Listen to this guy. He's nailing it.Well, I've often found myself using 'the patriarchy' in the same way the image uses 'patriarchy' (expressing the same idea even), but not in the way the comment does. So that's a data point in the other direction
There's certainly some people who view feminism as "we'll take men down and be on top ourselves" but:
- I don't think they are really feminists, they are just sexists. And I hate them for not understanding shit and working against equality.
- I still don't think the view of the patriarchy as something explicit or organized a la Illuminati is widespread.
I'll concede that people who use The Patriarchy (especially if it's with capital T and P) are much more likely to be extremists or not-really-feminists than people who don't, if nothing else because someone who doesn't spend some time thinking or battling on this issues wouldn't do it.
[Question] What is Rape Culture?
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
"The patriarchy" as in the ideas most of us have internalized to some degree that attribute to women the function of sexual objects and victims and to men the function of sexual 'predators'. In this sense yes, a lot of what happens in the two cases Dave mentioned stem from this kind of things. And what doesn't comes from 'normal' or non-gendered power dynamics, but since gender is involved it's hard to disentangle both and depending on your prism you could also attribute them to sexism, or say it exacerbates them.
figmentPez
Staff member
Except that the problem of sexual violence in our society extends far beyond violence perpetrated by men. First, a study by the journal JAMA Pediatrics found that "males and females carried out sexual violence at strikingly similar rates after the age of 18 -- 52% of males and 48% of females." Second is that the aforementioned NISVS study found that men were most likely to be victims of sexual assault when they're young, mostly pre-teen (not surprising given than men get a lot larger and stronger, on average, after that time), and when they're young they more likely to be victims of women, than they are of men. If you look at the statistics for men who are "made to penetrate" (the term for men who are made to have sex against their will, but aren't counted as rape victims in official statistics) you'll find that well over 80% of those reported a lone female perpetrator. So, of those people forced to have sex against their will in 2010, well over 40% of the perpetrators were female.
The idea that men are the predominant* source of sexual violence in our country is false, and demonstrably so. Therefore the idea that the root cause of sexual violence can be found in our patriarchal history is very dubious, because women obviously feel that they are entitled to take sex by force as well.
It's a direct quote from Charlie in post #14 of the thread.
*EDIT: Sorry, my aphasia kicked in. I used the wrong word. I have corrected "primary" to "predominant".
The best way to perpetuate your beliefs is to outproduce your opposition and indoctrinate your (presumably greater quantity of) offspring with your ideals. Some will no doubt defect, but so long as you continue to produce more and more offspring, you should be able to make up for this attrition. If you manage to somehow win influence over and indoctrinate the offspring of others (schooling, propaganda), your job becomes easier.
--Patrick
I… don't think that was ever what we were talking about? Nor did I say it's the "root" problem? I'm kind of getting the feeling that you aren't really interested in discussing this, rather you want to win an argument with Charlie.
figmentPez
Staff member
We're talking about "rape culture" right? I was under the assumption that this thread was discussing the prevalence of sexual violence in our culture, and Charlie blamed it on "the patriarchy", which I don't think is a fair assessment.
It is, however, most likely a very large contributing factor. I'm sure you're not surprised by now by the fact that Charlie is always extremely reductive in his reasoning.
I also am one who got the impression that we had a fortune cookie situation going on in this thread, except that instead of "...in bed," every sentence is being ended (by some) with an implied "...by males." So, sexual violence "...by males," rape culture "...by males," etc.
So also count me among those who are confused since it is obvious that every slice of the population pushes their own multiple agenda, whether you slice along gender lines, racial lines, socioeconomic lines, geographical lines, etc. I get the feeling the thread was originally created to decry all the raping that cis white males do, when in fact members of each facet of the population will happily literally and figuratively rape members of other non-alike facets (with discrepancies that are real or imagined) as a way of trading power. For those who don't bother to remember My Personal Opinions™, I view "rape" as purely a demonstration of dominance/violation, and only peripherally related to procreation. As such, "sexual assault" in my vocabulary is not automatically synonymous with "rape."
--Patrick
Last edited:
But it's so hilarious to watch people actually try and converse with him. They talk like normal people and he just explodes. It's like an SNL character that just yells at everyone when confronted. I imagine Charlie sometimes being played by Chris Farley.
figmentPez
Staff member
On one hand I agree that imbalance of power between the genders, and all the miscommunication, animosity and other bad stuff that go along with that, is a major source of problematic sexuality; saying it's "the patriarchy" still strikes me as blaming "the weather". It's technically true, but the phrases are so broad that it doesn't really say anything. The problems of a society are the result of that society's structure. It's a tautology. There's nothing to say that a matriarchy couldn't result in sexual violence as well, or that all patriarchies will inherently encourage sexual violence.
@PatrThom Sorry, I meant what he and I were talking about. We were discussing whether or not things like patriarchy had an effect on peoples actions, i.e. sexual assault, etc, I didn't think we were discussing "which gender rapes more". Now if thats something he and Charlie discussed well, I'm not Charlie and I'm not making his arguments for him so discuss his arguments with him (although reading over the thread I don't think he ever said women can't commit sexual violence either so… meh?).
It's like I speak but no words come out.
