and there wasn’t a pushback, I see no patriarchy.” Completely ignoring the fact that for thousands of years, women weren’t allowed to vote in democracies.

Women were voting in some parts of the world in the 1700s. It's more social norm than systematic oppression.

Again black americans paint the difference between suffrage and dealing with systematic oppression:

Black american men were given the right to vote in the 1920's. However that right to vote was consistently impeded by policy makers with things like literacy tests, moral character tests etc.

Black american men didn't have their right to vote truly recognized until 100 years later where a law had to be made to protect it not just from individual citizens using violence, but also policy makers trying to systematically deny it to large amounts of people. And even still today it is under attack for millions of voters.

Who has done this to women's right to vote once it became national law? If it was done to black males for over 100 years after the country recognized their right to vote, why isn't patriarchy helping? Mind you black female voting rights were legal yet still suffered too for 40 of those 100 years under actual systemic oppression, but white women were fine.

You can find misogyny in Plato’s Symposium. Keeping women down is a fundamental cornerstone of western civilization.

I’m not suggesting women are oppressed to the level of black people.

You’re suggesting that because women haven’t been oppressed to the level of black people, that it’s not oppression.

I'm not.

I'm saying the theory of the patriarchy is supposed to be describing a systemic oppression on women persisting to this day that doesn't exist.

If it does prove it with systemic examples.

You even try and somehow say that women not being allowed to vote isn’t evidence of a system, but a slowly amended constitution. As if that was the first time women were left out of a democracy. As if America was in a vacuum and wasn’t taking lessons from ancient systems of government. What caused women to be excluded in the first place? The fact that there’s been a system in place throughout history which excludes women from making decisions for themselves in the societies t

“They were just slow to getting around to givin the women the right to vote” that doesn’t make any sense. Why didn’t they give it to them in the first place? Because they were men, and they were in control, and wanted to keep a hold on power.

Men using political power they have to maintain political power is the patriarchy. It has absolutely nothing to do with a slow amendment process.

It does because like you said, america and the history of the world was not a in a vacuum. The context of the world at the beginning of the modern (democratic) era was that it was shifting from systems of monarchy and feudalism where men and women by and large had no rights to political process and decisions regarding country. Only the monarch or in rare cases a council.

So yes it is an example on slow amendments that reflect the changes in the ideas of on citizenship that occurred over time. Again, keep in mind that the majority of successful women's suffrage movements in separate places around the world had began to succeed within a 50 year span. What seems like the more likely explanation: Council of Patriarchs decided that around the 1880s and after WWI to give women rights to vote OR cultural norms were changing around the world?

@Kenny West You remind me of a 9/11 truther. You sound like a guy who thinks he’s intelligent because you have a large amount of “arguments” to support your case, when really you just have too much time on your hands to come up with stupid little ideas that you think poke holes in people’s ideologies.

“GPbear, the patriarchy doesn’t exist in America. How could it?
The founding fathers came from England, and England has queens!”

England has Queens, so America can’t have a patriarchy. - Kenny West, 2017

That’s just so, so, childish and willfully naive.

Only a person disconnected from reality would say such nonsense. You obviously live in your own little fantasy world where you’re always right, and everywhere you look you see evidence to support your theories.
First of all, they separated from England, stupid, so it doesn’t really matter where they came from, because they wanted to be completely independent from it.

Literally one post ago you're saying they didn't come up with their culture in a vacuum tho dumbass Scroll up.

But more importantly, this just demonstrates how you’re ignorant. And you only view history on the most superficial level. “They have queens, they love women!” Shows such a childish view on history. Why do they have queens, breh? Because of the Divine Right of Kings (same as the Chinese “Mandate from Heaven”), which states that power is to be handed down through patrilineal lines, because the original king was ordained by god himself. Boys get the power. If a king marries, their wife becomes queen. If a queen marries, that guy is just the queens husband (queen consort). Patrice had a bit on this, he used it as an example of how it “should be” and Patrice was a misogynist, so you can assume if he supported the system, then it probably wasn’t the best for women.The fukking fact that queens exist is because they are related to men, who are supposedly ordained by god almighty. If anything, having a successive line of strictly male presidents mimics this idea.


“Men are god” is the general idea. Meanwhile, you’re so simple, all you do is see a queen and go “oh they love women!” It’s sad, really. You’re the kind of simpleton that would suggest women should be subordinate to men, because Eve came from Adam’s rib.
hey live.

It's cool to see how my arguments and your own lack of answers got so deep under your skin you had to make a whole separate post for insults and "you must be ______" bullshyt.

The reason I used that specific example is because England has the unique history of serving female monarchs (not just figureheads) who were the central power figure of the state. Elizabeth and Victoria most notably who laid the groundwork for their current political systems.

If "men are god" was the idea (it wasn't, that type of blasphemy got men killed back then) then a whole nation of men wouldn't have accepted the idea of 1 women having more power than all of them, correct? It doesn't have to be as dramatic as them loving women or being gender equalists over night due to the queens but your perception sexism may not be as dramatic as you're making it seem. Especially with the words chosen to associate with it.


