Is a teenaged boy not allowed to say "no" ... ?

[Hyena Dandy]

then you don't understand the definition(you possibly know the strawman definition).
"a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it."

Or maybe you don't know the meaning of the word "Also."

that's it, nothing about "better for men"(there's also things like intersectionality that affect privileged status), look at the US government, women largely excluded(we didn't get the right to vote until less than 100 years ago.)

Or "Implies," apparently.

[Canarr]

then you don't understand the definition(you possibly know the strawman definition).
"a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it."

that's it, nothing about "better for men"(there's also things like intersectionality that affect privileged status), look at the US government, women largely excluded(we didn't get the right to vote until less than 100 years ago.) And then men suffering from abuse is partially because "men are supposed to be stronger" and ridiculed for reporting abuse, because they're "obviously weak". -_-

So... because women didn't have the right to vote 100 hundred years ago, that is somehow proof that we live in a patriarchy today? Where women can vote, hold office, and do everything else that men do? What kind of sense does that make, exactly?

From a historical perspective: in the area of today's Germany, nobody was allowed to vote until 1867, when men were granted this right by Bismarck. However, most German states still had some sort of discrimination in place in order to limit the voting power of the poorer parts of the population. It wasn't until the first elections in the new Rebublic of Weimar early 1919 that equal votes were established - for men and for women.

So, for the around fifteen hundred years of recorded history after the collaps of the Roman Empire, men in today's Germany have held a (restricted) right to vote for fifty-one years longer than women.

Its not "just" sexism. It refers to a social structure. Sexism is clearly involved, but patriarchy is the end result. Its sort of like saying slavery was just racism. Racism was obviously involved, but slavery was the resulting societal norm that stemmed from it.

But it's not an existing social structure. At least, not in the countries we are talking about here - which is why I find it useless in such a discussion.

And, I kinda feel like Hyena Dandy on the matter: I find this "It's Patriarchy" reply to sound quite a lot like, "You men are doing that to yourself! Just stop this Patriarchy-crap already and you'll be fine!" There is no need to reflect on the deeper reasons for comments such as the ones the OP quoted, or maybe even think about what we, individually, may be doing wrong here - it's all "the Patriarchy's" fault.

[Gravekeeper]

So... because women didn't have the right to vote 100 hundred years ago, that is somehow proof that we live in a patriarchy today? Where women can vote, hold office, and do everything else that men do? What kind of sense does that make, exactly?

You really aren't grasping this. Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean its working in practice. A patriarchy isn't defined in a strictly legal sense. Yes, women can technically do anything men can but that's not how it works out in practice.

Women are paid less, hired less often, promoted less often, elected less often, practically chased out of certain industries and all the while having to put up with being judged by society based on appearance rather than merits. Most the world's political power? Men. Social power? Men. Economic power? Men. Military power? Men.

You say women can hold office, and yet only around 20% of elected US officials are women. You say women can do everything else that men do and yet they're denied control over their own bodies. Usually by a government panel of old white guys. Richest people in the world? Only 9.6% are women.

I mean seriously, don't you remember the whole Sandra Fluke thing? The panel discussing access to birth control for women was all men many of whom were clergy.

People using the term just to go "It's patriarchy!" is a different problem and the same as people who do the reverse and blame feminism, liberals, etc.

[Canarr]

You really aren't grasping this. Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean its working in practice. A patriarchy isn't defined in a strictly legal sense. Yes, women can technically do anything men can but that's not how it works out in practice.

Women are paid less, hired less often, promoted less often, elected less often, practically chased out of certain industries and all the while having to put up with being judged by society based on appearance rather than merits. Most the world's political power? Men. Social power? Men. Economic power? Men. Military power? Men.

You say women can hold office, and yet only around 20% of elected US officials are women. You say women can do everything else that men do and yet they're denied control over their own bodies. Usually by a government panel of old white guys. Richest people in the world? Only 9.6% are women.

I mean seriously, don't you remember the whole Sandra Fluke thing? The panel discussing access to birth control for women was all men many of whom were clergy.

People using the term just to go "It's patriarchy!" is a different problem and the same as people who do the reverse and blame feminism, liberals, etc.

You are misunderstanding me. I am not claiming that there is perfect equality between the sexes in our society; I am merely disputing that "women weren't allowed to vote 100 years ago!" is a valid argument to support the claim that "women today are largely excluded from power!", as BK put forward. The situation is certainly more complex than that.

@Sandra Fluke: I had to read up on that; wasn't a big topic over here (neither birth control in general, nor Fluke's work in particular). Limbaugh's comments made my brain go and cry in the corner for a while. Damn, that's just... fucked up.

But that's kind of my point: for every radical feminist advocating the cutting up of men, there's some male asshole claiming that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate" rape. Claiming, "It's patriarchy!" helps no one; "It's assholes!" should be the rallying cry, and getting rid of the assholes the goal.

[Gravekeeper]

My apologies then if I misunderstood the first part.

Limbaugh's comments made my brain go and cry in the corner for a while. Damn, that's just... fucked up.

That is a fairly normal reaction to listening to anything Limbaugh says, yes. >.>

But that's kind of my point: for every radical feminist advocating the cutting up of men, there's some male asshole claiming that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate" rape. Claiming, "It's patriarchy!" helps no one; "It's assholes!" should be the rallying cry, and getting rid of the assholes the goal.

Well, the world is full of many different kinds of assholes. Patriarchy is just a word that classifies when a particular type of asshole in charge. -.-

[Canarr]

My apologies then if I misunderstood the first part.

No worries. Re-reading my post, I could have probably framed that better.

Well, the world is full of many different kinds of assholes. Patriarchy is just a word that classifies when a particular type of asshole in charge. -.-

I still dislike the term. Aside from my opinion I already put forth, I also feel that it switches Cause and Effect. "It's Patriarchy!" somewhat implies that if we can only "abolish Patriarchy" (however that's supposed to go), and we'll be rid of the Limbaughs of this world. But it's the other way around: we need to get rid of the Limbaughs, and then "Patriarchy" will die on its own.

Yes, crap like that takes time. But nobody is going to change the likes of Limbaugh, or Whatshisface (legitimate-rape-guy); they'll be assholes forever. We need to make sure that the next generation, and the one after that, understands that the Limbaughs of this world are stupid and wrong and utterly irrelevant - that others can do it right and make it better.

Then some day, even in the US nobody will think it strange anymore that women can get birth control from their insurance, and that teenage boys will sometimes say No to a woman's advances.

[Gravekeeper]

I still dislike the term. Aside from my opinion I already put forth, I also feel that it switches Cause and Effect. "It's Patriarchy!" somewhat implies that if we can only "abolish Patriarchy" (however that's supposed to go), and we'll be rid of the Limbaughs of this world. But it's the other way around: we need to get rid of the Limbaughs, and then "Patriarchy" will die on its own.

Its an anthropological term though. Its not switching cause and effect, you're sort of presenting a chicken or the egg dilemma. Its the existence of a patriarchal structure that allows a Limbaugh to shit on the air waves to begin with. Its a cyclonic, generational problem. All modern societies are derived from patriarchy and its only been in recent decades where we've been trying to shift this towards a equal balance. The US, honestly, has probably been the least successful developed country in this regard.

You can't get rid of a patriarchy by getting rid of the patriarchs any more than you can solve poverty by getting rid of the poor. The system that created them is still in place and the next set of patriarchs will just step in. You need to break the cycle of the system itself.

The fractured political and socioeconomic nature of the US makes this very difficult and time consuming though. The US is also an oligarchy, which compounds the issue immensely.