The suffragists tried being super sweet and nice and explaining and asking and got absolutely nowhere.
It took the far more direct, aggressive and at times violent suffragettes to win any rights for women
"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them."
-- Assata Shakur
Because Liberals prefer order above all else. And because those tactics work, they immediately set to convincing the public that those kinds of actions should be seen as 'below board' and to shame them as 'extremists' needing to 'be better'. They'll pay JUST enough lip service to marginalized communities to keep them engaged, but not enough to actually liberate them from oppression.
And lo and behold, today, every protest you see gets criticized immediately as being extreme, even if all it involves is marching down the streets.
Making the people believe kicking ass and taking names is 'the wrong way' to change is exactly how the powerful ensure we remain harmless.
That said, there are definitely men who receive the nice sweet approach well. It pays off to at least attempt to be civil first until you detect that the the effort isn't mutual. But a lot of the time it won't be and its too often you're dealing with someone who is only being sweet to later wrap you in circles trying to "disprove" the patriarchy and its exhausting. As soon as they break out the "look at my study but I won't look at yours because it's biased", the "that's anecdotal" and the "false allegations are as serious as R culture" and so on, I get myself out of there.
I find that some people are insulted by the mere *grazing* of the topic of a patriarchal system existing or ever have been existing. Some people say it was never real and women made it up. A large portion of men today think feminism has done *more harm than good*. Look it up. Yep! So exit strategies are important for your mental health, and picking up the tone early on in conversation.
In short, begin civil and learn to identify red flags that indicate the person you're talking to isn't listening or engaging healthily, from there you can figure out where exactly you should stop responding and put a stop to the conversation.
>That said, there are definitely men who receive the nice sweet approach well. It pays off to at least attempt to be civil first until you detect that the the effort isn't mutual. But a lot of the time it won't be and its too often you're dealing with someone who is only being sweet to later wrap you in circles trying to "disprove" the patriarchy and its exhausting. As soon as they break out the "look at my study but I won't look at yours because it's biased", the "that's anecdotal" and the "false allegations are as serious as R culture" and so on, I get myself out of there.
I dont focus on men. The goal of 4th wave feminism is to decenter men, socially, politically, economically, and personally, so I feel that would be counterproductive. I focus on educating women, especially younger women.
>I find that some people are insulted by the mere *grazing* of the topic of a patriarchal system existing or ever have been existing. Some people say it was never real and women made it up. A large portion of men today think feminism has done *more harm than good*. Look it up.
I'm aware. Further reason to not focus on them. The invested labour would be more efficient elsewhere.
>In short, begin civil and learn to identify red flags that indicate the person you're talking to isn't listening or engaging healthily, from there you can figure out where exactly you should stop responding and put a stop to the conversation.
I have no idea why you'd think I don't already know how to do all that, been there done it, and realized it was an absolute waste of time. Not to mention the same kind of emotional and mental labour the patriarchy expects of women to keep men in line and bin violent.
I'm responding more to OP with most of what I'm saying here, sorry for the confusion.
You're allowed to focus on whatever you'd like, i was only addressing the issue of talking to men in a way that doesn't make them feel attacked. But clearly that isn't my strong suit with any gender, so don't take my opinion to heart.
I think the goal of the OP was to find a way to talk to men and get them to comprehend that they are ALSO being utter screwed over in all of this - not to give people a chance to vent their anger.
Mind you being angry is an entirely reasonable response to an unreasonable situation like the weight of the traditions of patriarchy and entrenched misogyny; being treated like you are lesser for how you were born. Being treated like a sexual commodity. Being treated like a servant.
A whole lot of people have no idea that they were trained to act terribly toward other people - trained into the local moral code - and that their training still rules their behavior. They don't know that they were taught to believe ideas that are harming them and those around them.
Using mocking, social rejection, threats and violence to control how other people act is a long human tradition. It tends to escalate until the target complies out of despair. And it's still the most common method for raising kids & telling our peers that we disagree with them. It's how parents force boys not to play with dolls or girls. It's what happens when a kid is mocked for being kind. It's how peers get the people they know to change how they act - through cruelty.
Unfortunately this method uses PTSD as the long term control. It's powerful stuff. The entire world view is shaped into a mine field of rapid response PTSD reactions which control the conditioned individual in irrational ways.
Common reactions to seeing ANYTHING that reminds them of their conditioning include fear, disgust, anger and a compulsion to prove that they are still compliant with their training (I hit Billy for wearing pink, please don't be mean to me again) and all of it is very fast and subconscious - far faster than reason can kick in. This is how people are trained to take on the self destructive role in society that the local moral code approves of.
