So I was surfing around youtube, and I came across this intelligent, well spoken young lady, who has offered to explain to us how her version of patriarchy works.
Her name is “marinashutup”… which is a beautiful name. And you can see the vid here:
Do go ahead and give it a watch, as we’ll be going through this
heaping pile of grade A horse shit well thought out and articulate explanation, in our usual point by point fashion.
From the vid:
Patriarchy is a social system that values masculinity over femininity.
^^^ Notice how this definition is totally different from Everyday Feminism’s version. Here, it’s a social system of values. Before, it was a conspiratorial group of rich white men.
And these don’t necessarily preclude each other. It’s possible to have rich white men without a system that values masculinity, and it’s possible to have a system that values masculinity without a bunch of rich white men.
But lets move on.
This type of social system dictates that men are entitled to be in charge and dominate women, and implies that the natural state of gender relations is a dynamic of dominance and submission. According to patriarchal society, women are seen as weak, submissive, and an extension of men. The highest accomplishment a woman can hope to attain is marriage – heterosexual, of course – and child birthing.
^^^ We can actually see a system that fits this description exactly in modern Syria, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. By contrast, developed first world nations are almost the exact opposite. They’re nothing like this.
Although even in undeveloped nations, the wording here doesn’t exactly fit. This makes it sound like men are all living high on the hog, while women are on their hands and knees constantly scrubbing something. Men in those nations are just as oppressed. They have greater power of agency because their lives are survival-oriented. Men take greater power of agency, but also take a greater chance of being machine-gunned on their way to the store for a gallon of milk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZIPLLERpKI – women were kept at home while this happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ironPIYIPYk – and this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGGQR4F3jkg – and this. (and I’ll keep saying – of course women are also attacked and brutalized. But the point is that in extremely rough situations, like the kind that happen every day in Syria, who’s more likely to come back from a gun fight? Who’s more disposable? Which one is less tragic to lose? The men. Just like how the loss of agency isn’t always a bad thing, the gain of agency ain’t always great either.)
On the reverse end of the spectrum, men are expected to be physically and emotionally strong, dominating, and the breadwinner and protector of his family.
^^^ Wanting to jump ahead for a moment. Related to this, the speaker later says:
However, men face negative consequences of the patriarchy too. They’re expected to provide for their family, and face the pressure of being financially supportive.
Patriarchy perpetuates the idea that women need the protection of men, which is one of the ways that the patriarchy actually disadvantages men.
At many points in time, men have been legally forced by draft to fight in wars and risk their lives.
^^^ When we use the word “patriarchy” in a context like this, it brings to mind a system that is somehow controlled by men, created by men, or at the very least, is strongly in favor of only men and disregards women.
If the patriarchy is an intelligently built system built by men, why would it hurt men? The concerns of women are extremely well heard, routinely broadcasted through all forms of media, and almost universally answered. The Wage Gap – which has absolutely no truth at all – still managed to get before the US Congress numerous times, and even recently appeared in the President Obama’s State of the Union address. Women have had laws passed specifically regarding only their interests, like the Violence Against Women Act. How is this possible if they were disregarded by a system that promotes only the interests of men, or “values masculinity over femininity”? Why would the patriarchy make it okay for a woman to hit a man in public (while everyone walks by and laughs), but downright horrid if a man even dares to say “God bless you” to a woman? Why would the patriarchy make it so that even when men call the police for help against domestic abuse, most of the time, it’s still the man that goes to jail? See:
And here’s more:
From the link:
Of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines, 64% were told that they “only helped women.” In 32% of the cases, the abused men were referred to batterers’ programs. Another 25% were given a phone number to call that turned out to be a batterers’ program. A little over a quarter of them were given a reference to a local program that helped. Overall, only 8% of the men who called hotlines classified them as “very helpful,” whereas 69% found them to be “not at all helpful.” Sixteen percent said the people at the hot line “dismissed or made fun of them.”
Why would a patriarchy that values men over women do this?
If a building is on fire, how many people would rush in, risking their lives, to save Bob, the big fat bald-headed accountant?
How many would rush in to save Tammy, the bikini model? Almost everyone goes for the model – but why, when Bob is more valuable?
If a woman is inside her house naked, and a man walks by and looks in the window, he’s a peeping tom, and gets arrested. Yet if it’s a man inside the house naked and a woman walks by, it’s still the man who gets arrested. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JRdFf8qtSc .
