Women are villains, men are saints

boldwalker12 said:Look, I’m not claiming this is 100% okay. I explicitly said that, to some extent, it *is* discrimination. It’s all about the balance of power. You could argue it’s also discriminatory when a company like a major tech firm in Silicon Valley decides to focus exclusively on hiring women for a while because they have a massive shortage of female talent. There are plenty of examples of that happening, and it’s precisely because there are still so many male-dominated industries where men hold all the cards. So, I don't see it being quite as controversial when women need a dedicated space where they can focus on
issues specifically affecting women. I’m not out here defending anyone; it’s entirely possible that this mindset turns out to be a huge mistake in the long run. Personally, I think men desperately need to be educated on these issues, and isolating them just fuels more misunderstanding. Bottom line: it’s not "good," but I was just trying to find some logical reasoning for why it happens this way.

Right, we get it... look, my goal isn't to attack anyone—it's just that this kind of practice seems counterproductive in the long term. Besides, I personally find those "Women Only" or "Men Only" signs incredibly cringey.

Anonymous said:What do you think?
A guy with a bunch of women is just seen as a player—it’s celebrated.
But a woman with multiple men? She's immediately labeled a slut. Disgusting.
That isn't how nature intended things to be; it's how organized religion shaped society to keep people under control through belief systems.

This is just another tired stereotype to me. I haven't noticed that these so-called "party girls" have any trouble picking a life partner; if anything, they tend to come out on top more often than not.
The catch is that once they marry, they get treated based on their past—usually by his family—and that's where the real friction starts.

And who is creating this myth about the "experienced player" anyway? It's usually nothing more than some woman's word. Honestly, most guys care way more about money and status than whether or not a girl has a long list of exes from the local bars.

Drew Lee7 said:It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

Drew Lee7 said:I honestly think this kind of literature is just trash and lacks any real substance.

Look, I feel like there could be plenty of middle ground here, even if they don't end up agreeing on everything. But hey, whatever...

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against feminists, but when someone calls something "unacceptable" and it isn't actual violence—just a different opinion or viewpoint—it basically proves my point: it implies that person feels primitive or backward just for thinking that way. And it’s not just talk anymore; we're seeing more and more legal stuff (or at least proposals that border on being totally absurd) popping up. One example is how you could practically end up behind bars just for sending a suggestive message. 🙄

The right to choose? Sure, absolutely. But look at how things actually work today. Does every woman really have that choice in practice? Let's say she wants to be both a scientist and a mother. She has to grind through undergrad, then grad school, then her PhD, all while fighting to keep her job... if she decides to have kids, she simply isn't playing on the same level as a woman who chooses not to.

Drew Lee7 said:Let's swap out the word "normal." The real issue is that they're just using terrible methodology. I've looked at dozens of papers like this in my time. I've read them. Their basic goal isn't even to study a phenomenon and draw conclusions; the conclusions are already baked in from the start. The whole paper is just a desperate attempt to cherry-pick facts to support a predetermined opinion.

What's the connection? Sadly, it's tied to family dynamics, identity crises, and all those past disappointments people project onto the entire male gender... yeah, it goes on and on.

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I’d be an idiot if I claimed discrimination doesn't exist in today's world. It's really just a question of where you're looking. For a huge chunk of American history leading up to the mid-1900s, most of the country was struggling way more than people realize. We're talking about places like Appalachia, the rural coastlines, or even parts of Canada where people migrated from; basically, these were incredibly impoverished farming communities that have been through absolute hell historically. The only area that was somewhat better off—and god help us, this was actually more progressive toward women—was the Midwest. That’s the point I’m making. You can't take a region where people are barely scraping by, shaped by constant historical trauma, and use it to draw sweeping conclusions about everyone. Besides, those were mostly shepherd communities. Nomadic, basically. It’s common knowledge in history and ethnology that there's a massive distinction between nomadic and agrarian societies, where the former tended to be strictly patriarchal in the modern sense, while the latter weren't. Sure, authoritative patriarchy existed, and it still does, but it hasn't been the universal standard everywhere, despite how some people try to paint it. It’s just a byproduct of specific historical and social circumstances.

Do you notice the glaring contradiction here?

