Do Women's Rights Require The Patriarchy For Them To Be Enforced?

[Physics-Man]

Yes

No

Other

[Effably]

The core argument being that without capacity to apply force one can not guarantee anything and that if we arbitrarily use the categories of men and women the men are overwhelmingly more able to apply force? Of course you are right within that premise.

Outside of it? If I am stronger than you and we are in a room, you now have no rights. If you grab a blunt or sharp object I lose my rights. And if a woman then enters the room with a gun you and I both lose our rights. Anyone older or younger has no rights. So on.

In reality if my sister faced oppression she would have not only me, our father, mother and herself but also friends and acquaintances willing to stand up. So to go along with your line of logic, are we not applications of force that she wields?

I understand that in a binary men vs women your premise stands. But the history of humanity has never been men vs women.

[OlderAndWiser]

Excellent!

[Physics-Man]

I'm not sure that I understand this response. Is it a 'yes' or 'no'?

[OlderAndWiser]

Your post suggests that if women need men to enforce their rights, then they are not as independent as they would have us believe. It is an inherent contradiction of their assertion.

Thanks for MHO!

[OneViewpoint]

Wow, the logic of the damaged Red Pill brain on display. You create a system where half the people (women) are not allowed to participate in decision making for 3,000 years. Then you ask them if they are dependent on the good will of those in power (men) to grant them whatever rights they are allowed. That's mighty White of you.

What you should be asking is if Patriarchy were ended and you had to compete on a level playing field, why are you scared to death you couldn't survive without your unfair advantage and privilege? Your sense of entitlement is a show of weakness, not strength.

[David318578]

Wow the lacking of historical knowledge of the blue pill is on display. For the last 3000 years the vast majority of the men also had nothing to do with the decision making..

[OneViewpoint]

@David318578 ,

Strong is the denial in this one. You're determined to just sit in a corner whining to yourself aren't you. Men didn't have any say huh? The patriarchy was just dumped on men? They didn't actually want to own women. Men didn't like that women had no say in government or laws. Men actually wanted women to have property rights and the freedom to divorce? But some big bad unseen force prevented men from doing what they really wanted? Who or what was that force? Could it be... self interest? Or maybe it was male privilege?

You are a piece of work man-baby. Stay on your moms couch flogging yourself to an Only Fans account.

[David318578]

Umm I didn't say any of that, I said the the vast majority of men also didn't have a voice in the decision making. This is a historical fact.

But I do find it amusing that your rant about women not being a part of the decision making actually proves the OPs point. Maybe you shouldn't call someone out about a lack of logic when you yourself are severely lacking in that department as well.

[OneViewpoint]

@David318578 ,

So answer the question then. If men weren't making the decisions. And women weren't making the decisions. Who was making all the decisions that put men in charge of everything and gave men privilege?

A magic invisible sky fairy that men named "God"? The Easter Bunny? The tooth fairy? Or was it those sneaky women trying to make men look bad?

Man, you are deep in denial. Go get some professional help.

[David318578]

The decision making was made by kings, queens, lords and ladies.
The vast majority of humans both men and women had no say in the matter.

But that is regardless of your point you made actually proved the OP correct.

[OneViewpoint]

@David318578 ,

No dumbass. You haven't won the argument. You're living in a delusional alternate reality you people love so much. And the women in royal families had the same rights as the peasant women. Whatever they could connive their way to in order to survive in a patriarchy. Guys like you could only survive or get laid if women were property. Barring owning a woman, you'd be molesting your sheep.

[David318578]

When did I say I "won the argument"? Lol you getting confused with who you are debating?
Let's recap our debate.

You said women haven't participated in the decision making for the last 3000 years.
This statement proves the OP correct.

All I pointed out was that the vast majority of the men also didn't partake in the decision making as well.

You seem to only be able to make personal attacks so I guess pointing out the flaw in your argument has struck a nerve?

[DonaldDarko]

It would take more than that, you'd have to get into their genetics and alter them for them to veer off from their evolved state. They're basically bioreactors, they exist to breed.

[DrPepper12]

No. They need the support secure, progressive men - not the patriarchy.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Patriarchy STRIPS women of their rights.

[Anonymous]

No, I don't think so.

[SmokinAces2000]

No they don’t