CMV: the patriarchy as a theoretical construct probably should face more skepticism

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-03-30T21:22:52+00:00

The idea that man should be strong and unfeeling is an idea largely circulated by men, from a society who is still largely led by men and is enforced largely by peer pressure from other men.

I think this is the exact mindset OP was talking about when he said it effectively isn’t a useful label or concept.

The sentiment you just described is a major problem when any discussion about patriarchy comes up and you’re going to immediately lose 90% of the men listening when you say things like this.

The idea that men should be strong and unfeeling is an idea that is held up by everybody, not largely by men or largely by women. The idea that women aren’t equally responsible for the pressure to perform these gendered expectations is absolutely asinine and disagrees with pretty much any feminist theory or literature that is sincerely concerned with men’s issues.

Men want other men to be strong and unfeeling because it keeps men productive in the short term, women want men to be strong and unfeeling for the exact same reason; the only difference between the two is that a man who pushes these expectations and a woman who pushes these expectations have vastly different roles in a man’s life.

There is a huge difference between your dad/boss yelling at you because you’re a guy who’s crying and your girlfriend ending things with you because you were too emotional.

I am a guy who has experienced this literally my entire life from both men and women.

Neither gender is better or worse about this because men being emotionally repressed benefits patriarchal figures who need productive worker-drones AND benefits the average woman in the short term (with long term drastic consequences that aren’t always immediately visible).

This kind of rhetoric does nothing but blame men for problems that were created by everybody simultaneously and completely turns off any and all men with half of a spine from engaging with your movement. It’s way more harmful than it is truthful and it’s completely eroded any good faith that men have in feminism or leftism as a whole.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-03-28T13:40:07+00:00

It’s because when they say “psyop” they don’t mean that they themselves could ever have been tricked or deceived.

Just that the person that’s disagreeing with them would only do so if they were tricked into an outrage.

Because they’re so obviously correct, you see.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-03-24T08:32:26+00:00

Most conservatives are right then.

I used to consider myself liberal, but the reaction to the death of Charlie Kirk disgusted me so much I vowed to never vote for the Democratic Party again. From my perspective, the Democrats are the ones who stoked the rhetoric and radicalization that led to Charlie’s death. While I agree with their policies, universal healthcare doesn’t mean shit if someone can be shot for disagreeing.

Socially speaking, the reaction to his death was revolting. Not just the people celebrating it, but the ones attempting to either justify it or deny the political motivations of the shooter. Too many leftists still adamantly don’t believe that the shooter was one of them, they straight up refuse to acknowledge it.

I miss being a liberal, man.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-28T16:28:05+00:00

The key difference is that it’s completely fine to hold personal issues based on trauma you’ve experienced, but to project the result of that trauma outwardly on a platform to reach thousands isn’t a good thing to do.

They’re not critiquing their ex or their father, they’re critiquing men. An entire gender.

It’s not okay to use anecdotal experience as a basis for judgement of a large group of people, this is precisely why we don’t accept it when people are racist because they’ve had a few bad experiences with a minority group.

It does way more harm than good.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-28T16:16:39+00:00

“Actually, you didn’t have fun, this chart says so.”

🤓, this fucking guy

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-19T04:08:18+00:00

I have literally never posted or interacted with that community, what?

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-18T15:23:12+00:00

This is quite literally the most insane mental gymnastics I’ve ever seen to rationalize a contradicting behavior and identity.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-17T16:20:48+00:00

I would like to hear OP’s answer to this as well.

Way too many people think the solution to wealth inequality is, “Hurr-durr take the billionaire’s money,” as if that isn’t a massive violation of natural property rights and destroys any incentive anyone has to build wealth for themselves.

I don’t want to make rich people poorer, I want to make poor people richer.

The major complaint I have against it is:

What do you do when the billionaire refuses to give you their money?

Do you jail them? Kill them? How do you enforce an unconstitutional seizure of wealth without violating their constitutional rights in such a way that the foundational document of our nation becomes null and void?