Drew Lee7 said:It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

Well, it can be. For instance, look at what Aristotle wrote:
"Just as a sickly parent sometimes produces sickly children, and sometimes produces healthy ones, so too from a female body, sometimes a female is born, and sometimes a male. A woman is like a debilitated man; her monthly menses is merely seed, but an impure seed. This seed lacks one thing—the source of life—which resides solely within the male seed."

Steven Johnson3 said:It seems like a bunch of threads have been sparked lately, all centered around these PDFs that basically categorize women as nothing but trash. It looks like being female is being treated as the ultimate misfortune. I suppose that’s why so many people celebrate when they find out they’re having a son. Honestly, this whole mess probably traces back to Adam. But why such sweeping generalizations? Does this criticism apply to older generations, or just the younger ones? Is it meant to be universal? Should I feel ashamed simply because I am a woman? And why are feminists constantly being belittled? Would these critics actually prefer if things hadn't changed—if women were still stuck at home without any rights at all?

Honestly, I'm done even trying to argue about this. It's a total dead end and I'm just stressing myself out for nothing. People love to bash feminism without having read a single book on the subject. They don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Just change what you can control. Start with yourself, your family, and your own circle... getting worked up over the state of society isn't helping anyone!

Quote : Baby blues

redjackal82 said:Honestly, I'm done even trying to argue about this. It's a total dead end and I'm just stressing myself out for nothing. People love to bash feminism without having read a single book on the subject. They don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Just change what you can control. Start with yourself, your family, and your own circle... getting worked up over the state of society isn't helping anyone!

If it bothers you that much, why even show up? I just don't get that type of person.

Joshua Adams41 said:This is just another tired stereotype to me. I haven't noticed that these so-called "party girls" have any trouble picking a life partner; if anything, they tend to come out on top more often than not.
The catch is that once they marry, they get treated based on their past—usually by his family—and that's where the real friction starts.

And who is creating this myth about the "experienced player" anyway? It's usually nothing more than some woman's word. Honestly, most guys care way more about money and status than whether or not a girl has a long list of exes from the local bars.

It doesn't matter to them. Why would they be killed off by impotence or a sudden collapse? Though, unlike women, they don't tend to go into much detail about those things.

boldwalker12 said:It’s precisely because society still views the mom as the primary caregiver while the dad gets more freedom and way fewer responsibilities. Like I said before, we're just dealing with the leftovers of old-school patriarchal norms.

I don't see it that way at all. In a true patriarchal setup, a woman's primary role is motherhood, but that only works if the man is actually present in the picture. Under that system, divorce basically doesn't exist—there’s no real option for a woman to just walk away from her man. Instead, the power dynamic allows him to essentially cast her out while keeping full custody of the child. So... honestly? I think you're completely off base here.

goldenranger5 said:You missed the point entirely. If we completely removed women from the equation, yes, biological fathers would likely be prioritized over any other male relative or non-biological father regardless of their circumstances—but that’s not what we are debating, is it?

We are discussing why custody is assigned to mothers rather than fathers. Again, it comes down to the glorification of the maternal ROLE.

Not that I am claiming that is any better than the glorification of the paternal role (take, for instance, certain societies structured under Sharia law).

Quite the opposite; I am not asserting that someone's role—which is often just a collection of circumstances—makes them inherently qualified for anything, or more qualified than anyone else.

Simply put, suggesting that this twisted manifestation of patriarchal thought (heavily influenced by dominant religious structures) serves as proof that women aren't facing discrimination is illogical.

Women are more than just mothers. Once again, the distinction is glaringly obvious.

If you lived in a world that signaled your second-class citizenship through thousands of minor and major ways every single day, but kept insisting that AS LONG AS you eventually have kids and AS LONG AS you get divorced, things might somehow turn out rosy, it wouldn't seem quite so subtle.

Do you even know what separation anxiety in toddlers actually is? Clearly, you don't, which explains why you're posting such absolute garbage.

Quote : Baby blues

wiredmoose3 said:Do you notice the glaring contradiction here?

Well, it can be. For instance, look at what Aristotle wrote:
"Just as a sickly parent sometimes produces sickly children, and sometimes produces healthy ones, so too from a female body, sometimes a female is born, and sometimes a male. A woman is like a debilitated man; her monthly menses is merely seed, but an impure seed. This seed lacks one thing—the source of life—which resides solely within the male seed."