If patriarchy were a top-down system designed and run by men, for men, where men are more valued, why would stuff like this constantly happen?
If patriarchy were a bottom-up system organically emergent and designed by no one, which places greater value on men or on women depending on the situation and circumstance, and was constructed by the situations our species evolved through, it would make perfect sense. But then… why call it “patriarchy”?
But back to the vid:
Although the domination of women today might not be as bad as say, a couple hundred years ago, when women had no legal rights, and were considered their husband’s property, or even as bad as something you’d see on an episode of Mad Men, gender is still something that’s strictly enforced on people today.
^^^ The notion of women being “oppressed for thousands of years” is a common trope in the 3rd Wave Narrative. Most historians do not accept the 3rd Waver narrative of history. In fact, in her book “When God Was a Woman“, Merlin Stone outlines numerous ancient civilizations that were matrilineal / matriarchal (the women were in charge), and explains the gradual transition of agency to men. As cultures met one another and began fighting for resources, men mobilized to do the fighting.
This worked out so well partly because they were physically stronger, and partly because they’re disposable. Merlin Stone cites author Robert Graves in his book, The Greek Myths, where he explained that ancient Greece was actually matrilineal, but this ended for the reasons I just described, sparked by an Achaean invasion in the 13th century BCE. The shift in agency from female to male in Greece at this time also coincided with the creation of the “father god” known as Zeus, and later Jupiter. This is where the greater agency came from, which remained after the establishment of nation states and trade routes, and direct fighting over immediate resources did not happen as often.
What’s more, this shift of agency didn’t exclude women completely, and didn’t mean life was necessarily better for men. In the middle ages, everyone was oppressed. It is simply not the case that women had to stay home, and men could go on all sorts of adventures like what you’d see in Dragon Warrior. Serfs had to work the land, day in, day out, through rain, sleet, or snow. Vassals, or knights, had to whoop their asses and collect taxes. They had to give those taxes to the Lords, who in turn had to constantly appease the king or queen (yes, a woman was sometimes at the very top of the chain). Everyone had a strict role they had to be happy with. And if they weren’t happy, well that’s just tough turkey.
In fact, we even get the word “blackmail” from this time period. Silver coins and currency were called “white mail”, cuz, you know, they were shiny. But if a peasant / serf didn’t have enough change on him, then when the tax man cometh, he could arbitrarily, right on the spot, decide how many chickens, pigs, and cows he wanted (which were called “black mail”, probably because they weren’t as shiny as pennies and coins). He could say 2 chickens and a pig were enough to cover the money he owes. Or he could say 10 cows and 5 horses. He could say whatever he wanted – so you pay up, or I could end up taking everything. This happened so often (and only to men, since they’re the ones who were responsible for paying taxes), that “blackmail” became a word.
The women were inside busy not being men, and not having their asses blackmailed.
Because life sucked for everyone.
Also, if you’d like a look at the everyday lives of women in the middle ages, there are in fact history books written on the subject. There’s a good one to read here (sorry for the long URL):
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z4SL2X3uHEAC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=women+in+phy sical+labour+england+middle+ages&source=bl&ots=kkkVIF5sEK&sig=pz2slCKq4pL4aCOwtSsr5n EnrN0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HQxDVJb4O9PVaoLagbAP&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=wome n%20in%20physical%20labour%20england%20middle%20ages&f=false
A passage from the book:
“Peasant women’s work was very similar regardless of whether they were un-free or free, welloff or poor. For women living in the towns, on the other hand, the types of work available depended in large part on the status of the families to which they belonged. The very wealthiest townswomen, the wives of successful merchants, enjoyed high status, and did little physical labor.”
It’s pretty much what you’d expect. Most people, both men and women, simply trying to get by in a feudal society. What you unsurprisingly won’t find is how amazingly wonderful life was for all men everywhere because they walked about beating and oppressing women every few minutes. Because penis.
In patriarchal societies today, cis-gender men are typically valued over cis-gender women. However, the system forces people into strict boxes called gender roles, and gender roles hurt everybody. If someone was assigned a certain gender at birth doesn’t fit into the social norms expected of that gender they’re often ostracized by society.
As someone who lived as a man for 33 years, and who has been living as a woman for almost 2 years, I can say first hand that this is total bunk. As a man, I was expected to survive on my own, or die trying. Hungry? Get a job! Tired? Tough shit! Homeless? LOL LOSER!