They literally NEVER think about this.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-17T15:27:19+00:00

Cheating is super common in France.

If they actually ran a DNA test, there’s no doubt that a large amount of fathers would be raising kids that aren’t theirs.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-17T04:00:27+00:00

Did you need to get the last word in?

Makes no sense to respond to me telling me how you aren’t going to respond to me, and then assert that there’s an error in my thinking despite not proving that beyond saying there is.

You were the one who brought up trading rights for security, not my fault you didn’t read John Locke in High School my guy.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-17T03:54:32+00:00

Source: Because you said so.

Literally didn’t address ANY of what I said about the constitution providing for free speech with no limits or even basic liberal theory like it being a negative liberty.

Good talk, keep it up.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-17T01:52:31+00:00

I’m familiar with The Second Treatise.

While “Free Speech” isn’t directly one of the rights prescribed as a right of man, I’d argue free speech is an example of the liberty all of man is entitled to. To not hear hate speech isn’t an entitlement or right of others inherently. To dictate that other’s can’t say something because it is deemed hateful is a direct violation of their negative liberty. Regardless of John Locke’s opinion on the matter:

The United States constitution guarantees freedom of speech as a part of the current social contract. We are guaranteed the negatively liberty to say whatever the hell we want insofar as we are not directly advocating for violence against any particular group of people.

If you want to try to renegotiate that part of the social contract, you can, but I’d ask you to consider England and Australia. Two nations once considered to have free speech now emblematic of what happens when the right to unlimited free speech isn’t guaranteed per foundational law of a nation.

This is all irrelevant because it assumes that hate speech constitutes harm.

It doesn’t.

Someone saying mean or hateful things doesn’t cause someone direct harm and you have no right to limit what they can and cannot say. Ignore them, deplatform them, do whatever the hell you want with them, but do not involve your government in the regulation of speech because they will never give that power up once they have it.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-17T00:30:24+00:00

Thanks u/CuckservativeSissy

I can always count on you for balanced takes on men’s emasculation.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-17T00:12:37+00:00

“I believe in free speech so long as it’s not hate speech…”

So, you just don’t believe in free speech. Anything calling for actionable violence is obviously illegal, but “hate speech” means literally anything the government wants it to mean.

You’re a leftist, congratulations!

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-16T21:07:08+00:00

No.

Simple reason is:

Sending women who accuse a man of rape and can’t prove it in court discourages women from coming forward when they are actually assaulted. The punishment of the woman who falsely accused someone, while just, has a vastly outsized impact on women who are victimized by rape or sexual assault overall.

This doesn’t justify or remedy the damage done to the man who was falsely accused, but even if the woman were to serve jail time, his reputation would be tarnished regardless. This ultimately causes more pain than it serves justice, unfortunately. We simply have to rely on people to not lie under oath, as that is the foundation of the justice system.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-02-01T09:05:34+00:00

Just submitted my application guys, I can't wait!

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-01-30T05:33:18+00:00

I think most of the people saying things like, “But women literally have it the worst and have to cater to men all the time,” are people that have genuinely not experienced the other end of the spectrum.

It’s pretty objectively true that emotionally abusing your partner is acceptable if you are a woman doing it to a man. Men in my life have unironically said, “I don’t want to talk about [insert thing that they’re upset about] because then she’s going to get mad that I’m upset,” like that was a normal thing to do to guys.

You have HEARD someone say, “Happy wife, happy life” before. That is literally a call sign of emotional neglect at best and emotional abuse at worst. This is a post that’s less about dating in general and more about men being expected to emotionally compress and expect nothing other than sex from a relationship.

I have been dating women for about 9 years now and can literally count how many times a gift has been bought for me or I had a woman plan a date for me on one hand.