I guess some of what @figmentPez is saying resonates a bit with me. Some people, like @Charlie Don't Surf in this thread, seem to personify that specific element of our society when they say "the patriarchy", referring to something as if it were some kind or organization. It would be like trying to blame something on "the individualism" of society. Damn the individualism! In some ways, this isn't too surprising. People treat companies and organizations as if they are a single person. ("Fuck the police", for example, or "Walmart is evil"). I feel like when Charlie and others refer to "the patriarchy", that is the same kind of thinking they are employing: a semantic short-cut that personifies an abstract entity. Our (decreasingly) patriarchal society does have problems and many of them are due to the patriarchal nature to some degree. Simply pointing a finger at "the patriarchy" as if it is a concrete entity does a great disservice to trying to highlight and fix those problems though. If Charlie genuinely did care about trying to do something about them, he would speak on each of those problems specifically, and not try to white wash them (no pun intended) with a raw, angry sentiment.
Again, It's Charlie, his posts will never be well thought out or nuanced. However, I do feel the need to point out that legally speaking, corporations are a person with all the rights afforded therein by the constitution.
Well, I did say "single person" 
These types of threads go much better if you largely ignore Charlie posting in them. I'll talk about movies with him, but on issues like this, it's like trying to reason with a rabid bulldog.
I've always felt that, outside of radicals with little or no desire for complexity, when people talk about "the patriarchy" it's referring to the social ideas much of our culture has developed around, not, as some have mentioned, a crazy illuminati group with a base on the moon. Usually it's part of a larger discussion about culture and society rather than a sole focus of blame. But then again, I try to hang around folks who are reasonable and don't live in a totally black and white world.
figmentPez
Staff member
Yeah, well, I've been spending way too much time around college students and on Tumblr (a lot of overlap there.) Many of them do live in a black and white world.
I think it is the difference between a and the that is important. The is a word that points to something specific. But patriarchy is not a terribly specific concept, especially in our patriarchy, where leadership is dramatically decentralized. Thus, the phrase "the patriarchy" doesn't really communicate very well what we are talking about. It is a matter of speaking vaguely instead of precisely, which I hinted at was the great disservice in my previous post.
tegid and espy know what they're talking about, listen to them
also, I love when you guys compLETELY prove my point
also, I love when you guys compLETELY prove my point
Kind of looks like you proved mine. Simply put: you suck at communicating your ideas.
Charlie stuff aside, I do think this is a topic worth talking about and I'm enjoying the discussion outside of the usual Charlie/Gilgamesh garbage.
GasBandit
Staff member
/facepalm
No, he does not suck at communicating his ideas, he has no ideas. He parrots talking points from his attached cause.
I'm going to have to beg your pardon, here MindDetective, I'm going to stoop to charlie level here a bit, and make a fallacious (but factual) appeal to emotion.
Charlie.
As the widower of a rape victim, I know more intimately than most the devastating, lifelong effects wrought upon a woman who has been assaulted and violated in such a reprehensible manner. The long years of fear and hardship were a daily struggle in life that I did my best to help her find her way through and blossom back into the vibrant person I knew her to be. I know about the scars it leaves, both physical and mental. I have seen the evil that men do.
So it is that I take great umbridge when you, and those like you, tell me that I am not "down for your struggle." It is personally insulting to see the banner of "defending women" taken up by lunatics, or empty vessels who have no inherent self-worth and try to manufacture it by becoming templars for an unassailable cause. The unhinged ravings of the former and the manifestly hollow and self-serving nonsense of the latter only serve to exacerbate the very "culture" you purport to fight because it does not raise awareness, it engenders dismissiveness. The combativeness combined with the affectation reaffirms in the minds of those who dismiss the problem that they are correct in doing so as a backlash against the over-the-top he-sterics. But for these metaphorical templars, that is subconsciously just fine with them, for it perpetuates a struggle in which they are needed, and therefor worthy as people.
Furthermore, it does damage in that it mitigates blame from the true perpetrator. The men in the alley did the raping, not society, not the "patriarchy." To assert that they have been programmed by culture to do what they did is to be a rape apologist. It cheapens their choice to commit a heinous act upon another human being, an act all sane people consider to be one of the most reprehensible to be so. You tell me that the rapist doesn't make a choice to commit rape, that the true blame for his action is on a nebulous and systemic cultural paradigm that permeates everyone and everything. All so you can look yourself in the bathroom mirror and say "yes, I am a champion of women, and thus have worth."
In summary, Britta, you are the worst.
Last edited:
Because you've added so much to the thread besides stalking Charlie. Even when you're trolling a troll, at the end of the day, you're both trolls.
Yep, but I only troll one person and tease him. He on the other hand trolls an entire board on sensitive subjects to people who are sensitive to the subject.
I'll take the title in that situation.
I don't know if anyones ever made this clear to you. Your posts trolling Charlie are just about as annoying as his posts are, so you're not exactly on the moral high ground.
That's the last I'm gonna say on that in this thread.
Back to the real discussion.
Do I care if I'm annoying you with what I post to Charlie? I get my amusement and I post in other threads without dealing with Charlie antics just fine. I can do both. You don't like it? I don't care