Now that I’m a woman, this is all totally different. Hungry? Lets go get something to eat. Tired? It’s okay sweety, go lay down. Homeless? You can stay with us for a while.
That men are valued over women is being stated as if it’s already been proven as fact, when it isn’t. We need facts and evidence. Otherwise I could say the exact opposite – “cis-gender women are typically valued over cis-gender men”, and with no evidence, it would be equally true.
It’s extremely unfortunate if a woman ever feels as though she’s being marginalized. And as I’ve said, and will continue to say, a person’s feelings are always important. But “important” does not mean “in line with reality”. When dealing with social theory, we’re dealing with a science. We require facts and evidence before we can build anything that even remotely resembles proof, and then your proof has to be falsifiable, or it still isn’t science.
In regards to gender roles, I love being a woman. I love everything about being a woman – from how I’m treated, to how I’m seen, to how I feel. If gender roles hurt everyone, how am I being hurt? It’s very possible the speaker is referring only to the unfair enforcement of such roles, though the wording on this point is ambiguous at best.
It is true that trans people have been ostracized, but why would an intelligently designed system do this? What possible benefit is there for the designers (men)? Again, it makes more sense if this were an emergent system that came about on its own with no precise designer, the way all cultures come about (similar to the way living organisms developed through evolution). I’ve referred to the study of emergence in other writings. See: http://necsi.edu/guide/concepts/emergence.html
It’s also important to note that trans people are not universally ostracized everywhere, as you would expect if patriarchy had infiltrated the minds of everyone on some subconscious level, or were prevalent everywhere we looked. Recently, I stopped into a restaurant on my way home to use the restroom. A very uneducated employee decided to walk over, hold the restroom door open, and bellow out loud asking if I was really a woman. When I got home, I posted about this on my facebook, then went to sleep. When I woke up, I had a veritable Facebook Army of supporters – not one, but TWO civil rights agencies – and a local news agency that was considering doing a story on this.
I woke up to what was basically my Personal Army, and started feeling sorry for the restaurant! One person said one thing to one transperson, and the entire city is up in arms over it.
So does patriarchy just not exist in Portland? Does it exist but it can’t enforce its own rules? If I’m universally oppressed, how exactly did all that happen? I think is more accurate that maybe the treatment of trans people simply has other causes, largely related to prejudice and a lack of education.
Later, the speaker says:
Patriarchy isn’t solely male perpetuated. Even though everyone is negatively affected by the patriarchy, the patriarchy is perpetuated by everybody.
^^^ So if men and women both are responsible for keeping it going… why is it called “patriarchy”???
And why do they call it Apple Jacks if it doesn’t taste like apple…
In the past 100 years or so, we’ve seen a loosening of gender roles for women, but not so much for men. Women can act or dress in a more masculine fashion with less repercussions than if a man were to act or dress in a feminine way. This stems from the valuing of feminine traits over masculine traits, and the association of femininity with weakness [Note: I’m sure she meant “valuing of masculine traits over feminine traits”, and just misspoke.]
^^^ So to be clear, women are allowed to dress and act like men, while men aren’t allowed to dress and act like women.
This fact in itself does not automatically, in some a-priori way, suggest the conclusion given as for why it’s happening. For example, “all bachelors are unmarried” is an a-priori statement, because no outside information is needed to confirm the truth of the statement. Bachelors are, by definition, unmarried.
But women being allowed to assume masculine gender roles does not suggest, on its own, that the reason for this is that femininity is viewed as weak. It could just as easily be asserted that women have greater privileges than men, are more valued, and thus less likely to be policed. If a man dresses like a woman, it’s okay to yell, scream, and hit him. If a woman dresses like a man, a normal, non-psychotic man, does not want to yell and scream at a woman, or hit her. She’s privileged, and has more options.
Later, the speaker also says:
As for women, they’ve been discouraged by a society that doesn’t see them fit for combat from enlisting in the military.
Again, this is not a-priori information. It is just as possible that westerners can’t stand the thought of their mothers and daughters being gunned down or bayonetted. Because men are seen as disposable, it’s okay if they get shot to pieces. This is an equally valid conclusion that’s better supported by other data, but of course only one narrative is allowed by the 3rd Wave.
