Comments by "" (@A86) on "Backstabbing, Gossip And Other 'Bitchy' Behavior Women Do [STUDY]" video.

  1. Stig Helmer - Uh, Patriarchy is not an unprovable hypothesis. Take a Sociology or Anthropology course some day. A "patriarchy" simply means a society where men make up the dominant control group of where men are the primary leaders. Almost all societies on Earth are classified as a "Patriarchy" by anthropologists and sociologists. The only remaining matriarchies on Earth are a few tribal societies (they probably used to be more common). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy It doesn't mean a society where women have no rights. Simply a society where men are the in-power group. Just like the US is still undeniably a group where white people are the dominant "in charge" group even though we've made advances in racial progress, tolerance and cooperation. 
    4
  2. FuckYouYouFuck - If fathers are considered the head of household by social tradition and males make up the majority of lawmakers, business people and people of importance your society is a "patriarchy". That's all it means. It doesn't mean women are powerless, have no rights and no influence or voice. Just that they don't make up the majority of the group in charge.
    4
  3. FuckYouYouFuck - "No one controls society. It's not a top-down centrally managed hierarchical authoritarian thing, and has become less so over time, especially increasingly pluralistic" Might want to rethink that sentiment. If it's true that no one is in charge in society and (Western) society is an egalitarian and pluralistic cooperative then Progressivism is pretty useless since you've already achieved its objectives, according to how you described society. If what you said is true then you should stop speaking out against "The Rich", Wall Street, etc. Like you said, no one is in charge and everyone is responsible for their situation in life. That would be the ultimate implications of what you said if what you said is true. The Rich aren't in charge, racism isn't a problem, the Religious Right aren't in charge either, the government isn't authoritarian and society is fair for the most part. It's funny TYT is supposed to be a "progressive" place but its comment section, most of whom presumably consider themselves "progressives", have reactionary conservative-minded sentiments when it comes to issues or groups they personally don't empathize with the plight of.
    3
  4. FuckYouYouFuck - An "oligarchy" also simply means a society where the rich control the political and social mechanisms (which we agree they do). It doesn't have to be a dictatorship or totalitarian society, just one where their group has undue or undeniably superior power. That's what patriarchy is like - doesn't have to be an evil anti-female rape-fest or something. Just a society where males make up the dominant group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy We're LESS of a patriarchy now than at any other time in our history but we're still a patriarchy. We haven't crossed over into Equalist territory yet. Maybe in the future if we keep progressing. Hopefully.
    3
  5. FuckYouYouFuck - I agree that in Western society there's no central patriarch (doesn't have to be to be a patriarchy, authority can be collective on in one person) - the closest thing to that would be the President. But I think all of us lefties would agree that small, powerful groups and enclaves (like Big Business, Big Government, bankers, lobbyists, The Media, etc.) control our society.
    3
  6. FuckYouYouFuck - If they'll use their power to help their buddies why wouldn't they use to help men? They're greedy, sociopathic bastards but yet ardently believe in gender equality? That's generally not how unethical people work. Most of the people they help out and help get into power are men. They help some women too but by and large they mostly help out fellow (white) men. A few token minorities and women in their stead doesn't make them bleeding heart anti-racist and anti-sexists.  "Our laws generally don't unfairly advantage men over women" If they can unfairly advantage women why not men? American law does both. It unfairly advantages women in family court and divorce court and unfairly advantages men in reproduction law (like catering to the sexist Religious Right) and men in economic law. "don't think that fits with the definition of patriarchy" Patriarchy does not mean EVERY, LAST SINGLE IOTA AND ASPECT OF SOCIETY is geared towards men. It just means males make up the power group and the majority of things cater to or serve their interests. Just like a society favoring one race over another does not mean every member of the dominant race is a racist bastard and every member of the less powerful race lacks any semblance of rights. You're taking the most extreme definition possible of patriarchy and portraying it as the only one. That's like saying you can't be a racist unless you actively support the Klan, or can't be rude unless you kill people.
    3
  7. FuckYouYouFuck - Likewise in a matriarchal society there would still be many men in power and probably even some elements of society that favor men over women. But if women are still generally favored or advantaged and make up the main power group it would still be a matriarchy. One way to tell what your society is is the average person's idea of a family. The majority of Americans still think a father should "lead" his family and "take charge" (doesn't necessarily mean beat or abuse his wife, but many people still think a father's say should be more final than a mother's say).  "What is your idea of equality?" Equality of opportunity and equality of access. 100% equality of outcome is impossible, but not only do we lack equality of outcome we still haven't reached equality of opportunity. I have to say that if you think we have - I'm sorry, then there isn't much reason to be a Progressive. If we already live in a fair, egalitarian meritocracy society then there is no more (or not much more) change needed. That would mean Conservatism (keeping the status quo) makes more sense if we've already achieved such a society.
