• VirulentAura@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s cool, except if only certain people with certain body configurations have the uncontrolled freedom to be themselves, that’s still a problem.

      Or, as long as people who do not identify with the body they were given are ostricized, there are problems. As long as there are people who are groped because their body is different, lynched because their skin is different, or kept out of certain rooms just because of growths on their bodies they have no control over, there are problems.

      Just because you remove a label doesn’t mean there isnt a problem any more.

      • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In that case, is “patriarchy” the right label? Most men (racial minorities, non-cis, etc) face systematic oppression, so it doesn’t seem like gender is the problem. Seems like oppression follows class lines, not gender, race, orientation, etc.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe Kyriarchy works better for you? It describes a multi layered and interactive web of stacked series of oppressive factors that encompasses race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ablism issues etc.

          Though under the definitions of patriarchy men are still oppressed. Young men and the poor are held in sway and looked at as disposable pawns and labor by the patriarchs - powerful men in the lead positions, like male heads of the family, but in this instance the ‘family’ is government, military, businesses and corperations, guilds, unions and bosses. The the buy in for those men at the bottom is that even a lowly man gets to feel like they are better at least than women. The act of being a woman is an automatic sort of failure state. Hence why men behaving in a feminine fashion are a threat. It subverts the hierarchy when someone willing chooses to behave as “lesser” of their own volition and seem happier for it.

          • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The the buy in for those men at the bottom is that even a lowly man gets to feel like they are better at least than women.

            This hasn’t been my experience, most authorities in my life have been women (teachers, bosses, etc). Even upper leadership in the company I currently work for has slightly more women than men. Obviously not everyone has the same experience, but I don’t think the picture you tried to paint is a universal truth.

        • tenitchyfingers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oppression follows ALL those lines. Oppression and privilege are intersections. That’s why a woman can be black but also be rich and live a better life than a dude who’s poor.

        • VirulentAura@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t care if you call it The Wibbly Fuck Problem. Stop worrying about what it’s called and just do something about it. Damn. Everyone always worry about the unimportant shit.

          • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are you doing to stop the ruling class from oppressing the rest of us? Seems like you’re just posting on Lemmy, same as me.

          • charolastra
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I see a lot of mouth and no trousers/skirt in this statement.

    • jocanib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Something being a social construct does not mean it has no real world effects. That’s kind of the point of identifying it as a social construct. HTH

    • Toneswirly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Patriarchy.” You use the word but you dont know what it means. We’re not talking about heads of households, we’re talking about the halls of power; which are controlled by cis men. Gender Equality advocates are not making claims that “men don’t exist,” just that gender its a highly varied spectrum. My guess is you already know this, and willfully ignore nuance so you can push a counter ideological stance. That makes you a lame-o. Sorry.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, there still is. Trans men suffer from all of the same patriarchal oppression that cis men suffer from. The loneliness, the isolation, the expectation that they have no emotion. If you somehow watch trans people TikTok, The men’s biggest complaint is that they now have no friends.

      So yes, the patriarchy exists even if gender is a construct. Because one of those constructed genders oppresses the others, and themselves.

    • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      And from what I’m being told by the internet, men make the best women.