It’s more okay for a woman to act like a man, or whatever that means, than it is for a man to act like a woman. However, the patriarchy doesn’t just hurt cis-women and cis-men. It also hurts trans identities, and anyone who doesn’t identify with the gender binary. Being transgender is almost the ultimate slap-in-the-face to patriarchy and gender roles. A lot of the transphobia we see is based in sexism and the fact that someone is refusing to stay in the gender box that society puts them in.
We also see a vast amount of hatred towards trans people coming from TERFs. This means it’s just as possible for women, who are fanatically opposed to the concept of patriarchy, to still hate trans people. I’ve also had girlfriends before who were not TERFs, but were feminist, and still transphobic. I’ve known heterosexual white cis-men, the horrible demons of hell that they are, be totally cool with my transition, and have completely respected me and gave me total support. This again indicates some other mechanism responsible for what we see (like simple prejudice and lack of education).
In other words, transphobia is not necessarily proof of the existence of patriarchy. It’s possible to be transphobic without it. As I said earlier, the treatment of trans people (and virtually every other item mentioned so far) appears to have other reasons that are better supported besides “patriarchy”, or “because penis”.
This does not in any way dismiss or lessen the importance of trans issues! Those issues are extremely important, which is why it’s equally important to ensure, through scientific inquiry, that we properly understand the cause. A better understanding means a better fix for the problem, with shorter recovery times and fewer side effects. It sucks to be the doctor who treats a patient’s liver problem for years, only to find out her liver was fine, and one of her kidneys had failed.
I would also like to point out a mumble the speaker says, almost under her breath, in the first line. “. . . to act like a man, or whatever that means”. This hints that the speaker is aware that gender roles are in some cases arbitrary, and in all cases, are only a social construct.
So it’s a bit confusing when the speaker says later:
And the women who do reach positions of power often have to assert masculine qualities in order to be respected in their position.
Because there is nothing at all masculine about speaking firmly, having direct eye contact, and being decisive. It’s perfectly fine for a woman to act this way, and she’s not less of a woman because of it.
What’s more, I could point out numerous examples of women who have outrageous levels of power and influence, who do not use any masculine qualities to be respected. Oprah comes to mind. Hillary Clinton is another. Sarah Palin was very nearly the Vice President of the United States – knew utterly nothing about the position or about politics in general – and was as womanly as they come.
On the other hand, Richard Simmons, anyone? Would you consider that guy “masculine”? Because he is one of the most prominent figures in the fitness industry.
Aside from that, is there in fact any actual way to measure the amount of masculinity and / or femininity needed in the first place, for a man or woman to maintain something as vague and ill-defined as “being respected” without relying on personal experience and anecdotal examples?
Can we talk about the harmful things that the patriarchy perpetuates, because there are a lot of them.
*sigh*…… we haven’t even shown that the patriarchy EVEN EXISTS YET!!! But sure. Go on.
Women are less likely to hold positions of power. There are only 27 females CEOs on the Fortune 1,000, and only 18.5% of congress is occupied by women. You might say women should run, or start their own companies, but this ignores the reality that women have to face large amounts of discrimination and harassment, because their gender is seen as less powerful, or less credible.
See the discussion on the Wage Gap. According to feminist research, women do not run for office because they do not choose to run. There is nothing stopping a woman from running for office. Otherwise how the hell did the current female politicians in congress get elected?
I’d also like to take a moment to point something else out.
If you’re a man, and you work in the medical field:
– If you work as an orderly…………lol omg loser!
– If you work as a nurse’s aid…….lol omg loser!
– If you work as a nurse………….. lol omg loser!!!
– If you work as a doctor………… Okay, acceptable. But only as long as you keep working yourself to the bone, non-stop, to prove your worth.
And then something interesting happens when this social stigma finally pushes more than a few men to the forefront: “Typical! Men are always in charge!”
If you’re a woman, and you work in medicine:
– If you work as an orderly……….. You go girl!
– If you work as a nurse’s aid…… You go girl!
– If you work as a nurse…………… You go girl!
– If you work as a doctor………….. You go girl!
As the speaker mentioned before, men have the pressure of being the breadwinner, and supporting their family. Women don’t. Men must succeed. Women can, but don’t have to. So why is it so shocking that there are more male CEOs? How does this amount to men getting ahead because “masculinity is more valued than feminimity”?
Women aren’t running businesses because of harassment? You mean if I went down to the registrar right now and asked to file for a DBA license, the guy behind the desk would point, laugh, and say “You can’t do that, you’re a girl!”?