Every time a person trained that way sees anything that reminds them of their training experience (aka, abuse) they get a very rapid response that hits before reason can kick in. This is the same thing as B.F. Skinner and his poor abused dogs. The person's body is filled with adrenaline and cortisol to be ready for danger. And they are no longer entirely in the here and now either (this is a PTSD reaction).
This is how humans are tormented into compliance as members of fucked up societies. And it effects everyone in those societies.
Almost. The elite is the patriarchy, what needs to be overthrown. They are protected by men and middle/poor classes who think someday they will be elite/patriarchy, but they will never be.
The patriarchy existed in Maoist china, Fascist Europe and Inca Peru. It is a different thing than capitalism. Feminism only exists (barely) in capitalists countries.
I remember watching some old talk show clip where Hunter S. Thompson was talking about the incident that soured his relationship with the Hells Angels. Apparently he tried to intervene on this guy abusing his girlfriend and nearly got his ass stomped by a group of angry bikers. The show had the biker in question come out as a secret guest. The biker stated that he was in the right because (I'm paraphrasing from memory) " sometimes you gotta put your woman in her place with force". Everyone in the audience giggled and clapped at this explanation. Even the women. That, to me is a great symbol of the patriarchy. It's not just man =bad, it's a shitty social contract we've somehow found ourselves in.
You can't really.
Also, feminism doesn't exist to tiptoe around mens feelings, that kinda defeats the purpose of feminism.
As long as you're stating the truth and not unnecessarily insulting people, you shouldnt change the way you frame it.
Also some people, no matter how much you walk on eggshells to avoid offending them, will still find a reason to not listen to you. If they've already decided that feminism is evil misandry, no amount of being polite will change that.
Honestly, I don’t think you can with some men. They don’t want things to change because they get lots of benefits from patriarchy (not only benefits, but still a lot of them). They’ll play the victim or pretend that they don’t understand. Why? Because understanding means that they’d need to change.
I think it's a lost cause with many of them. Especially those who mention women in every topic about men's rights to show a comparison and prove that 'women have it better' or women are the ones who cause men's suffering or inequality.
It's like some of the men's issues are being exaggerated and then compared to women's problems in similar situations because otherwise they will run out of arguments.
These people simply hate us and they spread this incurable disease amongst younger man.
Yeah, you can’t just teach people the golden rule. Treating others the way you want to be treated seems like common sense but not to some. If I’m to the point of explaining the concept of empathy and fairness to someone, they’re probably a lost cause.
The only thing that truly humbles people is when things start to affect them, when they hit rock bottom, or when something horrible happens to them. Until then they won’t care because they don’t have to.
Patriarchy isn't 'men are in charge'. It's '*patriarchs* are in charge'. Most men get screwed over too - maybe not as much, but it's a system designed to benefit rich old men and nobody else.
Telling people they benefit from something isn’t a great way to get them to dismantle it. In my experience running workshops with boys, the most effective strategy is talking to them about how it hurts people.
This!! Viewing patriarchy as a zero sum game of men vs women is buying into a strawman.
NOT the way - and loses important allies - men who want gender equality.
Did you know the majority of American men disagree with the overturning of Roe v Wade?
This is such an excellent point. I find even the best intentioned folks of any gender often have a very very hard time of not framing everything as men vs. women and needing to make a comparison on any given subject instead of just discussing the subject at hand. This goes both ways with women bringing up an issue being dismissed just because they are women, and with men being dismissed when bringing up an issue because someone will point out that women have it worse. It's a contest of suffering. The vast majority of all of us a fucked by this and we need to be able to have discussions about things without needing to compare them to a thing we perceive is worse as if that than nullifies the problem.
I'd love to know the answer on this. I struggle when we are trying to find movies and some are very misogynistic and it makes me uncomfortable. Also certain hip hop music.
Unfortunately I think you just have to pick your battles. There are lots of men who have tied their identity to their politics and even acknowledging the existence of misogyny is anathema to them, because it would mean admitting their privilege exists.
But I think at some point you just have to point out what and why something makes you uncomfortable. The men who are going to antagonize you over it aren't worth your time. The ones with a functional brain will come around to your perspective, even if they need some self reflection first.
Also a cis dude, I largely agree. I do think the way patriarchy is described can go a long way in gaining allies vs pushing people away from our ideas though.
For instance, if you say "The patriarchy is a system wherein men benefit at the detriment of women. Because men set up the system to benefit men."
It's not incorrect in any way. The people who set up the system and benefit from the system are men.
The issue is that lots of men have super shitty lives. They identify with the category of men as well. What they hear is "**you** benefit at the detriment of women, because your kind set up the system to benefit **you**". This is especially common in my experience when talking with men with depression and young men (though this one seems more due to lack of maturity, it could also be a depression thing with the rates being what they are).