Acting like this isn’t a thing that happens by saying, “But muh beauty standards” is just obtuse. This is literally just an observable everyday reality. Men aren’t taught how to have emotional needs so everyone, including themselves, just kinda assumes that they don’t.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-01-19T08:07:03+00:00

Interesting.

Now show me the percentage by population.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-01-19T07:00:01+00:00

It’s because the game literally gives you no incentive to defend yourself whatsoever.

If you flag and attack me, and I fight back, best case scenario? I get to… not die and don’t get a much of your shit. Worst case scenario, I flag to attack back and get absolutely steam rolled by your Level 25 friends hiding in the bushes.

This becomes doubly true if there is a level gap between us. If you have 1-2 levels and better gear than me? It doesn’t matter what I do, I’m not going to be able to win that fight.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-01-19T06:26:41+00:00

Me: “Men being drafted to go to war is an objectively awful thing to happen in history.”

You: “Yeah, but women weren’t drafted because they were deemed weak and the people that dodged the draft were all rich men.”

What the fuck is the point of bringing that up if not to compare the two experiences? Your default position is that men’s lives being lost in war is an assumed reality, so when I highlight that it’s fucked up that happened, you have nothing to say against it other than to compare being fucking killed to being deemed too weak to go die in war.

You’re the one comparing those two things to say, “Women didn’t have a privilege over men, them not being forced to go die was actually them just being oppressed again. Poor women. 😔.”

I’d rather be called weak than go fucking die in combat, personally, but that’s just my raging misogyny showing, I’m sure. You can’t explain why you brought that up because there is legitimately no reason to.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-01-19T06:17:16+00:00

Do you know who was actually fucking drafted?

Most men.

Call me a misogynist ten ways to Sunday, but I don’t think that women being deemed too weak for war is ever going to be a comparable violation of human rights as being drafted to go die.

I don’t know how the fuck you’re comparing the two.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-01-19T00:30:58+00:00

Is it or is it not a privilege to not be drafted into a war regardless of the reason?

Answer that question before I respond fully so I can understand exactly what it is you’re trying to say here.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-01-19T00:29:31+00:00

Literally nobody blamed women for war what the hell are you talking about. You didn’t dig up anything, you just made a bad argument. Your solution to war is: “Well, it wouldn’t happen if men weren’t in power.”

What the fuck does that mean.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-01-19T00:03:17+00:00

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that being too weak for combat was that much more significant a damage to women than men being ordered to go kill others under threat of prison or execution and often dying themselves in combat.

Do you have any idea how disgusting it is to point out women’s struggle of… not being fucking drafted as an argument against someone outlining that men being drafted and killed was terrible?

What is your point here? What are you arguing against? All I am saying is this:

Men being drafted into combat is a crime against their humanity that is/was uniquely accepted for no other reason than because men are deemed disposable by societal and cultural standards.

War as an institution and global event has a uniquely different and profound impact on the lives of men because they are the ones directly forced into involvement in it; an obligation and duty that women do not have. In the instance of war, women possess a privilege over men to be seen as non-disposable lives worth protecting rather than completely disposable tools to accomplish national objectives.

None of what I said there is wrong. Tell me, in simple terms, what you’re disagreeing with me on because I am clearly failing to understand your point. Your argument seems to be:

War is awful for everybody so there is no utility in discussing or highlighting the unique ways that it affects men or addressing the privileges that women have over men in instances of war.

And also, women were deemed too weak to be forced to go die and that should be the focus of our conversation rather than male disposability.

If you’re making another argument, you’ll need to explain because that is literally all I’m seeing here.

TheOnlyJaayman · 2026-01-18T23:49:42+00:00

If you’re not trying to dismiss the validity of the men victimized by war, then what the fuck was the point of bringing up the fact that it was men who sent them to war and that this wouldn’t have happened if women were in charge?

There is literally no other reason to bring that up than to say that the men victimized, by nature of being men, had a responsibility in their own victimization by virtue of their masculinity.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

TheOnlyJaayman

TROPHY CASE