    3
  8. FuckYouYouFuck - "but they used their power to make laws and enforce traditions that advantaged men, would you call that society matriarchal?" Technically it would be in power but not in deeds it grants to the people not in power. "but I think equality of opportunity amongst genders is pretty close. Women graduate university at a higher rate than men, for example" While that's true that's not necessarily due to equality of opportunity. That's because more women than men go to college, so more also graduate. Men are actually technically overrepresented in college - there are more men in college than there are that apply for college percentage-wise. If there were full equality of opportunity there'd probably be a lower amount of men in college since women make up a good majority of college applicants and women in general tend to have higher GPAs than men. There are many counter-examples I could point out where society and institutions are unfair to women. Women are more likely to be penalized when asking for a raise compared to men and are given lower starting salaries for the same exact jobs.  We've come a long way but we've still got distance to go. As for economics law that thing with salaries is one example I was talking about. Even though gender discrimination is technically illegal the system allows it to exist (at least de facto) at huge rates. Women are given lower starting salaries than men for the same exact jobs, most of these employers are never penalized. Likewise racial discrimination is illegally but still widely exists anyway (de facto). Blacks with equal credentials are 50% less likely than equally qualified white counterparts to get hired. Most of those employers never suffer or pay a penalty. Because laws exist doesn't mean they're enforced. Look at all the abridgments the GOP makes of Separation of Church and State laws.
    3
  9. Stig Helmer - "If women can influence politics to provide special benefits just for women" There are no laws in the US that are made only for women. Women are the majority group that take advantage of or are the beneficiaries of certain laws (such as family court laws) but no laws currently exist that only women can legally apply for.  "then there most certainly isn't any "patriarchy" False. By that logic there is no racism in America since minorities have been able to affect policy to provide benefits for minority groups. Again you're making the false equivalence that patriarchy requires a complete and absolute. That need not be true just like because America no longer has slavery or Jim Crow does not mean it is no longer a racist society or that white privilege no longer exists. "protective laws, shorter punishment for crimes, health and financial benefits" None of these laws are laws only women can apply for. There is no special protection law for women or special finance laws only for women (there are women-specific health insurance plans, but that's due to biology). Men simply file restraining orders much less often and less often qualify for child support since mothers make up the majority of parents with custody and women earn more than men about 1/3 of the time. The parent with primary custody gets child support regardless of gender. Alimony is given to whatever former spouse earned less (which 2/3 to 3/4 of the time is the wife). Women can also go to jail now for not paying child support. I should know, I handled cases like that for the State of Maryland when I worked for the govt. Minority males are eligible for Affirmative Action. Again, it's not only for women.
    3
  10. brian morgan - None exist today on any level above tribal level. Some anthropologists argue matriarchies used to exist on a larger scale in Neolithic and Pre-Neolithic societies. There's no consensus among scientists on that issue.
    3
  11. tharpoon - "Say anything critical about females and you're a misogynistic, women hating, incest supporting, rape apologist" I've never heard Bill Burr accused of being a rape apologist or woman hater. He criticizes women all the time. Same with Bill Maher, who often calls Sarah Palin a "bitch". The only time he got called a sexist was during the 2008 Election when some Republicans feigned outrage and complained about him criticizing their dear Palin.
    3
  12. FuckYouYouFuck - I think we mostly agree. It seems like we only disagree on some minor minutia. I agree that it's now widely socially unacceptable to be openly misogynistic or racist, which is why racist and sexist things are usually done in a low-key or more ambiguous way to avoid allegations of open prejudice. But the effect is usually still the same. In most cases the good old boys' club isn't necessarily knowingly trying to be racist or sexist, most of their friends happen to look like them and they try to benefit those friends. "That's an example of what patriarchy looks like" That's a more extreme example of patriarchy. There are degrees of patriarchy just like there are degrees of racism, homophobia, etc. Our society today is nowhere near as patriarchal as it was 300 years ago, but is still a patriarchy overall. Just like our society is still racist overall, just not as racist as 100 years ago.
    2
  13. ***** - I hope you're not talking to me. I've never said anything like that. Even though we live in an unequal society that doesn't excuse bad behavior and bad decisions you choose to make. Patriarchy doesn't excuse women making dumb or destructive choices just like racism doesn't excuse minorities making dumb or destructive choices.
    2
  14. Stig Helmer - Pretty much all anthropologists define nearly all current human societies as Patriarchies: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mining-the-headlines/200905/patriarchy-is-alive-and-well There is no completely equal society anywhere on Earth except for a few small tribes. At what point did patriarchy supposedly cease to exist in the West? What year or decade? And what, according to you, is the dictionary definition of "patriarchy"? Because so far your definition is not how it's defined by the dictionary or scientists. A patriarchy does not require women having no rights or there being a complete lack of women in positions of power.