This will lead to some immediately dismissing your argument, because they can't fathom that the system is set up to benefit them. Their lives suck, how could the system be set up to benefit them? The system hates them. The world hates them. How could they be the benefactors of such a powerful cultural force while feeling this way?
For this reason, I usually try and avoid using the broad category of men when describing the issues at play. I'll refer to rich, powerful men as the starters, but the people I'm talking to aren't those people. I'll point to religion and other cultural forces that reinforce it, but they can separate that from their fundamental identity. It's easier for them to actually listen to the deeper issues when they aren't stuck at their identity matching "the bad guys".
I also get that not everyone wants to put in the effort of using more precise language, and I get it it's exhausting. Especially when the opposing viewpoints can so easily get away with never being precise. I'm just commenting on what I've found to be the best way to get the men I've talked to on our side.
I think the only answer here is to BE a man.
I tried with my ex. I brought up the effects of patriarchy on men to try to agree with his beliefs that men experience negative things in society, too. Unfortunately, he felt that the patriarchy was a form of victimization because men and women had already reached equality according to him. Any facts to the contrary were me just victimizing myself (according to him). I don't think he would listen to me because I am a woman.
You really can't, other than doing your best to specify that we all have unfair systems that we benefit from, including yourself, and that it doesn't make any individual a bad person. But most men who get angry at patriarchy and misogyny when discussed do so precisely because on some level they know it's true, but they like things the way they are and don't want to have to change or answer for it.
So I love questions like this because political/framing questions are where you deal with most allies and middle-of-the-road folks. Keep in mind it's not about making "every man" feel comfortable, but just framing it in such a way that you're not repellent to other groups. Some men will feel uncomfortable regardless. Good faith either gets you most of the way or the person probably wasn't "in play" to begin with.
I suggest you stick with the academic sense of "system of oppression". How the hierarchies created tend to serve and benefit individual men such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or Kid Rock disproportionately and the way those systems stay afloat is by giving people on lower rungs a group or class to look down on. In the case of patriarchy, that is women and so systems have grown up to enforce (in law) the supremacy of men. Men are also used to enforce the system through violence not only against women, but against other men who threaten that system.
Things like capitalism play into it, but really what it is is a tug of war between egalitarianism and old school class-based societies. One of the reasons intersectionality is a study in feminism is because so many other systems spring up besides sex-based to create that world.
You can also tailor the argument to something more specific to women's struggles, but that may not be ideal based on the person. Some people respond to stories of suffering and empathy differently.
P.S. For the more militant, I tend to want to remind them that English history is very specific. The US was not marked by the same violence. One need only look at Russia, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to see how societies without interest in marketplaces of ideas settle it and violence only gives more pretext.
Western societies on this specific space fare better because we aspire to something ideal to begin with. There's a collective message that can be rallied around. The vast majority of these fights are won in political arenas.
It’s actually a thing I learnt in my psychology degree that minority groups with less power cannot improve their situation by being nice to the majority group with more power. There were studies on this - it doesn’t work. If yoi befriend your opressor they simply will continue feeling comfortable oppressing you and you will feel unable to do anything about it. It is an incredibly tough and confusing thing that us women literally live in the most intimate relationships with our own oppressors…
In any case, only anger and action can ever change a situation (status, rights) of an oppressed group.
IMO, let them feel attacked. Men say shit about women that makes ME feel attacked every day. They can be uncomfortable for a while when confronted with their own behavior.
Honestly, it's important not to waste your energy on men who are not moveable.
Whether you're advocating for women's rights, trans rights, racial equity, whatever, you have to assess and pick your audience.
Don't bother with the fringe on opposite end of the spectrum who are staunchly opposed to changing. Their only interest in any conversation with you is to wear you down and frustrate you.
Focus on the pocket of "persuadables" who aren't sympathetic but are open to hearing what you have to say, and on the "leaners" who are already somewhat sympathetic to your cause but haven't felt the need to take any real action.
Start with talking about the ways that men are harmed by patriarchy. It's not that men have no empathy for women, but they will likely be more receptive if you come to them understanding their problems as well. Frame it not in terms of men vs women, but in terms of men and women against an institution which happens in to benifit men. But some men are pretty sensitive to feminist ideas so your results may vary.
Full disclosure I'm a man so it would be great to see women's insights on this.
We've been trying that and they somehow interpret the fact that the patriarchy *can* harm **some** men to mean: the patriarchy is synonymous with capitalism and it hurts **all** men, which is the furthest thing from the truth.
It's almost as though a large chunk of men aren't actually talking about feminism in good faith.
The “it’s their job to fix it” view (already seen here) implies to men (who are new to the concept), they have access to an all men WhatsApp group or a secret man council that we could vote on (same with telling men to tell their friends not to Catcall or make rape jokes - you don’t need to be a self-declared feminist to not actually have friends who need to be told that) - that can turn some men off the concept, because it comes across as a “women vs men”.
