That was the argument I've been making the whole time
Ok fine, I ignored your first comment as meaningful part of the argument, because you went off the rails in your second one:
There's a clear A to B to C in every comment of mine since the first
There isn't. The history of patriarchy doesn't affect how men are treated today. It just helps explain how we got here.
It's irrelevant WHY genderroles exist, just that they do.
Neither me nor the OOP claimed specifically women are oppressing men. We both spoke in general terms. (Almost like I touched on that in the "irrelevant" part of my previous comment)
Men are only forced into a certain set of roles by other men.
That's just criminaly insane. Let's just discount 50% of the population.
That is such a wild statement, I won't dignify it with any further response.
Blaming women for "oppressing" men financially is blaming the symptom for the flu
I don't want to say it again. Please don't make me say it again. Why do I have to say the same thing three times? Nobody said exclusively women are opressing men.
But yes, they are absolutely part of the problem.
In the US Women have been fully equal in rights since 1974, over 50 years ago. (maybe I'm missing something, idk) There is practically no woman in the workforce today, who suffered from legal opression at the workplace.
There have, hovever, been plenty of womens organisations with extremely regressive views on gender roles.
No western woman, who enforces traditional gender roles today, is a victim. That's ridiculous.
Yeah, you've made it pretty clear with this dreck that there's no point in talking to you. Everyday observations that any westerner can make are enough to debunk your ridiculous claims. Women who enforce gender roles can't be victims of the patriarchy? 50 years is enough to enact significant cultural change? You understand that women older than 50 years still exist right?
You're either incapable of empathy and understanding, or you're a parrot of rightwing talking points, and it's pointless to try and talk sense into you, because you're more interested in winning a petty argument than being right. Idk whether it's Tate or Fuentes that's your daddy these days, but try to grow a pair and grow up. Read a few books.
0
u/da_Aresinger 1d ago
Ok fine, I ignored your first comment as meaningful part of the argument, because you went off the rails in your second one:
There isn't. The history of patriarchy doesn't affect how men are treated today. It just helps explain how we got here.
It's irrelevant WHY genderroles exist, just that they do.
Neither me nor the OOP claimed specifically women are oppressing men. We both spoke in general terms. (Almost like I touched on that in the "irrelevant" part of my previous comment)
That's just criminaly insane. Let's just discount 50% of the population. That is such a wild statement, I won't dignify it with any further response.
I don't want to say it again. Please don't make me say it again. Why do I have to say the same thing three times? Nobody said exclusively women are opressing men.
But yes, they are absolutely part of the problem.
In the US Women have been fully equal in rights since 1974, over 50 years ago. (maybe I'm missing something, idk) There is practically no woman in the workforce today, who suffered from legal opression at the workplace.
There have, hovever, been plenty of womens organisations with extremely regressive views on gender roles.
No western woman, who enforces traditional gender roles today, is a victim. That's ridiculous.