You mean contradiction, right? 🤷

So, you're really trying to base your entire argument on a single quote? What exactly are you trying to prove there? 😂

Sorry if I'm laughing, but I honestly can't help it. I actually wrote out this whole long-winded response to you, but then the entire thing just vanished into thin air. You took an Aristotelian quote, ripped it straight out of context, and now you're waving it around like it's some kind of smoking gun to prove how women are being oppressed. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. 🤣

Drew Lee7 said:I don't see it that way at all. In a true patriarchal setup, a woman's primary role is motherhood, but that only works if the man is actually present in the picture. Under that system, divorce basically doesn't exist—there’s no real option for a woman to just walk away from her man. Instead, the power dynamic allows him to essentially cast her out while keeping full custody of the child. So... honestly? I think you're completely off base here.

Do you even know what separation anxiety in toddlers actually is? Clearly, you don't, which explains why you're posting such absolute garbage.

Quote : Baby blues

You mean contradiction, right? 🤷

So, you're really trying to base your entire argument on a single quote? What exactly are you trying to prove there? 😂

Sorry if I'm laughing, but I honestly can't help it. I actually wrote out this whole long-winded response to you, but then the entire thing just vanished into thin air. You took an Aristotelian quote, ripped it straight out of context, and now you're waving it around like it's some kind of smoking gun to prove how women are being oppressed. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. 🤣

Look, I'm talking about the leftovers of patriarchy. It's not like we're living in the dark ages where a woman isn't allowed to leave a man anymore.

Drew Lee7 said:I don't see it that way at all. In a true patriarchal setup, a woman's primary role is motherhood, but that only works if the man is actually present in the picture. Under that system, divorce basically doesn't exist—there’s no real option for a woman to just walk away from her man. Instead, the power dynamic allows him to essentially cast her out while keeping full custody of the child. So... honestly? I think you're completely off base here.

Do you even know what separation anxiety in toddlers actually is? Clearly, you don't, which explains why you're posting such absolute garbage.

Quote : Baby blues

You mean contradiction, right? 🤷

So, you're really trying to base your entire argument on a single quote? What exactly are you trying to prove there? 😂

Sorry if I'm laughing, but I honestly can't help it. I actually wrote out this whole long-winded response to you, but then the entire thing just vanished into thin air. You took an Aristotelian quote, ripped it straight out of context, and now you're waving it around like it's some kind of smoking gun to prove how women are being oppressed. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. 🤣

Ugh, well, at least you've got plenty of quotes to work with—just maybe try looking at some other philosophers for once? It's a little hard to claim something is "out of context" when you're cherry-picking everything. 😁

"But once the laws granted women the same rights as men, they should have also been granted human reason."
"Just a glance at a woman's stature tells us she is not destined for great intellectual or physical feats. She does not prove herself through what she accomplishes, but through what she endures: the pains of childbirth, the care of children, and her submissiveness to the man she must patiently accompany. Her greatest pains, joys, and displays of strength are denied to her; her life should flow more quietly, more insignificantly, and more weakly than a man's, and generally shouldn't be any happier or more miserable than his." A. Schopenhauer.

"Woman is a riddle whose solution is motherhood."
"Women who educate themselves probably do so because their sexual apparatus doesn't work." Nietzsche

And there's a million more examples like that.

boldwalker12 said:Look, I'm talking about the leftovers of patriarchy. It's not like we're living in the dark ages where a woman isn't allowed to leave a man anymore.

Ugh, well, at least you've got plenty of quotes to work with—just maybe try looking at some other philosophers for once? It's a little hard to claim something is "out of context" when you're cherry-picking everything. 😁

"But once the laws granted women the same rights as men, they should have also been granted human reason."
"Just a glance at a woman's stature tells us she is not destined for great intellectual or physical feats. She does not prove herself through what she accomplishes, but through what she endures: the pains of childbirth, the care of children, and her submissiveness to the man she must patiently accompany. Her greatest pains, joys, and displays of strength are denied to her; her life should flow more quietly, more insignificantly, and more weakly than a man's, and generally shouldn't be any happier or more miserable than his." A. Schopenhauer.

"Woman is a riddle whose solution is motherhood."
"Women who educate themselves probably do so because their sexual apparatus doesn't work." Nietzsche

And there's a million more examples like that.