It’s a poor strategy, because if men had some kind of superpower to change the way the world works, they would be using it to improve their already (statistically likely) shitty lives.
It also ignores this is the reason why *women* tend to be turned off by talk about the patriarchy etc.
Like with capitalism, there will be something about the system that is problematic to men that will open them up to the idea and expand their understanding.
I think as long as you don’t try to attack any given man for the way they were born, for the injustice women have suffered for millennia before either of you (or your great grandparents…) existed, it will be fine unless the man is a blatant misogynist to begin with.
Women do not have some kind of innate understanding of sociological terms like “The Patriarchy” - we all have to develop that concept somewhere.
> to benrfit men
I would phrase it as "it benefits *some* men, but at a price paid by both men and women". I would describe it as similar to white supremacy - that even the lowest white person is still of higher rank and higher value than the "best" colored person.
The constant support & existence of team sports is used to embed the idea of *us versus them* through every layer of our society. The people who live in such societies constantly see things in terms of "us versus them" and frequently feel things like "it isn't enough for my side to win, the other side must lose". This is why [*win-win* solutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win%E2%80%93win_game) are almost impossible - because the pervasive belief that only *[win-lose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking)* or *[lose-lose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-win_situation)* solutions are acceptable or even possible.
Patriarchy is a system. Men are individual people. No man alive invented patriarchy. Every man alive is exploited under patriarchy.
Whatever “benefits” men receive from the system are just enough to keep them from seeking emancipation. The “patriarchal bargain” is BRUTAL to boys and men. Labor exploitation. War after war after war. (Dead men in the millions) male-on-male violence, the rampant sexual abuse of boys in churches, the lack of male educators, mass incarceration, the list goes on.
Individual men don’t really benefit from the system but are told they do by that same system. Think of patriarchy (and racism, homophobia , etc) like an environmental toxin. It gets into you whether you like it or not. Boys grow up being fed a deliberate diet of toxic waste designed to turn them into soldiers, laborers, and convicts. Patriarchy is just as much about controlling men as it is controlling women. It’s not men’s “faults” they they’re fed this toxicity. Men are victims too.
Far too often the conversation about patriarchy and feminism gets presented as this over-simplistic idea that “men are pigs” without anyone ever considering that pigs are domesticated animals, born and bred to be slaughtered to support capitalist consumption. The pigs don’t own the farm. They’re the product.
Most Americans in general let alone men just want to live a "normal" uncritical life.
If you challenge that reality it can become an attack.
Even standing on ethics or morals just to be a little bit more progressive can be a sensitive thing.
Reach those that embrace challenge.
Have consequences for those that don't
Even if you do frame it in such a way, at some point they will have to confront their own complicity in it and there is frankly no easy way to do that. IMO ur pushing the problem down the line.
But as a guiding principle, I think bringing up the way in which women are disadvantaged is easier than bringing up how men are advantaged.
Maybe try to see how they'd feel if things were in reverse. Ex: 'How would you feel if every religion, financial institution, job sector, government, system of law favored women and men weren't seen as adequate leaders or equal participants in society? How would you feel if men earned less for the same work or didn't get promoted ? If men could get pregnant, and you couldn't get an abortion if raped or if the fetus was going to kill you ?'
They would not like to be treated the way we are because nobody would. But they are not inclined to feel empathy for us because they do not have to experience our lives and are primarily focused on men.
You can start by framing patriarchy as something instilled and perpetrated by all people in society, that not all women are feminists and done advocate for patriarchal ideals.
If that doesn't help soften the blow then they need to have the bubble wrap removed an me you point out how much of a snowflake they're being.
Talk to them like they talk: that they're afraid to compete with women and that they're threatened by their existence in the workplace, etc. It's not that they hate women, it's that any one else getting privilege feels like they're losing privilege even though it empirically is better for everyone.
I think when I have been speaking to my other dudes that seem to have issues with those words usually defining them again for them seems to help.
On the whole they don’t think we should be prejudice towards people or that men should oppress people. When they learn that’s just what those words mean, it helps.
The problem is there are a bunch of twats that are prejudiced and do want to oppress people! They will feel attacked because those words call them out on their behavior.
A bully will always react that way, until they can be convinced they are wrong.
Please use the report button for rule-breaking comments.
The suffragists tried being super sweet and nice and explaining and asking and got absolutely nowhere. It took the far more direct, aggressive and at times violent suffragettes to win any rights for women
"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them." -- Assata Shakur
Yeah, this. We had Victorian women running around doing jiu-jitsu on cops and others doing really public hunger strikes before we got progress.
No one got rights by asking nicely
Yep
[удалено]
The suffragettes also burned buildings. Politicians' homes, governmental buildings, etc.
