One rule for the boys but not for the girls!

[seer]

Read my definitions.

I will ask again - At bottom is patriarchy about male dominance - yes or no?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I will ask again - At bottom is patriarchy about male dominance - yes or no?

I repeat again, read my definitions.

[CivilDiscourse]

It was a perfectly straightforward question and premised on the definitions I provided.

It's like asking someone to prove that fighting over mates happens in nature, but restricting the definition of fighting over mates to only include firearms and metal knives. Or asking someone to prove that visual sexual attraction happens in nature, but limit that definition to the use of clothing that makes female boobs look larger than normal.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's like asking someone to prove that fighting over mates happens in nature, but restricting the definition of fighting over mates to only include firearms and metal knives. Or asking someone to prove that visual sexual attraction happens in nature, but limit that definition to the use of clothing that makes female boobs look larger than normal.

I have answered your comments. You have the option to "change the record" or leave the thread. That choice is yours.

[seer]

I repeat again, read my definitions.

We all know why you won't answer, male dominance is an inherent trait, and whether it presents in patriarchy or not, makes no difference - it is perfectly natural. So again, why do you hate nature so much?

[CivilDiscourse]

I have answered your comments. You have the option to "change the record" or leave the thread. That choice is yours.

No, you never actually answered my comments. In fact, you keep ignoring my comments completely through snip after snip, hence why it keeps being repeated.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We all know why you won't answer, male dominance is an inherent trait, and whether it presents in patriarchy or not, makes no difference - it is perfectly natural. So again, why do you hate nature so much?

Well you keep reading the entrails.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, you never actually answered my comments. In fact, you keep ignoring my comments completely through snip after snip, hence why it keeps being repeated.

I cited you my original comment to seer.

[CivilDiscourse]

I cited you my original comment to seer.

You never actually addressed my comments.

Perhaps you can re-post what you actually responded that addressed the following comments:

There was a reason why your specific definition was ignored: It's like asking someone to prove that fighting over mates happens in nature, but restricting the definition of fighting over mates to only include firearms and metal knives. Or asking someone to prove that visual sexual attraction happens in nature, but limit that definition to the use of clothing that makes female boobs look larger than normal.

Patriarchy exists, it exists in nature, and if it is natural for humans to do, it will be expressed in the ways that humans develop, organize, and behave. That expression does not have to mimic what happens in the natural (read: non-human) world for it to still be based off of natural behavior.

I kept repeating them, and you never actually addressed them.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You never actually addressed my comments.

Perhaps you can re-post what you actually responded that addressed the following comments:

There was a reason why your specific definition was ignored: It's like asking someone to prove that fighting over mates happens in nature, but restricting the definition of fighting over mates to only include firearms and metal knives. Or asking someone to prove that visual sexual attraction happens in nature, but limit that definition to the use of clothing that makes female boobs look larger than normal.

Patriarchy exists, it exists in nature, and if it is natural for humans to do, it will be expressed in the ways that humans develop, organize, and behave. That expression does not have to mimic what happens in the natural (read: non-human) world for it to still be based off of natural behavior.

I kept repeating them, and you never actually addressed them.

I am not overly interested in replying to comments that reference unrelated incidents.

[tabibito]

I am not overly interested in replying to comments that reference unrelated incidents.

Of course, it could be pointed out that

• Women were no more subjected to delegated roles than were men.
• Many of the restrictions imposed on women resulted from the fact that they were indispensable, whereas men were disposable.
• Modern affluent societies make an expanded role for women possible without putting that society's existence at risk
• The change of environment did not produce an immediate change in societal attitudes, and still hasn't.

But of course, the realities don't suit the female supremacist narrative.

[CivilDiscourse]

I am not overly interested in replying to comments that reference unrelated incidents.

So then you never addressed the comments, like I said. (Plus it shows you really don't understand the points I am making, or you would realize they were not unrelated.)

[rogue06]

Patriarchy as understood within human societies does not exist among anthropoid apes.

Patriarchy, as you defined it in the post I responded to, most certainly does exist among other primates and in it's rawest, most brutal form.

Is there a reason you are seeking to redefine patriarchy now? Could it be merely so that you can claim that you weren't mistaken when you proclaimed that patriarchy doesn't exist among our closet relatives?

[rogue06]

I repeat again, read my definitions.

Q: Do you think it will rain today?

H_A: Read my definitions on what constitutes "rain."

[rogue06]

Of course, it could be pointed out that

• Women were no more subjected to delegated roles than were men.
• Many of the restrictions imposed on women resulted from the fact that they were indispensable, whereas men were disposable.
• Modern affluent societies make an expanded role for women possible without putting that society's existence at risk
• The change of environment did not produce an immediate change in societal attitudes, and still hasn't.

But of course, the realities don't suit the female supremacist narrative.

The bolded reminds me of the accusation of sexism a few years back because most testing and medical experimentation is done on men. They weren't typically testing to see if something reacted differently with a woman. While that it a significant and legitimate concern it had nothing to do with discriminating against women as the MSM typically reported it as. It was instead due to not wanting to conduct tests on women of child-bearing age due to not wanting to risk undue harm to them. Unlike the men, these women were seen as to valuable to put at risk.