Honestly, I have no clue where you're getting this idea that those are "remnants of the patriarchy." That's actually incomprehensible to a patriarchy. In those systems, the option for a woman to even think about leaving a man—let alone raising a child on her own—doesn't even exist. They're completely marginalized. Do you even realize what happens to women in those types of cultures, or what's left of them, if they actually try? There have been news stories right here in the States where, for example, an American woman marries an Arab man, they divorce, and he just kidnaps the kid and vanishes. And before anyone tries to call me a chauvinist, that isn't just some specific trait of an Arab man; it’s a feature of all patriarchal cultures.
You can't claim something is a "remnant" of a system if that thing was fundamentally impossible within that culture to begin with.

The whole "glorification" of motherhood? If anything, that’s a hallmark of a matriarchy.

And regarding those quotes... what exactly do you think you've proven with them? Seriously though, I’m asking you—what was the point?

silentpilot6 said:Let's be clear... in my eyes, a man who fails to pay child support isn't a man at all; he's just a loser and a jerk... regardless of whether he was married to the mother or it was just a one-night stand.
Child support is the bare minimum you can do... though on the other hand, it is true that women are, by default, assigned the children.
A mother could be unemployed or struggling with addiction, yet she is still the one the child goes to. 🤷

Personally, I’d only agree to pay child support if I didn't want the kid in my life to begin with. Otherwise, let the courts handle it since they hand out custody to women 99% of the time, which is nothing short of blatant discrimination.

Steven Johnson3 said:Quote : Baby blues

If it bothers you that much, why even show up? I just don't get that type of person.

It doesn't matter to them. Why would they be killed off by impotence or a sudden collapse? Though, unlike women, they don't tend to go into much detail about those things.

That’s not even what I was getting at. My critique was aimed more at those tired social stereotypes—you know, the ones judging women based on their dating history, or vice versa.
I'm talking about how society treats one person like a hero for the exact same behavior they treat someone else like a villain for.
It’s such a cliché, but the reality is way more nuanced. It really just comes down to the individual case.

Drew Lee7 said:I don't see it that way at all. In a true patriarchal setup, a woman's primary role is motherhood, but that only works if the man is actually present in the picture. Under that system, divorce basically doesn't exist—there’s no real option for a woman to just walk away from her man. Instead, the power dynamic allows him to essentially cast her out while keeping full custody of the child. So... honestly? I think you're completely off base here.

Do you even know what separation anxiety in toddlers actually is? Clearly, you don't, which explains why you're posting such absolute garbage.

Quote : Baby blues

You mean contradiction, right? 🤷

So, you're really trying to base your entire argument on a single quote? What exactly are you trying to prove there? 😂

Sorry if I'm laughing, but I honestly can't help it. I actually wrote out this whole long-winded response to you, but then the entire thing just vanished into thin air. You took an Aristotelian quote, ripped it straight out of context, and now you're waving it around like it's some kind of smoking gun to prove how women are being oppressed. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. 🤣

My point was that every single case needs to be judged based on actual facts, not just out of reflex. I suppose it goes without saying that one should consider the child's age—would you demand a toddler produce a technical blueprint, or perhaps ask them to color within the lines?

Drew Lee7 said:Honestly, I have no clue where you're getting this idea that those are "remnants of the patriarchy." That's actually incomprehensible to a patriarchy. In those systems, the option for a woman to even think about leaving a man—let alone raising a child on her own—doesn't even exist. They're completely marginalized. Do you even realize what happens to women in those types of cultures, or what's left of them, if they actually try? There have been news stories right here in the States where, for example, an American woman marries an Arab man, they divorce, and he just kidnaps the kid and vanishes. And before anyone tries to call me a chauvinist, that isn't just some specific trait of an Arab man; it’s a feature of all patriarchal cultures.
You can't claim something is a "remnant" of a system if that thing was fundamentally impossible within that culture to begin with.

The whole "glorification" of motherhood? If anything, that’s a hallmark of a matriarchy.

And regarding those quotes... what exactly do you think you've proven with them? Seriously though, I’m asking you—what was the point?

Yeah. I did mention right at the start that this is all pretty pointless. In the next few posts, I fully expect a massive, deep-dive dissertation on matriarchy stretching all the way back to the seventh century. 🙂
I just don't have that much free time.

Yeah, true... facts are hard to pin down. Honestly, you might as well just stay in your own lane because who knows what’s waiting for you out there? Even if the facts are on your side, those people at the top will just move the goalposts anyway.

