[quote=Brovo]Or... Bare with me... It's because of a victim complex that makes it convenient to view the world in black and white and give blatant and obvious targets that are otherwise incorporeal and non-existent for the purposes of making life and all its problems simpler. Why can't I get a job? Patriarchy! Why do I feel depressed? Patriarchy! Why can't I get everything I want in life? Patriarchy!!!

The reality of the situation is this: The entire world is a series of greys. Nobody is perfectly good, nobody is perfectly evil. Even Hitler had moral standards for fucks sake: He refused to use mustard gas despite its effectiveness in the trenches of WW I because he found it immoral after it had been used on him when he was a soldier in the German army. No, there isn't an all-powerful world-wide patriarchy that for some reason ignores the plights of men while being ruled by men for the benefit of men. The world is simply a painful place full of unfortunate shit.

Now, we... -Could- keep blaming it on something that, statistically speaking, doesn't exist... Or we could address each issue one by one and repair them over time. Identify definite problems, and fix the ones we can fix. The rest we have to live with and tolerate as simply being part of life. There will always be bigots and sexists and racists and so on. There will always be people who think I should be dead because I'm an atheist or because I have depression and that makes me weak, or because I'm white and that makes me evil, or because I'm male and that makes me an oppressor. I don't let these things bother me. They're empty words from pitiable people.

It's when rights are threatened through laws, through the very protections in society, that we should feel threatened.

I'm not saying to ignore problems. I'm saying to identify shit we can fix, fix it, and simply deal with the rest as the unfortunate consequence of life, instead of blaming an all powerful, all convenient entity that, well, scientifically speaking... Doesn't exist.[/quote]

So before I go into this I just want to make a couple things clear: 1) I do not intend to enter one of our notoriously long argument things. I'm going to throw in my two cents and will respond as necessary, but really am seeking to supplement an otherwise agreeable post, and 2) I'll define my terms as needed and am happy to do so upon request if I miss something, as I know many may come to this from different places and our terms may be a big part of that. Oh, and 3) I have solid respect for Brovo and the OP. That said... 

There are absolutely those who've adopted victim complexes in today's world, but I think we should talk about that statement further. Some who blame others for their challenges may do so to cope with personal, buried issues, but others may well be responding to very real experiences of oppression. Women have historically been shelved and blatantly labelled as unworthy of citizenship, national service, voting rights, and today, control of their body and equal pay. Many of these issues have only been combated in the last century, and many of these examples of inequality have been seen by us and our parents. This is an example of systematic oppression. When you are restricted to set jobs and roles professionally and individually due to a characteristic of birth that should affect neither, [I]that[/I] is prejudice. When this judgement is reinforced with intention in our media and laws in order to place less value on that party and to push more value onto another, that is systematic oppression. You create power from nothing. So I agree with you Brovo that the entity does not exist scientifically, but I add that it does in exist socially. This is a problem accepted as an issue in the federal government and I think we could agree on at least that. 

My point is that while some may be suffering a victim complex, others may well be responding to very real societal pressures. I agree with you that we should identify and combat these instead of merely complaining, but a big part of fixing a problem is first making others aware of the issue. 

[quote=Brovo]A patriarchal society is one in which men are dominant over women. If this was true, why would we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research? Why would women take preference over men where it concerns blindly having to choose in saving lives? (ex: If you have to choose between saving a woman or saving a man, you save the woman. The man is always left to die, he's a disposable cog in the murder machine.) Ever heard the phrase "women and children to the life rafts"?

Women can vote. Women can freely voice their opinions, gain funding, and run for political office. Women can be judges and juries. Women can set laws, and work any jobs they so choose.

Women are equal to men in nearly every capacity. What's left over is tweaks to the system that need to be done over time to keep the system healthy, and move forward towards further equality.

Also I think you meant role*. Although gender rolls sound delicious.[/quote]

Brovo, you already know about the damsel in distress trope. Women are generally seen as weaker, inferior, and needing protection. It's something we use all too often in narrative and often incorrectly assume in reality -- that women are less capable, powerful, or able to be autonomous. Beyond physical build and all that, which is mostly a non-issue in the modern America, we still keep these assumptions. The idea of saving women and children first carried over too. It's not a difference in valuing so much as it's an old world holdover that places the man as protector and provider. You say it's valuing their lives more, but isn't also disarming women and placing them in a position where they're assumed unable? 

Women can theoretically be most anything. However, only very recently were they allowed in US Special Forces. In some cases they're allowed in Combat Zones (makes Infantry hard, doesn't it?), as my ex discovered after enlisting. Statistically it is extremely difficult to become successful as a female director in film and most are forced into working in less prestigious roles, or mostly in television. Women are still less likely to be hired in leadership roles and in political positions, though thankfully this is slowly changing. Women are still, on average, paid much less for the same job with the same level of experience and qualification. Women can run for a political office or interviewed, but are extremely likely to be asked questions regarding their clothing, children, make-up and have historically been commented on about their looks -- and judged by them when given media representation. 

Speaking to cancer now. Men can develop breast cancer, and though it's more common in women, I know from familial experience that is by no means as unlikely as it is for a woman to suffer prostate cancer. That is to say, it is more likely for a man to develop breast cancer than it is for a woman prostate cancer (or so we were told when my great uncle died was diagnosed and died from it). So if breast cancer is more a threat to all humanity, well of course it should receive more funding. Oh, and maybe it's worth noting that there are simply more women (at least in the US), and therefore more citizens apt to suffer the ailment. 

I think it's a very small request for us to just consider this may actually be a problem, to look into ourselves and how we think, and to make sure we're not perpetuating any of these negative stereotypes. That's all. Make sure we're not being a bunch of assholes -- not much of a request. It's not a big thing to consider we may not see the world as completely as we think and that we may well be a part of a problem.