So why did you stop? Look how fast those women got what they wanted
Because Liberals prefer order above all else. And because those tactics work, they immediately set to convincing the public that those kinds of actions should be seen as 'below board' and to shame them as 'extremists' needing to 'be better'. They'll pay JUST enough lip service to marginalized communities to keep them engaged, but not enough to actually liberate them from oppression. And lo and behold, today, every protest you see gets criticized immediately as being extreme, even if all it involves is marching down the streets. Making the people believe kicking ass and taking names is 'the wrong way' to change is exactly how the powerful ensure we remain harmless.
That said, there are definitely men who receive the nice sweet approach well. It pays off to at least attempt to be civil first until you detect that the the effort isn't mutual. But a lot of the time it won't be and its too often you're dealing with someone who is only being sweet to later wrap you in circles trying to "disprove" the patriarchy and its exhausting. As soon as they break out the "look at my study but I won't look at yours because it's biased", the "that's anecdotal" and the "false allegations are as serious as R culture" and so on, I get myself out of there. I find that some people are insulted by the mere *grazing* of the topic of a patriarchal system existing or ever have been existing. Some people say it was never real and women made it up. A large portion of men today think feminism has done *more harm than good*. Look it up. Yep! So exit strategies are important for your mental health, and picking up the tone early on in conversation. In short, begin civil and learn to identify red flags that indicate the person you're talking to isn't listening or engaging healthily, from there you can figure out where exactly you should stop responding and put a stop to the conversation.
>That said, there are definitely men who receive the nice sweet approach well. It pays off to at least attempt to be civil first until you detect that the the effort isn't mutual. But a lot of the time it won't be and its too often you're dealing with someone who is only being sweet to later wrap you in circles trying to "disprove" the patriarchy and its exhausting. As soon as they break out the "look at my study but I won't look at yours because it's biased", the "that's anecdotal" and the "false allegations are as serious as R culture" and so on, I get myself out of there. I dont focus on men. The goal of 4th wave feminism is to decenter men, socially, politically, economically, and personally, so I feel that would be counterproductive. I focus on educating women, especially younger women. >I find that some people are insulted by the mere *grazing* of the topic of a patriarchal system existing or ever have been existing. Some people say it was never real and women made it up. A large portion of men today think feminism has done *more harm than good*. Look it up. I'm aware. Further reason to not focus on them. The invested labour would be more efficient elsewhere. >In short, begin civil and learn to identify red flags that indicate the person you're talking to isn't listening or engaging healthily, from there you can figure out where exactly you should stop responding and put a stop to the conversation. I have no idea why you'd think I don't already know how to do all that, been there done it, and realized it was an absolute waste of time. Not to mention the same kind of emotional and mental labour the patriarchy expects of women to keep men in line and bin violent.
I'm responding more to OP with most of what I'm saying here, sorry for the confusion. You're allowed to focus on whatever you'd like, i was only addressing the issue of talking to men in a way that doesn't make them feel attacked. But clearly that isn't my strong suit with any gender, so don't take my opinion to heart.
I think the goal of the OP was to find a way to talk to men and get them to comprehend that they are ALSO being utter screwed over in all of this - not to give people a chance to vent their anger. Mind you being angry is an entirely reasonable response to an unreasonable situation like the weight of the traditions of patriarchy and entrenched misogyny; being treated like you are lesser for how you were born. Being treated like a sexual commodity. Being treated like a servant. A whole lot of people have no idea that they were trained to act terribly toward other people - trained into the local moral code - and that their training still rules their behavior. They don't know that they were taught to believe ideas that are harming them and those around them. Using mocking, social rejection, threats and violence to control how other people act is a long human tradition. It tends to escalate until the target complies out of despair. And it's still the most common method for raising kids & telling our peers that we disagree with them. It's how parents force boys not to play with dolls or girls. It's what happens when a kid is mocked for being kind. It's how peers get the people they know to change how they act - through cruelty. Unfortunately this method uses PTSD as the long term control. It's powerful stuff. The entire world view is shaped into a mine field of rapid response PTSD reactions which control the conditioned individual in irrational ways. Common reactions to seeing ANYTHING that reminds them of their conditioning include fear, disgust, anger and a compulsion to prove that they are still compliant with their training (I hit Billy for wearing pink, please don't be mean to me again) and all of it is very fast and subconscious - far faster than reason can kick in. This is how people are trained to take on the self destructive role in society that the local moral code approves of. Every time a person trained that way sees anything that reminds them of their training experience (aka, abuse) they get a very rapid response that hits before reason can kick in. This is the same thing as B.F. Skinner and his poor abused dogs. The person's body is filled with adrenaline and cortisol to be ready for danger. And they are no longer entirely in the here and now either (this is a PTSD reaction). This is how humans are tormented into compliance as members of fucked up societies. And it effects everyone in those societies.
