re: Young men are saved. 2 left wing nuts give oped in NYT regarding masculinity

quote:

---

Patriarchy exists, too

It's just the best, most natural, and most beneficial (to both genders) way to organize possible.

---

This is the correct answer, but it doesn't go quite far enough.

There has never been a true matriarchal society. Ever. Not in the context of force (which is a feminist concept, btw).

Women cannot physically overpower men. Force and/or the threat of force is what backs all institutional power. It's ALL that backs institutional power.

I don't care who makes the laws or occupies positions of government or sits on the throne. The segment of the population who enforces the edicts of those institutions actually has the power.

Men enforce institutional edits, therefore, men have the actual power. Having more female senators or Congresspeople or a female POTUS doesn't change that.

Men always have and always will enforce institutional edicts. Men will always have the true power.

When men decide within a society to take away women's "rights," they do. At will. Afghanistan started rolling back women's rights within 48 hours of the US leaving that country. Many countries in the Middle East and Africa limit women's rights at will.

So the patriarchy is 100% real. But it's also the only possibility. Women cannot truly "be in power," because they ultimately can't enforce their own edicts. They need men to do so for them. There are multiple examples of men deciding to limit women's rights, even today, in 2026. There's never been an example in all of history of women doing the same to men. Because they can't. They're not capable of it. Again, this idea was first articulated by feminist writers.

So in that context, all of the ninny grad-school nonsense cubs loves to parrot on these subjects has some problems.

Because it means that men gave women the vote. It means that men are responsible for the situation we have now, in which women have higher home ownership, are more educated, still get massively preferential treatment in divorce courts and custody disputes, still don't have to register with selective services while men still universally do, get preferential hiring treatment via DEI in most large corporations and government, can literally institutionally do anything that men can do, plus things that men can't, such as kill their children. Women literally have the sole legal power to decide whether innocent, non-combatant human beings live or die.

And men have allowed the conditions the led to women having all of this.

Because you can't claim men are in charge, then at the same time claim that they didn't have the power to stop all of that if they had wanted to. That would be a very weak patriarchy.

And no, women did not "fight" for any of that. Marching with pussy hats on is not "fighting." They didn't fire a shot, they didn't have any casualties of war, they bitched and moaned and—as often happens in the home—men decided that they would rather have relative peace than continue to oppose them (and to be fair, many of them also thought it was the right thing to do...they were right about some of those things are wrong about others), but make no mistake, if the men were in charge in 1750, they were still in charge in 1925, and 1965, and 2000, and today.

And it will always be that way. So feminism is a self-defeating philosophy. Because it seeks to eradicate the patriarchy, but it depends upon the patriarchy to eradicate it.

quote:

---

Women cannot truly "be in power," because they ultimately can't enforce their own edicts. They need men to do so for them.

---

You’re basically reducing men to weapons. Could women use different weapons to enforce edicts?

quote:

---

They didn't fire a shot, they didn't have any casualties of war,

---

. It’s interesting that you’re framing this like It’s a bad thing.

quote:

---

No.

Women (collectively) don't design weapons and their ability to use them is impaired by relatively weak upper body strength and grip strength. Just loading a spring loaded handgun magazine is a challenge for the average woman, much less loading 60 lb tank shells.

---

You already sneered at the fact that women were able to acquire rights and leverage without bloodshed. Why wouldn’t the strategies they employed to achieve their objectives be considered weapons?

quote:

---

If women could achieve all of those things despite men's best efforts to prevent it without firing a shot or suffering a single casualty, then the patriarch can't be that oppressive, can it?

---

or perhaps women’s strategic and relentless use of their weapons against it simply paid off?

quote:

---

consider if men or whites people in general benefit from some societal structures?

---

My father's race and gender got him passed over for a company job (1990s, Mobil oil Gulf platform) where the company asked him to train the black woman they hired instead.

White privilege, right?

Oh yeah, the dumb bitch eventually got fired for safety violations. She was shite at her job but they didn't fire her until she put others lives at risk.

quote:

---

All black people live in crime-ridden areas and only seek medical treatment in crime-ridden areas where inferior doctors practice?

---

Do all blacks have to live in crime ridden areas to make an impact in the statistics?

quote:

---

To your point, almost half of Black people are on Medicaid.

Good doctors will avoid Medicaid due to the limits on payments and general red tape requiring expensive office staff.

That has to have an impact.

---

Nope, its racism.

These same progressive colleges that constantly ban conservative speakers produce a bunch of kkk doctors who just hate blacks.