...besides, if every single guy—or at least most of them—is just some hardcore patriarchal chauvinist, then it makes it way easier to justify the whole mess, doesn't it? 😉

Please, it’s just a shortage of decent emojis during the weekends 🙂

You simply don't grasp temporal categories regarding the historical presence of matriarchy. You fail to see that patriarchy isn't some monolithic entity; it manifests differently depending on the dominant religion or culture. To you, no source is reliable unless it happens to align perfectly with your own views, yet you insist on debating... facts? It’s a shame my doctor has forbidden me from laughing too much lately.

Your one advantage—which is massive, truly massive—is your sheer persistence, your relentlessness, and your staggering surplus of free time. I have to hand it to this lady for enduring this for so long. Just wait until I find a tablecloth and stretch it out into a flag.

Though, if anyone is qualified to write about blaming others for their own miserable situation, you are certainly the right person for the job. Go ahead, let it rip.

Are you seriously telling me you don't get that patriarchy isn't some monolith?! Hahaha, give me a break...

...I mean, what exactly have I been preaching about all this time? Man, you really cracked me up. 😂 😂 😂

You know, when people get too worked up, they start hallucinating that anyone else is actually listening or responding.

But here’s the kicker: most women don't even have a problem with the patriarchy, as long as the guy running the show treats them right. That's why feminists lose their minds—because the vast majority of women aren't even bothered by it. Don't go thinking I'm celebrating this, though. Not at all...

Drew Lee7 said:Yeah, true... facts are hard to pin down. Honestly, you might as well just stay in your own lane because who knows what’s waiting for you out there? Even if the facts are on your side, those people at the top will just move the goalposts anyway.

...besides, if every single guy—or at least most of them—is just some hardcore patriarchal chauvinist, then it makes it way easier to justify the whole mess, doesn't it? 😉

Well, that's your take on it. 😉

Drew Lee7 said:Yeah, true... facts are hard to pin down. Honestly, you might as well just stay in your own lane because who knows what’s waiting for you out there? Even if the facts are on your side, those people at the top will just move the goalposts anyway.

...besides, if every single guy—or at least most of them—is just some hardcore patriarchal chauvinist, then it makes it way easier to justify the whole mess, doesn't it? 😉

Look, come back to me when you've opened fifty different threads about shitty, narcissistic, selfish guys and backed it all up with links from Cosmopolitan and Elle, and then maybe you'll actually have a leg to stand on.

Drew Lee7 said:Are you seriously telling me you don't get that patriarchy isn't some monolith?! Hahaha, give me a break...

...I mean, what exactly have I been preaching about all this time? Man, you really cracked me up. 😂 😂 😂

You know, when people get too worked up, they start hallucinating that anyone else is actually listening or responding.

But here’s the kicker: most women don't even have a problem with the patriarchy, as long as the guy running the show treats them right. That's why feminists lose their minds—because the vast majority of women aren't even bothered by it. Don't go thinking I'm celebrating this, though. Not at all...

Drew Lee7 said:Are you seriously telling me you don't get that patriarchy isn't some monolith?! Hahaha, give me a break...

...I mean, what exactly have I been preaching about all this time? Man, you really cracked me up. 😂 😂 😂

You know, when people get too worked up, they start hallucinating that anyone else is actually listening or responding.

But here’s the kicker: most women don't even have a problem with the patriarchy, as long as the guy running the show treats them right. That's why feminists lose their minds—because the vast majority of women aren't even bothered by it. Don't go thinking I'm celebrating this, though. Not at all...

Granted. It applies to all of them. But then again, aren't those cultures supposed to be non-homogeneous?

You'd probably need an entire Oracle database just to maintain the connection to all your "arguments."

To be honest, I can't quite reach that level of "intensity" required to read everything you scribble here. Generally, I skip over you in every thread; I'm only present as long as you aren't quoting me too vividly. Even so, you provide plenty of material for a comedy routine.

And as for what most women enjoy... well, you're certainly an expert on that too. 🤣

Quote : Baby blues

Drew Lee7 As specified by Steven Johnson3: I assume you mean contradiction? 🤷:

Contradictions are fine by me—we understand each other.

