Patriarchy and Critical Race Theory- Fact or Conspiracy?

Western society being and always having been inherently and overtly patriarchal and critical race theory are both viewed as givens by much (perhaps most) of the modern left.
Neither one is nearly as confirmed (empirically speaking) as they believe them to be. Hence, it could be said that these are conspiracies. But to many, of not most, these ideas are likely taken as a given and as such would not be in consideration for questioning or viewing in the lens of conspiratorial thinking.

And if you "spit your coffee on your keyboard" at the idea that patriarchy theory as applied to western civilization is not an obvious, known fact, you too share this bias. We all have them of course so I don't mean this as a fault on your part.

Edit: I know the patriarchy one really gets people going because of how obviously true it is to so many people so let me just ask a few questions to show why I think the idea is not settled at all and definitely up for discussion:

1) During WWI, women were walking around America handing out white feathers to combat aged men/teenage boys as a way to shame them for being weak and wimpy as opposed to brave and courageous, sacrificing their lives for the homeland or whatever.

Now, during this time, black Americans were being lynched and white people were getting away with it en masse. Why? Because they actually were in an oppressive and dominant position. But the women, out damning the reputation and character of these dominant and oppressive men? Nothing happened to these women.

If these women were in a position similar to Black Americans, how could this disparity in outcome exist?

2) Alcohol was made illegal in the 1920s. The people who drank were primarily men. The prohibition movement was largely spearheaded by women. They won. How?

3) The idea of patriarchy is largely supported by the common reality of women "in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant" throughout most of American history. This is supposedly because men were dominating and oppressing them.

Well, what were the men doing all this time? Were they smoking cigars in nightclubs, banging go go dancers and making big business deals? Or were they largely suffering in mines, on railroads, on farms and running towards machine gun nests praying they don't get gunshot and slowly and agonizingly die in a foreign land?

Was it oppression of one over another or was it a division of labour based on the conditions of the time?

"Why won't he open up to me? I just want him to share his emotions and thoughts."

The cultural narrative regarding this of course being that women are empathetic and men are trained to be cold and un-emotional and if only they would open up they would realize the women who love them would be there for them in an unbelievably satisfying way and their mental health (and relationships) would improve.


So simple, so obvious and so correct. Right?


Wrong.


They might not realize it but their biological imperative is to test for weakness/vulnerability (it all boils down to child rearing, resource acquisition and protection) and they can't do this if the guy is holding back. Will he be strong, dependable and successful? Will he protect her and the children as well as provide for them? She isn't sure and so something feels "off" to her. What this culture seems to have forgotten/wanted to deny as of late is how much our biology controls us.


Guys, she isn't saying this because she cares and wants to help (she may believe this.....or not). It's so that she can more accurately screen you as a mate/potential father.

The Irony is, They Aren't Teaching Girls Equality

They're giving them a complex about it. My daughter (she's 5) sang this part of a song this weekend for the first time "boys can *insert whatever action* and girls can too!" So she'll skip along and sing "boys can skip and girls can too!" or "boys can jump and girls can too!" etc. I asked her where she learned this song and she said it was at school last year (SK, she starts grade 1 tomorrow, which seems insane but that's for another topic). Now, on the face of it, this seems like a great message to be sending little girls. And my initial though actually was in this vein "oh, cool, they start early with the equality now, that's good." Something to that effect. I mean, a main focus of my parenting style is to avoid limiting her; encourage her interests and objects of curiosity- never repress them.

Not long after this though, my (fuckin unstoppable and often annoying) need to question goddamn fucking everything woke up from its nap and started the process. It's tentative conclusion? That this might be doing less teaching about equality and more introducing the idea of gender inequality, leading to an immediate (and gender wide) inferiority complex. The central question here then, if my goal is to find out if I am on the right track or not, is simply is there an inherent, ingrained idea of gender inequality amongst young children which necessitates this kind of teaching, or does the post feminism practise of teaching equality from a young age actually just introduce the idea of inequality in them and do the opposite of what it tries to?