Anyway I provided examples and definitions and expressed myself clearly. You already conceded that feminism can't answer any questions it's own theories pose so you essentially already helps strengthen my idea that it's bullshyt. And you dedicating more effort to insulting me rather than proving the bullshyt you're insulting me over solidifies my idea that you're a pale fakkit parroting who's not acknowledging his cognitive dissonance. Good day

 

[Indiglow Meta (R$G)]

This is nothing new, these same type of "power men" typically think little of non- whites as well and have similar beliefs that make them hate things like affirmative action quotas. As a black man being realistic, that isn't proof systemic oppression , if anything it's indication of an old social norm. And those comments expressed publicly could lead to them getting in hot water which I do appreciate as a citizen. The thing is, it doesn't matter what he thinks, women can, and have made strides in this country, and some beyond men especially in today's world. The country's laws and policy making were not cooperating with that man's belief in women.

The fact that affirmative action laws actually work for women prove that there isn't systematic oppression at work here. And use of the quota can be used to SYSTEMATICALLY shut out straight black men through black women and gay black men.

Which plays into family destabilization, which plays into crime, which plays into private prison industries etc

Systematic.



You know, I'm not mad at the take with the True Scott Fallacy. It's an interesting thought to keep in mind with anything relating toward others in my black experience, but it doesn't apply there.

First let's get on the same page with vocabulary.


Secondly you're using a ton of reductionism on a examples I used only to show the depth of how different they were, while intentionally missing the point of what I'm saying.

I'm saying there were speeches outright confirming the existence of the actual system of oppression when it comes to black folks, not just sexist comments.

There were documents describing the architecture of the system of oppression for black folks, not just half baked unproven social theories.

There were actual horrific events and dead bodies by people representing the law defending the system of oppression for black folks, not just jilted lovers and spree shooting victims.



The context is systemic oppression. This is the word you used. The "Patriarchy" theory is supposed to describe collusion by men in power against large numbers if not all women due to gender. Collusion against large populations being what makes it systemic.

I think black women illustrate the difference. Every black woman will tell you that their role in society is unique/tougher because they have to deal with the bullshyt from being both black (being born in an intentionally destabilized community) and being a woman (navigating through sexism in interpersonal interactions and being a target for sex crime). They are two different elements that make their experience unique.

Each present unique challenges but one she is born in and can do nothing about while being attacked by entities much bigger than her, the other being more concerning individual entities/situations like that creepy guy, the manager at work who wants to fukk, or sexist ceo.



Women were voting in some parts of the world in the 1700s. It's more social norm than systematic oppression.

Again black americans paint the difference between suffrage and dealing with systematic oppression:

Black american men were given the right to vote in the 1860's. However that right to vote was consistently impeded by policy makers with things like literacy tests, moral character tests etc.

Black american men didn't have their right to vote truly recognized until 100 years later where a law had to be made to protect it not just from individual citizens using violence, but also policy makers trying to systematically deny it to large amounts of people. And even still today it is under attack for millions of voters.

Who has done this to women's right to vote once it became national law? If it was done to black males for over 100 years after the country recognized their right to vote, why isn't patriarchy helping?

Ironically plato himself beleived in womens rights so far as to advocate marriage to be abolished so women wouldn't be limited to the role of wives and be equals in society.

Anyway, you're right. Women not being recognized as citizens is an old western concept.


I'm not.

I'm saying the theory of the patriarchy is supposed to be describing a systemic oppression on women persisting to this day that doesn't exist.

If i does prove it with systemic examples.


It does because like you said, america and the history of the world was not a in a vacuum. The context of the world at the beginning of the modern (democratic) era was that it was shifting from systems of monarchy and feudalism where men and women by and large had no rights to political process and decisions regarding country. Only the monarch or in rare cases a council.

So yes it is an example on slow amendments that reflect the changes in the ideas of on citizenship that occurred over time. Again, keep in mind that the majority of successful women's suffrage movements in separate places around the world had began to succeed within a 50 year span. What seems like the more likely explanation: Council of Patriarchs decided that around the 1880s decided to give women rights to vote OR cultural norms were changing around the world?


Literally one post ago you're saying they didn't come up with their culture in a vacuum tho dumbass Scroll up.


It's cool to see how my arguments and your own lack of answers got so deep under your skin you had to make a whole separate post for insults and "you must be ______" bullshyt.

The reason I used specified that particular example is because England has the unique history of serving female monarchs (not just queen regents) who were the central power figure of the stat. Elizabeth and Victoria most notably who laid the groundwork for their current political systems.

If "men are god" was the idea (it wasn't that type of blasphemy got men killed back then) then a whole nation of men wouldn't have accepted the idea of 1 women having more power than all of them, correct?


Anyway I provided examples and definitions and expressed myself clearly. You already conceded that feminism can't answer any questions it's own theories pose so you essentially already helps strengthen my idea that it's bullshyt. And you dedicating more effort to insulting me rather than proving the bullshyt you're insulting me over solidifies my idea that you're a pale fakkit parroting who's not acknowledging his cognitive dissonance. Good day

WOW.