Quote : Baby blues

Drew Lee7 said:I don't see it that way at all. In a true patriarchal setup, a woman's primary role is motherhood, but that only works if the man is actually present in the picture. Under that system, divorce basically doesn't exist—there’s no real option for a woman to just walk away from her man. Instead, the power dynamic allows him to essentially cast her out while keeping full custody of the child. So... honestly? I think you're completely off base here.

Do you even know what separation anxiety in toddlers actually is? Clearly, you don't, which explains why you're posting such absolute garbage.

Quote : Baby blues

You mean contradiction, right? 🤷

So, you're really trying to base your entire argument on a single quote? What exactly are you trying to prove there? 😂

Sorry if I'm laughing, but I honestly can't help it. I actually wrote out this whole long-winded response to you, but then the entire thing just vanished into thin air. You took an Aristotelian quote, ripped it straight out of context, and now you're waving it around like it's some kind of smoking gun to prove how women are being oppressed. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. 🤣

If you actually understood the subject matter you were trying to discuss, you wouldn't be so stunned by a single quote—there are plenty more where that came from, just like boldwalker12 pointed out.
It’s also common knowledge—though some would argue otherwise—that Western civilization was essentially built upon the foundations of ancient philosophy and Christian thought—along with their respective values.
So, you drop a line about sociological theory in one breath—invoking that general paradigm where societal values evolve at a glacial pace and are notoriously difficult to shift—and then you act surprised? If you’re actually following that logic, you should be well aware of how those values take root, get taught, passed down, and eventually reinforced. It isn't exactly rocket science.

Quote : Baby blues

Drew Lee7 As requested: Forgive me if I laugh—it’s just a reflex at this point. I actually sat down and wrote out a much longer response to you, but the whole thing vanished into thin air. You took an Aristotelian quote, stripped it of all context, and now you're waving it around like some grand piece of evidence for the systemic oppression of women. I’ll pass—that's just a stretch. 🤣

I’m not out here trying to prove anything—that’s just not my style. I'm actually attempting to have a conversation.
I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to prove—or even what exactly you're aiming for here.
I’m well aware that when someone runs out of actual arguments—or simply never had any to begin with—they tend to pivot toward mocking their opponent. It's a classic move.

First off, my bad, wiredmoose3 for being caught in the crossfire of this fight between me and—let's be honest—some of the other women here, rather than you specifically. So, sorry about that, Baby.

I actually wrote you a massive response, but the ether just swallowed it whole. I honestly didn't have the energy to deal with the tech issues again. Long story short: if we're talking about the status of any individual—man or woman—within a society, we're talking about every single social dimension. And when I say "every," I don't just mean the public or political stuff, but the private side too. You can't draw conclusions about the nature of society in ancient Greece based on a single quote ripped out of context. As a counterpoint, look at the Feast, where it mentions that Aristotle's teacher was a woman. But the Feast itself is a work that pretty much glorifies pederasty and carries some slightly misogynistic undertones. So how are we supposed to reconcile those two things? Things are always way more complicated than they look on the surface. Historically, we have a decent idea of when and how patriarchy emerged: iron, warriors, cavalry, nomads—those are the links. The ancient Greeks were linguistically Indo-European (so, again, iron, warriors, cavalry, nomads) who migrated to the Greek peninsula in several waves. Of course, they didn't just land on empty soil; they either assimilated parts of the local population or enslaved them. The existing cultures were agrarian with strong matriarchal traits (you can see it in the myths). That’s just one slice of the complex Greek story, especially when you factor in the influence from the East.

I'll say it again: you didn't deserve to be mocked. But goldenranger5 definitely does. At first, I just thought she was having a hard time wrapping her head around things, but... she actually admitted there's some weird, secret connection between us. Turns out it's just her being stuck up about me, which isn't my problem, it's hers.

And boldwalker12 decided to use two philosophers as examples who are famously misogynistic. I actually like them quite a bit, though both had incredibly tragic lives—not just because Schopenhauer was depressed and academically sidelined, and Nietzsche suffered and died from progressive paralysis (which is both physical and mental), but because both were also total failures in love.

Honestly, how many misogynistic and misandrist statements can you find on this forum alone? Hundreds upon hundreds. And then what? Some future historian could pick and choose a few of them and use them to claim we live in a patriarchy or a matriarchy.

Does anyone have a good book recommendation? I’m looking to really dive deep and understand what feminists are actually advocating for...