No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
What are you talking about? Many women wear pants, but they have more options so some of them wear skirts ,or shorts, or 'skorts'... men don't wear anything but pants because they will lose every sponsor in a matter of minutes. Somehow men having fewer options than women/been told what to wear is men's fault and patriarchy or whatever, idk. Kinda ironic given that, iirc, it was invented in Scotland.
The only reason women are allowed to wear pants now is because we demanded it.
It used to be illegal for women to wear pants. Take a wild guess as to who were the ones to make those laws.
A brief history of women in pants
Many women are still not allowed to wear pants. Also, bit of a tangent, but is that like an 'anti-royal we' or are you old as fuck?
I don't have to guess, I have relation with people from cultures where it's not acceptable yet for women to wear whatever they want. It is enforced by their whole community, not only men, and it, the community, also imposes strict rules on how to live for men too.
I didn't mean it in the sense that there's no sexism anymore, because there absolutely is. But every time I heard, or read, someone using the word 'patriarchy' is to spout some culture-war nonsense that doesn't help fight sexism at all, quite the opposite—if it has any effect is pushing boys and young men (and some girls and women) that don't know any better into the arms of conservatism. These lads are not your oppressors, and they have no more say than you or me into how society works, but if you treat them as if they were your enemy many of them will eventually become your enemy.
I feel like it's most useful to view patriarchy as something that does exist and does generally give men more power, but that doesn't mean it actually benefits men or even empowers men in every domain. It is to the detriment of all people, male and female, that the distribution of power is weighted towards one sex.
And since people of whatever sex/gender can be harmed by the patriarchy, there is of course no reason to "blame" it on men. Or really, almost anyone.
my take is that simply dropping "the" from "the patriarchy" does a lot to make it more useful and less uncomfortable to talk about.
It's not some specific thing, people don't have meetings on enforcing The Patriarchy, it's just an effect.
I'm not sure if it's strictly comparable but like, talking about "the democracy" would sound strange, but talking about "democracy" is completely normal.
Is it useful, tho? Whom for? Because I only see it dividing the oppressed people, blaming each others as if they were the oppressors, when they are not. It's only useful for the real oppressors.
Who are the real oppressors?
Do you want like names or something? They're the people you've voted for (and also the other people in the ballots), the people you've worked (or will work) for, people you've paid rent to...
I'm a woman.
It's the patriarchy that is the reason for these laws. The patriarchy is not synonymous with men and boys. It is the system that upholds strict gender roles for both men and women. The patriarchy is detrimental to men and boys as well.
Don't play coy. Those cultures are run by men in positions of power. The law-makers help hold up patriarchal norms.
Even the Wikipedia entry is a good place to try to wrap your head around what the patriarchy actually is instead of erroneously assuming what it is:
It means literally being 'ruled by the father'. I know languages are living, evolving things, and words' meanings change and drift, that's why when we want one to hold its meaning we use dead languages like Ancient Greek. The word that fits that definition is 'sexism'.
I am not, and I'll give you an example from one of those cultures I'm closer with: in my country gypsies (the Calé people) are a patriarchal culture, in the sense that they have literal 'patriarchs', kind of like community leaders with a bit of extra-official power. But in most gypsy families I've met it was the women the ones that owned everything: homes, cars, bank accounts.. and the keepers and enforcers of some quite barbaric, in my opinion, traditions and rituals (practiced by many, but not all) against women and girls, when they could literally just walk away with everything if they so wanted, they usually don't legalise the marriages because they don't trust the payos' (non-gypsy) laws and system (can't blame them) so they wouldn't even have to divorce. But they don't, and if a young woman strays from tradition they are the first to make her pay. They are as responsible as the men on maintaining the sexism.
Ok. I already suspected that. But did you have to demand being able to wear pants? Or are you including yourself with the ones that did it because of a shared (gender) identity? This is just a me thing, but I just find the latter weird, not just for gender but for any other facet of someone identity, probably because I lack the identity part of my brain, or it's not developed, I think.
If you're not going to fully read my replies to you, this is a complete waste of time.
I read your comment fully and carefully. I ain't no troll, I'm really discussing in good faith and I think that my believes are not very far from yours. I'm saying that equating patriarchy with sexism is just wrong, and has the undesired effects I mention in my previous comment. On that line, also, I don't agree either with equating feminism with 'equality', because it is not, it is the fight to better women's lives, which is absolutely fine! I'm not an anti-feminist and I don't think any of that crap that it's women supremacy or whatever, but it definitely isn't trying to better men's position in the matters where they are at a disadvantage, and it doesn't have to, that's why it's called feminism.
Feminist theorist, sociologists, or anthropologists trying to push these meanings, in a totally artificial way, is not helping feminism or equality, it's pushing people toward sexism and other quite bad -isms.
Feminism is literally the belief that all genders should be treated equally.
I'd given you the benefit of doubt but I don't think anymore you are engaging in good faith. I've acknowledged that's the meaning many people give to 'feminism', and said that in my opinion, in practice, it is not, that's just a lie, it is not true at all, and I explained why I think that. And you're just throwing at me your feminist-theory-dictionary definitions at me. That's not discussing, you're not addressing any point I made.