poor leftists talk about poverty, labor aristocrats get uncomfortable and insist that sociological classes aren't materialist. "all that matters is that we're working class - we're all in this together"
black leftists talk about racism, whites get uncomfortable and insist that they're not personally part of the problem. "we mustn't allow the bourgeois to divide the proletariat along racial lines - we're all in this together"
female leftists talk about patriarchy, men get uncomfortable and insist that it hurts them too. "this men vs women stuff is reductive anyway - we're all in this together"
third world leftists talk about imperialism, americoids get uncomfortable and insist that red white and blue lives matter too. "what happened to the international working class - we're all in this together"

you don't have to invite yourself to every form and experience of oppression. anyone with a baby's consciousness of intersectionality ought to be capable of admitting when they have privilege

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PZK@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not every male is a patriarch. "Patriarchy" is a funny way to say "Capitalism" so the concept can survive and that is just needs more women to be in positions of power to exploit it.

It's only good quality is pointing out inequalities in how women are treated and are unable to achieve positions of power. But past that it ends up being used as a liberal argument to suggest that things would work better if women were the oppressors instead of men.

Capitalism whether it is called "Patriarchy" or "Matriarchy" is going to yield drive the same result, and fielding this argument actually provides ammunition to right-wing ideology of having men feel that their sexism is justified. Because it is built inside capitalist framing, so they end up seeing it as a power struggle that they need to maintain their dominance within.

[–] Hungover@hexbear.net 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Patriarchy" is a funny way to say "Capitalism" so the concept can survive and that is just needs more women to be in positions of power to exploit it.

downbear

Sorry but that's a bad and extremely reductive take. There is absolutely a unique factor of oppression towards non-cis-men that

a) evolved historically
b) reproduces itself in our current economic system, but
c) isn't guaranteed to dissolve and could be perpetuated in a post-capitalist economic system and
d) could be eased even under capitalism and materially benefit those affected

Ignoring this factor of oppression results in a reductive analysis of the kind of "let's overthrow capitalism and everything will be great"

Yes - the liberation of women, trans people of all genders, non-binary people etc. necessitates an end of capitalist structures - but that alone won't solve the problem. So saying "patriarchy = capitalism" is reductive.

And of course men suffer from patriarchal structures too - but it's qualitatively not the same as the explotation of their labour or the way non-cis men experience gender oppression.

[–] pillow@hexbear.net 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

thank u for deploying the downbear, I'm so sick of being told to shut up and get back in line until after the revolution

[–] Hungover@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago

meow-hug

[–] drhead@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

This should also be expanded to include non-hetero men as well -- there's already enough literature on heteronormativity that I don't feel obligated to go into too much detail (and it is also very late so I don't want to), but it should be sufficient to say that heteronormativity and cisnormativity are major reinforcing factors for patriarchy, and that therefore homophobia and transphobia are inseparably linked to patriarchy. The oppressions experienced by cis gay men are certainly going to be different than those experienced by non-cis men, but there should still be a fair amount in common, and a large amount that cishet men do not experience.