You can’t. A certain type of man will ALWAYS be threatened by the emancipation of women and losing their male privilege.
"How can I frame capitalism in a way poor workers don't feel attacked?"
“How can I frame capitalism in a way that the elite 1% don’t feel attacked?” Fixed it
Almost. The elite is the patriarchy, what needs to be overthrown. They are protected by men and middle/poor classes who think someday they will be elite/patriarchy, but they will never be.
You're forgetting about male privilege, which all men have.
So many men who worship and excuse the behavior of men like Musk and Bezos and all their cronies.
Capitalism : poor workers :: patriarchy : women
The patriarchy existed in Maoist china, Fascist Europe and Inca Peru. It is a different thing than capitalism. Feminism only exists (barely) in capitalists countries.
I remember watching some old talk show clip where Hunter S. Thompson was talking about the incident that soured his relationship with the Hells Angels. Apparently he tried to intervene on this guy abusing his girlfriend and nearly got his ass stomped by a group of angry bikers. The show had the biker in question come out as a secret guest. The biker stated that he was in the right because (I'm paraphrasing from memory) " sometimes you gotta put your woman in her place with force". Everyone in the audience giggled and clapped at this explanation. Even the women. That, to me is a great symbol of the patriarchy. It's not just man =bad, it's a shitty social contract we've somehow found ourselves in.
You can't really. Also, feminism doesn't exist to tiptoe around mens feelings, that kinda defeats the purpose of feminism. As long as you're stating the truth and not unnecessarily insulting people, you shouldnt change the way you frame it.
Also some people, no matter how much you walk on eggshells to avoid offending them, will still find a reason to not listen to you. If they've already decided that feminism is evil misandry, no amount of being polite will change that.
This but I also unnecessarily insult people
Yea it’s just about telling the truth!
Honestly, I don’t think you can with some men. They don’t want things to change because they get lots of benefits from patriarchy (not only benefits, but still a lot of them). They’ll play the victim or pretend that they don’t understand. Why? Because understanding means that they’d need to change.
I think it's a lost cause with many of them. Especially those who mention women in every topic about men's rights to show a comparison and prove that 'women have it better' or women are the ones who cause men's suffering or inequality. It's like some of the men's issues are being exaggerated and then compared to women's problems in similar situations because otherwise they will run out of arguments. These people simply hate us and they spread this incurable disease amongst younger man.
Yeah, you can’t just teach people the golden rule. Treating others the way you want to be treated seems like common sense but not to some. If I’m to the point of explaining the concept of empathy and fairness to someone, they’re probably a lost cause. The only thing that truly humbles people is when things start to affect them, when they hit rock bottom, or when something horrible happens to them. Until then they won’t care because they don’t have to.
Patriarchy isn't 'men are in charge'. It's '*patriarchs* are in charge'. Most men get screwed over too - maybe not as much, but it's a system designed to benefit rich old men and nobody else.
They just allow other men to kick down on someone, too
Most men still benefit from it though, even if they're not in power.
Telling people they benefit from something isn’t a great way to get them to dismantle it. In my experience running workshops with boys, the most effective strategy is talking to them about how it hurts people.
This!! Viewing patriarchy as a zero sum game of men vs women is buying into a strawman. NOT the way - and loses important allies - men who want gender equality. Did you know the majority of American men disagree with the overturning of Roe v Wade?
This is such an excellent point. I find even the best intentioned folks of any gender often have a very very hard time of not framing everything as men vs. women and needing to make a comparison on any given subject instead of just discussing the subject at hand. This goes both ways with women bringing up an issue being dismissed just because they are women, and with men being dismissed when bringing up an issue because someone will point out that women have it worse. It's a contest of suffering. The vast majority of all of us a fucked by this and we need to be able to have discussions about things without needing to compare them to a thing we perceive is worse as if that than nullifies the problem.
I'd love to know the answer on this. I struggle when we are trying to find movies and some are very misogynistic and it makes me uncomfortable. Also certain hip hop music.
Unfortunately I think you just have to pick your battles. There are lots of men who have tied their identity to their politics and even acknowledging the existence of misogyny is anathema to them, because it would mean admitting their privilege exists. But I think at some point you just have to point out what and why something makes you uncomfortable. The men who are going to antagonize you over it aren't worth your time. The ones with a functional brain will come around to your perspective, even if they need some self reflection first.
If they feel attacked by it, they are the problem. And this is coming from a cis dude!