What do you think?

Man becomes Woman and Talks About Privilege

This is a post I saw on reddit (unfortunately I did not record the link when I saved this into my drafts) and thought it worthy of sharing. 

"I'm a woman, who......

Brace yourselves......

Used to be a man. There. I said it. So I know exactly what it's like to be a man, and exactly what it's like to be a woman. With that out of the way:

1. Men do not earn more than women. The Wage Gap is a myth that really does follow the Nazi's philosophy that "if you say a lie loud enough, for long enough, people will start to believe it". All you have to do is look up information freely available from the US Department of Labour and Statistics. The numbers are right there. Women do not earn less than men.

1.1 As a woman, I'm now earning FAR more than I ever did as a man.

1.2 In some parts of the country, women earn some 120% of what men make. But we'll never hear about those.

2. Men do not have a better chance of winning political office. Women simply do not run for office as much or as often as men, because it requires work they are not willing to do. Again, this is information freely available.

As a man, I could only be a doctor. If I were a male nurse, I'd be laughed at. If I were a male nurse's aid, I'd be laughed at even harder. If I were an orderly, I'd be a loser who just pushes brooms because he couldn't make it as anything else.

As a woman, I can be a doctor, a nurse, a nurses aid, OR an orderly, and at no point along the way am I laughed at or put down. In fact, I'm applauded the whole way through. Even if I want to stay at home, I'm still applauded!! Because now I'm a little home maker!

So is it any wonder that men MUST push themselves relentlessly to make it as CEOs, while women simply do not have to. And we wonder why there are more men CEOs.

3. Promiscuous behavior, you say? Check this out.

As a man:

if I went into a sex shop, I was a pervert.
If I walked by a playground, I was a pedophile.
If I looked at a woman the wrong way, I was a rapist.
If I said the wrong thing at work, it was sexual harassment.
If I tried to hit on girls, I was a pathetic desperate loser.

As a woman:

if I go into a sex shop, I'm an independent woman exploring her sexuality.
If I walk by a playground, I must be there to pick up my child.
If I look at a man the wrong... pfff come on! I can look at a man any damn way I want! I can tell him to go to hell and he has to applaud me for it!
If I said the wrong thing at work, I'm forgiven. All I have to do is pout and look sorry.
If I try to hit on men, I get men. I can have any man I want. I can hit on women too and it's still perfectly fine, because being gay is gross but lesbians are HAWT!

Alcohol, Sex, Consent, Rape and Contradictions

So as you all know there's been a lot of talk about drunk sex lately and it seems that there's a push to consider consensual sex while drunk to actually be sex under duress. Which, unless I am missing something here, logically places alcohol on equal footing with "roofies."

Assuming we accept that premise, I would go on to point out that girls don't really believe this themselves. An overstatement? Perhaps, but on some level at least, they make the distinction between alcohol and roofies without realizing it themselves. I say this because they:

a) Aren't asking for alcohol to stop being served/sold without a prescription ("roofies" are prescription only, not sold at bars but, following their logic, if it has the same effect, what's the difference?)

b) Willingly avail themselves of this free flowing alcohol (but not ingesting "roofies")

Am I wrong in thinking that perhaps this is indicative of an underlying contradiction in this new way of thinking?

P.S. I've certainly heard this said before but it bears repeating: If they aren't responsible for having sex while intoxicated then why are people who drive drunk responsible for their actions? Which is it, ladies? Do drunk people have agency over themselves and their own actions or no? Or maybe an even better one is a guy cheating while drunk. Are they prepared to let him off the hook? Oh, they aren't? Okay, let's see them explain that without a major contradiction or invoking special pleading.

EDIT:  I want to make clear right now that in NO WAY would I advocate someone plying someone with booze, getting them blackout drunk and having sex with them. I am merely talking about the usual "go out, have 3-4 drinks, end up with someone" thing that is now coming under fire.