That's the gynocentric view of the situation yes.
The androcentric one would be that such men are held in place by societal expectations, and you may as well be whining about how the united kingdom is a monarchy.
The masculine males in those positions must act according to expectations and precedent, or be deposed. So you have to find out who sets the boundaries of what is and is not masculine behavior.
Shocker, it's women.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/messages-of-shame-are-organized-around-gender/275322/
In an androcentric perception of the situation, women (And men, but women are more effective at it) police male behavior into gender roles and certain ways of acting.
One of those is having to do all the goddman work and make all the """"Decisions"""" (In reality, you are making decisions according to your prescribed roles.), and have all of the responsibility. This is called "Being in charge" when in reality, it's being a scapegoat and workhorse.
You failing to notice the duality of this situation by the way, is another example of a feminist being turned into prejudiced person by their ideology. You fail to see things from mens side of the issue, even if you are a man.
This is why the MRM is necessary. Having a seperate or subsection of the feminist movement dedicated to these problems would be allowing women to dictate to men what is and is not acceptable in outlining their own experience and perception of the situation, including where we straight up tell women they are wrong about some of the motivations they ascribe.
All your arguments here are you wandering in and asserting ad nauseum that this is a vase:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/images/408154aa.2.jpg
Would you kindly go to the vase thread. This is the place we discuss two faces, and your continually refusal to accept that there are alternative views on the situation is tiresome and bigoted.
It's endemic in the feminist movement. Worse, it actively prevents solving the situation because you have no fucking clue what is actually going on here. You think it's a vase.
It isn't.
It's an optical illusion that presents itself as a vase or two faces depending on your viewpoint.
The MRM accepts this is the case about sexism, and seeks to define an androcentric perspective.
Feminism does not. Their adherents do not even understand they are gynocentric.
That is why feminism is a hate movement. It delegitimizes and seeks to suppress exploration and acceptance of the androcentric perspective on sexism.
You're here doing the same thing, over and over. It's fucking tiresome.
Yes, yes we know you can keep saying "But look! It has a vase shape!" and waffle about feminism describing the vase.
Nobody fucking cares. You still don't get it, and I have doubts you ever will.
A feminist is for equality like an imperialist is for civilization.
From an extremely narrow and bigoted viewpoint that delegitimizes all others, gets up in everyones faces and uses force, power, and institutions to shove it's idiocy down everybodies throats.
Unless you have anything new to add, could you just go away? We know about feminism. Just repeating the talking points will not convince us that you are still ignoring the bigger picture. You will not, no matter how hard you try, get us to unsee the two faces. And we already know about the vase. We are not the problem here, you are.
We've tried explaining to you people before that every instance of sexism can be described from an androcentric or gynocentric perspective, but you just waffle about sexism is prejudice plus power, while ignoring androcentric viewpoints that women have social power.
We describe a sexist situation you just bust out the gynocentric viewpoint on it and act like you are arguing, you're not. You're repeating precisely the same shit that we're sick of and have told you we're sick of. It isn't a fucking vase. Get the fuck over it.
Do you seriously not understand this?
The downsides of continual insistence on a gynocentric perspective rather than accepting both narratives are many. It leads to shit like the Duluth model and erasure of male victimization. It frequently causes traditionalism to infest feminist activism, rhetoric, and mindsets.
It's a dud.
Your movement is rotten to the core because of it's assertion of universality on it's perspective.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/3i8qrl/the_origins_of_privilege/cui4c8p?context=3
Read both of these comments.
Hopefully this will prevent you cluttering up this thread with more descriptions of vases. That isn't what this is for.
Hopefully this will cause you to realize what you've been doing and why it's a problem.
Hopefully this will cause you to understand the need for the MRM.
Hopefully.
But I fucking doubt it. I've not known many feminists who are capable of properly interpreting information that shows how shit their ideology is.
I'm pissed because it feels like dealing with creationists, except creationists in control of the universities, newspapers, and legislature, and a type of creationist who routinely dismissed, belittled, and delegitimized, say, black peoples perspective on anything based on some magicked up mumbo jumbo and rationalizations to justify their bigotry. With creationists, I can just laugh at them at the end because even if they are completely impervious to arguments, at least they don't actually effect me.
You people do. The cult of feminism has warped your mind into bigotry, and you don't even fucking see it.
You're like some guy who wanders into threads on racism against black people and will not just fucking shut up about how blacks commit crimes and do riots and that their culture is crap.
Yes, yes we know about that perspective on the situation. Thanks. We think there is more to it, and continually tracing back everything to your perspective is just evidence of your own close mindedness and bigotry.
You think you're engaging in a dialogue, an argument, but you aren't. That's the problem here, and it's the problem with basically every feminist I know who has a problem with the MRM. One or two accept it's validity, and those are fine.
Your kind?
Yeh.
But ok, whatever. Continue standing there outing yourself as a bigot instead of sitting back in your chair and mulling over what I just told you, keep on replying to people describing an androcentric view with "No noes, it's not two faces, see, vase! Patriarchy!", i'm used to it.
You've done it basically all thread, and there is a total lack of self-awareness about it too, just like all the other feminists who did that in this thread. I can only think of two who didn't, and they explicitly said they agreed with everything we say. (Except, presumably, why they shouldn't call themselves feminists, unless they call themselves a feminist-MRA.)
People wonder why I have contempt for feminists. Shit like this is why. Well, this, and their continual endorsement of prejudicial laws and such, but this is the root of that.
Am I being too mean?
Not really. This shit is pretty basic MRM stuff. If you'd bothered to know what the fuck you were talking about before coming in here I wouldn't have had to explain this to you. But your blind faith and zeal in feminism being right led you to believe that you didn't need to know shit about the MRM, you already know everything you need to know about everything gender, your babble told you so.
I have no fucking patience left for your kind. If you reply to this with more gynocentric assertions, i'm just going to ignore you, and i'd advise everyone else to do the same. Come up with something new, come up with an argument why a gynocentric perspective is the only legitimate one, shut up and go away, start a discussion on why you were wrong previously, or get pissy at me for being rude.
I don't mind which, but pick one. Stop and think "What if i'm wrong." Don't let the map that feminists provided you on how to live in a closed system ideology come up with your response. It's like you people are randian objectivists or something.
ここには何もないようです