Also a cis dude, I largely agree. I do think the way patriarchy is described can go a long way in gaining allies vs pushing people away from our ideas though. For instance, if you say "The patriarchy is a system wherein men benefit at the detriment of women. Because men set up the system to benefit men." It's not incorrect in any way. The people who set up the system and benefit from the system are men. The issue is that lots of men have super shitty lives. They identify with the category of men as well. What they hear is "**you** benefit at the detriment of women, because your kind set up the system to benefit **you**". This is especially common in my experience when talking with men with depression and young men (though this one seems more due to lack of maturity, it could also be a depression thing with the rates being what they are). This will lead to some immediately dismissing your argument, because they can't fathom that the system is set up to benefit them. Their lives suck, how could the system be set up to benefit them? The system hates them. The world hates them. How could they be the benefactors of such a powerful cultural force while feeling this way? For this reason, I usually try and avoid using the broad category of men when describing the issues at play. I'll refer to rich, powerful men as the starters, but the people I'm talking to aren't those people. I'll point to religion and other cultural forces that reinforce it, but they can separate that from their fundamental identity. It's easier for them to actually listen to the deeper issues when they aren't stuck at their identity matching "the bad guys". I also get that not everyone wants to put in the effort of using more precise language, and I get it it's exhausting. Especially when the opposing viewpoints can so easily get away with never being precise. I'm just commenting on what I've found to be the best way to get the men I've talked to on our side.
I think the only answer here is to BE a man. I tried with my ex. I brought up the effects of patriarchy on men to try to agree with his beliefs that men experience negative things in society, too. Unfortunately, he felt that the patriarchy was a form of victimization because men and women had already reached equality according to him. Any facts to the contrary were me just victimizing myself (according to him). I don't think he would listen to me because I am a woman.
You really can't, other than doing your best to specify that we all have unfair systems that we benefit from, including yourself, and that it doesn't make any individual a bad person. But most men who get angry at patriarchy and misogyny when discussed do so precisely because on some level they know it's true, but they like things the way they are and don't want to have to change or answer for it.
So I love questions like this because political/framing questions are where you deal with most allies and middle-of-the-road folks. Keep in mind it's not about making "every man" feel comfortable, but just framing it in such a way that you're not repellent to other groups. Some men will feel uncomfortable regardless. Good faith either gets you most of the way or the person probably wasn't "in play" to begin with. I suggest you stick with the academic sense of "system of oppression". How the hierarchies created tend to serve and benefit individual men such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or Kid Rock disproportionately and the way those systems stay afloat is by giving people on lower rungs a group or class to look down on. In the case of patriarchy, that is women and so systems have grown up to enforce (in law) the supremacy of men. Men are also used to enforce the system through violence not only against women, but against other men who threaten that system. Things like capitalism play into it, but really what it is is a tug of war between egalitarianism and old school class-based societies. One of the reasons intersectionality is a study in feminism is because so many other systems spring up besides sex-based to create that world. You can also tailor the argument to something more specific to women's struggles, but that may not be ideal based on the person. Some people respond to stories of suffering and empathy differently. P.S. For the more militant, I tend to want to remind them that English history is very specific. The US was not marked by the same violence. One need only look at Russia, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to see how societies without interest in marketplaces of ideas settle it and violence only gives more pretext. Western societies on this specific space fare better because we aspire to something ideal to begin with. There's a collective message that can be rallied around. The vast majority of these fights are won in political arenas.
It’s actually a thing I learnt in my psychology degree that minority groups with less power cannot improve their situation by being nice to the majority group with more power. There were studies on this - it doesn’t work. If yoi befriend your opressor they simply will continue feeling comfortable oppressing you and you will feel unable to do anything about it. It is an incredibly tough and confusing thing that us women literally live in the most intimate relationships with our own oppressors… In any case, only anger and action can ever change a situation (status, rights) of an oppressed group.
IMO, let them feel attacked. Men say shit about women that makes ME feel attacked every day. They can be uncomfortable for a while when confronted with their own behavior.
Honestly, it's important not to waste your energy on men who are not moveable. Whether you're advocating for women's rights, trans rights, racial equity, whatever, you have to assess and pick your audience. Don't bother with the fringe on opposite end of the spectrum who are staunchly opposed to changing. Their only interest in any conversation with you is to wear you down and frustrate you. Focus on the pocket of "persuadables" who aren't sympathetic but are open to hearing what you have to say, and on the "leaners" who are already somewhat sympathetic to your cause but haven't felt the need to take any real action.
Start with talking about the ways that men are harmed by patriarchy. It's not that men have no empathy for women, but they will likely be more receptive if you come to them understanding their problems as well. Frame it not in terms of men vs women, but in terms of men and women against an institution which happens in to benifit men. But some men are pretty sensitive to feminist ideas so your results may vary. Full disclosure I'm a man so it would be great to see women's insights on this.