A common response is “No, it’s more subtle than that”. But you can’t use that to move the goalpost every time your claim fails against inquiry. You need to start off by including that it’s “more subtle” in your original statement, or giving specific examples. What kind of discrimination and harassment are we talking about? According to the speaker, it has to be related to me being viewed as less powerful or less credible somehow. After living full time as a woman for a year and a half now, and after living 33 years as a man, I have not ever felt anyone treat me or see me that way. In fact, if anecdotal evidence meant anything, as a woman, my opinions and input are more important than when I was a man. People listen to me more now than they did before.
I had the pleasure of working for the Democratic Party of Oregon this season. I got an up-close and personal look at how politics are done, and I can assure you that women do not face more discrimination or harassment than do men. In politics, it doesn’t matter if you’re a man or a woman. The opposing side has people who research your entire life, and will drag out into the open any disreputable thing you’ve ever said or done.
Women typically value their privacy enough that they don’t want this to happen. That’s partly why they choose not to run. It’s why I will never run for office. Never. Not in a million years. But a choice is a choice… if I really wanted to, I could brave the storm, and go for it anyway. That’s the power of agency. I could put myself out there and try. I will not be harassed any more than anyone else would be who applied for the job.
I’m willfully choosing not to engage. Because it’s too hard. I don’t want to do it, and that’s perfectly okay.
But I’m not gonna then turn around and claim women don’t run for office because we’re all oppressed somehow.
If patriarchy is a fact-based conclusion, then I shouldn’t be able to find multiple, equally valid explanations that are better supported by actual research at each and every turn along the way.
Besides women not being as pressured to succeed, and being congratulated no matter where they fall along the spectrum (and hence not as many female CEOs), it’s worth mentioning that the avenues to success are greater for women.
What do I mean by that?
As a man, I had only one avenue when it came to getting a job. I had to be better qualified, and able to work harder, than the next candidate for the same position.
As a woman, I have two avenues when it comes to getting a job. I can be better qualified and able to work harder, =OR=, I can just look really pretty.
Batting my eyes, showing some cleavage, and speaking softly makes getting a job a hell of a lot easier. A man can’t do any of that. You might say it’s sexist, but when I get the job, then get the promotion, then get put in charge, then buy a car, a house, and then drive down town to visit the guy who’s still on the streets looking for work, it becomes extremely difficult to view this as in any way unfair towards me. Women may be “judged” this way, but that only means that women are able to “win” this way too. In fact, in her book “What Would Judy Say: Be The Hero of Your Own Story”, Judge Judy says:
“Let’s be real. I understand that as women we want to be respected for our abilities and our intellects. But the idea that we should all treat each other as if we are neutered, genderless creatures is just plain silly. I say to women—and to men, too—use all of your assets. I find it disingenuous for women to wear short skirts, high heels, and flattering sweaters and then complain because men look at them.
“I figured this out as a lawyer because there are few places that so rely on personal appeal as a courtroom. Use my feminine wiles? Damn right! It’s not just women who do this. I remember going to see Jerry when he was a lawyer. He was delivering his summation to the jury—six men and six women. Jerry cut a cute figure and I saw him unbutton his jacket, put his hands in his pockets, and strut back and forth. He was working that jury like a hooker on a street corner. He probably would have won anyway, but he was using his assets—all of them.”
But back to the speaker:
Women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than men. Women generally do much more of their share of parenting than men do because of gender expectations, also while working a job.
Depending on where you look, women may be statistically more likely to be sexually assaulted outright (and I’ll get into this again later). But is that because of this patriarchy? If so, it would seem to imply that most men think it’s okay to sexually assault a woman, and we have well established evidence that this isn’t the case (see the discussion on rape culture) and no supporting evidence to the contrary. Most statistics currently show that it’s a very small portion of men committing assaults against women, and that sexual assaults also occur rather often in lesbian relationships which make up a large chunk of the data. See https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml. It does not logically follow that patriarchy is responsible for sexual assaults.
I remember growing up as a kid in Louisiana, and being told repeatedly that it was not okay to hit girls, even if they hit you. How is it that this message was so loud, so strong, and made clear in so many different ways, in a patriarchy that says it’s okay to hurt women?
Women are not required to do more parenting than men. This is a choice women make. At least some power of agency must be considered.
Women may have to work a job while also helping to take care of the household, but this is an economic issue that affects men too. In 1960, the average job paid 33 dollars per hour by today’s money, and the largest employer was General Motors. Clearly, somewhere, something went horribly wrong, and now both parents have to work 2 jobs full time if they expect to eat – but this has nothing to do with patriarchy.