    2
  15. tharpoon - "society in general has a negative view of males" I think you're WAAAY over-generalizing. The average person does not think men are bad (or good) or think women are good (or bad). I can list as many negative social stereotypes about women as you list about men. Like stereotypes of women being bitchy, over-emotional, irrational, untrustworthy, backstabbing, vengeful, entitled, unqualified, ungrateful, etc. That doesn't mean society overall views women negatively because popular negative stereotypes do exist. "but its still seen as bad" It depends on the situation and the individual. Most people don't see insulting or criticizing a woman as bad unless part of the motive of your criticism is because they're a woman. Of course there are some people that will applaud misogyny but I think they tend to be a minority (I think/hope). Likewise there are people who will view criticism as bad if you criticize a man partly because he's a man, though there are people who will applaud misandry too.  It all depends on the people and situation. I will say people tend to have more tolerance for people being rude to men, including other men. I think it has little to do with feminism and more to do with the fact that people expect men to be emotionally tougher than women and less liable to cry or fall apart. It's another social stereotype that's existed since ancient (and likely prehistoric) times. That particular double standard doesn't have much to do with feminism because even though it's unfair to men it's actually an expectation that assumes women are more psychologically fragile than men. It was created during times when women had little power.
    2
  16. tharpoon - As a person who considers themself a feminist (and a masculist too) I agree with about 85% of what you said. The only part I would have disagreement with is that many of the negative stereotypes of men already existed before feminism. Part of it was a natural consequence of the unrealistic standards and beliefs society traditionally holds about men: viewing us as hunters, always thinking about sex, prone to masculine aggression, etc. Naturally that leads to negative stereotypes such as us being seen as violent, unreasonable, piggish, etc. I think some of the more extreme forms of feminism have definitely helped but I think it's more them piling on than making up new prejudices. I agree with you totally about people being more likely to get upset overall if you criticize a female. Even if it's a female who more than deserves the criticism. I notice though that people tend to be more okay with criticizing women if the woman is portrayed as promiscuous or "loose". It's part of the "slut-shaming" mentality. I remember on that ABC show "What Would You Do?" people were inclined to help a woman if they saw a guy at a bar harassing her and the woman seemed innocent-like. If the woman was dressed provactively and spoke more loudly people were less willing to help and more likely to defend the actions of the man harassing her for sex. Some feminists do exaggerate about the social and legal positions of women, but so do some MRAs exaggerate about the position of women. I would say the truth is often somewhere in-between. 
    2
  17. tharpoon - My good sir.....I believe you've just achieved something very rare...posting a comment I agreed with 100%. I have nothing to add. Well done! :)
    2
  18. WeeItsNookies - That contradicted what you said since you just admitted people don't mind him attacking a woman. You just claimed you can't criticize a woman without being called sexist, but just admitted if you're a liberal criticizing (or even name-calling) a right-wing woman you won't get criticism from liberals. Thanks for contradicting yourself. If you can't criticize a woman without being called "sexist" like you claim then it wouldn't matter if the woman and/or the crowd are liberal or conservative. According to your generalization they should just call you "sexist" for criticizing a woman periods. Full stop. 
    2
  19. WeeItsNookies - "they still incorrectly labeled someone sexist for criticizing a woman" True, but your claim was that the majority of society does this in general. So far you haven't supported that claim. You also just said people will defend someone they like. Likely right-wing detractors of Maher just said that to have something to attack him over. Just like conservatives often claim racism is over or no longer a big problem but then accuse liberals of being "racist" if they criticize a non-white conservative. The conservatives crying "racist" are just making an ineffectual effort to turn the tables or have something to attack a group they don't like over. Usually they roll their eyes at allegations of "racism". Likewise with Maher. Conservatives calling Maher a "sexist" usually claim it's liberal whining when people make allegations of "sexism".
    2
  20. brian morgan - I've seen some pretty strong evidence from studies done by Marija Gimbutas. Of course her theories aren't perfect, but neither are the counter-theories and criticism of her opponents. I agree with what you said about comedians. You'll find people saying shit like that but the majority of people, by far, still applaud him and agree with him. Even if not 100%. I also agree that calling people "bitch" isn't necessarily in and of itself sexist. It can be perceived that way because the word traditionally referred only to females and has only become generalized in modern times. Some can interpret that as associating negative qualities with femaleness, but I don't necessarily agree. The same arguments can be made about people de-racializing the word "nigga" or people using the word "faggot" as an insult against people who are assumed to be straight (young people often call people "faggot" as a way of saying they're weak, annoying, whiny, intolerable or loathsome). Some people argue it's associating negative qualities and weakness with homosexuality.
    1
  21. brian morgan - No prob! I know that was your position, I was saying that there is evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas Just not conclusive. Then I simply stated your position (that none ever existed) is also not conclusively proven: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#History_and_distribution It's all just speculation on both sides. What we do know is that there was just probably no society that was 100% unambiguously matriarchal. Though to be fair no society has been proven to be 100% patriarchal either though.
    1