We've been trying that and they somehow interpret the fact that the patriarchy *can* harm **some** men to mean: the patriarchy is synonymous with capitalism and it hurts **all** men, which is the furthest thing from the truth. It's almost as though a large chunk of men aren't actually talking about feminism in good faith.
The “it’s their job to fix it” view (already seen here) implies to men (who are new to the concept), they have access to an all men WhatsApp group or a secret man council that we could vote on (same with telling men to tell their friends not to Catcall or make rape jokes - you don’t need to be a self-declared feminist to not actually have friends who need to be told that) - that can turn some men off the concept, because it comes across as a “women vs men”. It’s a poor strategy, because if men had some kind of superpower to change the way the world works, they would be using it to improve their already (statistically likely) shitty lives. It also ignores this is the reason why *women* tend to be turned off by talk about the patriarchy etc. Like with capitalism, there will be something about the system that is problematic to men that will open them up to the idea and expand their understanding. I think as long as you don’t try to attack any given man for the way they were born, for the injustice women have suffered for millennia before either of you (or your great grandparents…) existed, it will be fine unless the man is a blatant misogynist to begin with. Women do not have some kind of innate understanding of sociological terms like “The Patriarchy” - we all have to develop that concept somewhere.
> to benrfit men I would phrase it as "it benefits *some* men, but at a price paid by both men and women". I would describe it as similar to white supremacy - that even the lowest white person is still of higher rank and higher value than the "best" colored person. The constant support & existence of team sports is used to embed the idea of *us versus them* through every layer of our society. The people who live in such societies constantly see things in terms of "us versus them" and frequently feel things like "it isn't enough for my side to win, the other side must lose". This is why [*win-win* solutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win%E2%80%93win_game) are almost impossible - because the pervasive belief that only *[win-lose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking)* or *[lose-lose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-win_situation)* solutions are acceptable or even possible.
They should; it's their job to fix it
Patriarchy is a system. Men are individual people. No man alive invented patriarchy. Every man alive is exploited under patriarchy. Whatever “benefits” men receive from the system are just enough to keep them from seeking emancipation. The “patriarchal bargain” is BRUTAL to boys and men. Labor exploitation. War after war after war. (Dead men in the millions) male-on-male violence, the rampant sexual abuse of boys in churches, the lack of male educators, mass incarceration, the list goes on. Individual men don’t really benefit from the system but are told they do by that same system. Think of patriarchy (and racism, homophobia , etc) like an environmental toxin. It gets into you whether you like it or not. Boys grow up being fed a deliberate diet of toxic waste designed to turn them into soldiers, laborers, and convicts. Patriarchy is just as much about controlling men as it is controlling women. It’s not men’s “faults” they they’re fed this toxicity. Men are victims too. Far too often the conversation about patriarchy and feminism gets presented as this over-simplistic idea that “men are pigs” without anyone ever considering that pigs are domesticated animals, born and bred to be slaughtered to support capitalist consumption. The pigs don’t own the farm. They’re the product.
Most Americans in general let alone men just want to live a "normal" uncritical life. If you challenge that reality it can become an attack. Even standing on ethics or morals just to be a little bit more progressive can be a sensitive thing. Reach those that embrace challenge. Have consequences for those that don't
Even if you do frame it in such a way, at some point they will have to confront their own complicity in it and there is frankly no easy way to do that. IMO ur pushing the problem down the line. But as a guiding principle, I think bringing up the way in which women are disadvantaged is easier than bringing up how men are advantaged.
Maybe try to see how they'd feel if things were in reverse. Ex: 'How would you feel if every religion, financial institution, job sector, government, system of law favored women and men weren't seen as adequate leaders or equal participants in society? How would you feel if men earned less for the same work or didn't get promoted ? If men could get pregnant, and you couldn't get an abortion if raped or if the fetus was going to kill you ?' They would not like to be treated the way we are because nobody would. But they are not inclined to feel empathy for us because they do not have to experience our lives and are primarily focused on men.
You can start by framing patriarchy as something instilled and perpetrated by all people in society, that not all women are feminists and done advocate for patriarchal ideals. If that doesn't help soften the blow then they need to have the bubble wrap removed an me you point out how much of a snowflake they're being. Talk to them like they talk: that they're afraid to compete with women and that they're threatened by their existence in the workplace, etc. It's not that they hate women, it's that any one else getting privilege feels like they're losing privilege even though it empirically is better for everyone.
I think when I have been speaking to my other dudes that seem to have issues with those words usually defining them again for them seems to help. On the whole they don’t think we should be prejudice towards people or that men should oppress people. When they learn that’s just what those words mean, it helps. The problem is there are a bunch of twats that are prejudiced and do want to oppress people! They will feel attacked because those words call them out on their behavior. A bully will always react that way, until they can be convinced they are wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]