What’s more, and as it is with all points so far, the speaker does not cite where she got her statistics from. But here are some additional points to consider.
As far as domestic violence goes, men and women receive similar treatment.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_298904.pdf – from the United Kingdom’s Office of National Statistics, this shows some mixed information. In some categories, men experience more violence, while in other categories, it’s women.
https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml – from the National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, and the University of Missouri, St Louis. Up to 45% of women in lesbian relationships report physical violence. Up to 50% report sexual abuse. Psychological abuse is as high as 90%.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ – from the US National Library of Medicine, and the National Institutes of Health. This shows that women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of cases.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00978098 – from the Journal of Family Violence. According to the study: “Criminal statistics indicate a relatively low proportion of women among violent offenders in the public domain, while in the domestic and/or private domain statistics reflect almost no gender difference in violent behavior.”
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm – from the Department of Psychology, California State University. This is a meta-analysis (considered the strongest form of analysis in science), indicating that women are just as violence in relationships, if not more violent, than men.
http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/ – From the CDC: “Men were also more often the victim of psychological aggression and control over sexual or reproductive health. Despite this, few services are available to male victims of intimate partner violence.”
Yet, despite all this, violence against women is given top priority, while violence against men is laughed at. In fact, during the 2015 Grammy Awards, President Obama made a speech, wherein he stated: “Today we can change our culture for the better; by ending violence against women and girls . . . it’s not okay, and it has to stop”. Nothing about domestic violence, which would include both – no, only violence against women and girls is a problem.
So f*ck men and boys I guess.
In a patriarchy.
Where they’re more valued.
This appears to be the consensus in nearly everywhere you look; from newspapers, to scholarly publications and peer reviewed research journals, all the way up to massive, worldwide, global organizations like the United Nations; every voice, everywhere, unanimously denounces violence against women, with a fist-shaking flag-waving sense of holy righteousness.
It seems bewildering and dumbfounding that 1) women can be responsible for their fair share of violence towards men, 2) despite this, violence against women takes priority anyway, and with these two in place, the conclusion is 3) there’s a social system at work that promotes or endorses violence against women!
There is never an excuse for violence on any level, and initiation of violence is always wrong. No one is disputing that. The claim here is that a social system, owned and operated, at least on some level, by men, which is somehow involved with promoting greater violence against women, when reality shows the exact opposite happening; violence against women is unwaveringly denounced.
Women are also less likely to be seen as criminals and are incarcerated at lower rates than men. This is because women aren’t seen as dangerous.
^^^ I’m starting to notice how absolutely everything is conveniently interpreted in only one direction.
If women have the privilege of wearing either men’s or women’s clothes, it’s because being a woman is seen as weak.
If women are discouraged from taking a job where their sole purpose is to kill or be killed, it’s because they’re seen as not worthy.
If women get off easy for doing the same crime a man does, it’s because they’re not seen as dangerous.
I can’t help but notice this same exact “either-or” at work in multiple other areas. If you hold a door open for a woman – how insulting, I’m a woman not a child! If you don’t hold a door open – yea because of your male privilege.
If you tell a woman she’s ugly, you’re a self-conceited asshole who doesn’t respect women. If you tell a woman she’s pretty, you’re harassing her.
If a man gets promoted instead of a woman, it’s because men are more valued. If a woman gets promoted instead of a man, it’s only because of sexist corporate culture.
These are all examples of what happens when you start with the story, then work backwards to find facts.
And when they are convicted of these crimes, the defense claims that they must be mad because they’re going against their natural “womanly” instincts.
I was not able to find any instances where this was a commonly used defense for women on trial for violent crimes, although I’m sure this isn’t because the speaker is just making shit up as she goes to support her narrative. I will point out that even if this was the case, the defense’s job is to get their clients off the hook, and this often means trying to elicit sympathy from a judge or jury.
Finally, just a word of advice, if you don’t share and subscribe… I’ll feel bad about myself, and start passive-aggressively blaming you by coming up with convoluted pseudo-academic “theories” that are totally baseless and have no evidence, but will repeatedly cast YOU as the villain in every imaginable situation, and if you don’t agree with me, it only proves how right I am.
SO SHARE AND SUBSCRIBE! Or you’ll be a great big ol cis-hetero male who hates women. :~(