4. Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for childrenWhen parental relationships irretrievably break down, current custody laws assume one primary caregiver (almost always a woman) and one tertiary caregiver (almost always a man). In order to win equal or shared custody, the tertiary caregiver must litigate to prove they are worthy of equal parenting, a proposition that is not only very difficult to “prove”, it is also very expensive. The legal presumption of shared parenting upon divorce – that children have a legal right to an equal relationship with both their mother and their father following relationship breakdown – is strongly resisted by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminist organizations who know that women will almost always win custody of children under the default laws. In actual fact, men who can afford to purse legal remedies and challenge primary custody stand a good chance of winning, because women do not have the market cornered on loving or caring for children. So while the law does not specifically indicate that custody will be awarded to women, the defacto result of primary/tertiary caregiver custody law is that women have a legal right to be assumed caregivers for children. Men do not.
5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rapeThe original FBI definition of rape specifically identified women as the victims, excluding the possibility of male rape victims. When the FBI updated that, it did so in way that includes a small minority of male rape victims but excluded most male rape victims by retaining the “penetration” clause. Penetration of any orifice must occur for rape to have happened. The FBI does collect another set of statistics though, under the category of “other sexual assault” – it’s the awkwardly named “made to penetrate” category, which includes men who were coerced, tricked or bullied into penetrative sex with women they would otherwise not have had sex with. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey similarly considers the two types of assault separately, despite the fact that occurrences are virtually identical. 1.27M women report rape (p.18) and 1.26M men report “made to penetrate” (p.19). By collecting the information under separate categories, following the legal definitions, women have the right to have their rapes called “rape”. Men do not.
So much for your secular views that dont match GODS will.
@Djaay Sorry? I don't follow your point. Please clarify and I will be happy to address your remarks.
I would take an issue with tying this to the economy in the metropole moving from industrial production & extraction to service & tech. Globally women now make up the majority of industrial labourers, and, of course, have always participated in agriculture. I'm also not sure that the notion that women have advantages in empathy and intuition has much empirical support. Wouldn't it make more sense to reason that the women's movement made the most significant gains on labour issues during capital's long labour crisis in the 60s-70s, which was resolved through 'structural adjustment' - the global displacement of industrial labour?
w/r/t the 'costs', many of those were things that women fought for specifically. No-fault divoces were a major gain for women's lib because it allowed victims of domestic violence to leave their husbands even when they couldn't demonstrate a broken contract. It's hard to consider those laws *really* protective when they most often served to put women in danger (after all, back then there was no law against raping your wife!). The function of these kind of laws was really to protect patrilineality. I think these laws definitely took on protective *qualities*, however, even if that wasn't their origin or ultimate effect. A womans ability to 'take everything in the divorce' surely worked asto discipline men's behaviour, especially with respect to infidelity, and therefore protect marriages (as Stephen Baskerville might put it, it worked as an incentive to remain married; he now says that there's a 'subsidy on divorce' in the form of alimony.) I'm not sure that it should trouble us, however, that whats good for women is bad for marriage.
More fundamentally though I think its like what Dworkin talked about it in 'Right Wing Women', that many conservative women opposed the women's movement because they felt like it was undoing the bargain that they had with men, ie. that by marrying a man he would protect them from other men's sexual violence; and that they could appeal to social mores about premarital sex to ward off men from violating them. If unwinding those prohibitions led to an uptick in sexual violence it would seem to support that view, and therefore sexual violence is a 'cost' of women's lib. However, couldn't you look at it in another way: that the revisions to our social relations have not gone far enogh? The problem in workplace sexual harassmet is much less the gendered appearance it takes on but the coercive structure of the workplace itself. The workplace, like the school and prison, establishes codes of subordination and deference, and makes ones salary dependant on observing these codes. Women in the workplace become sexual objects *by being in the workplace*, because their employers or superior coworkers or coworkers belonging to their superiors friend-group... recognize their ability to take advantage of these coercive social codes. To invert the famous saying, 'when everything looks like a nail, you begin to feel like a hammer...' I think the coercive structures of everyday life will always act as a limit on gender-sexual relations in this way (whichever way the pendulum swings). The demand for gender abolition, of itself, is a demand for a radical change in everyday life.
@Laura_Marx Unfortunately, your writing is a bit hard to follow. Suffice to say that if you have brought in disparate points but have not clearly related them.Just a few points:1) To start, the whole of the global economy is NOT shifting from a manufacturing/extractions base to a service/tech base. Mostly it is just Western economies. In that context, that the majority of women are working in the industrial economy is none too surprising. That said, there are now a majority of women in the American labor force and, as already noted, that have achieved wage parity. 2) As far as the rise in sexual harassment, I am not clear on your point. Women have gained legal privileges that they previously did not have but, in the bargain, lost certain cultural protections. Thus, women are given less of the informal deference that they once had and the price is being paid in a less safe environment. This offset by the enhanced legal redress they may now seek.The flaw in your argument, as best I can dissect your argument, is that you assume that with any change there must be all gains and no costs. Bluntly, the world does not work that way. Imperfect creatures cannot act perfectly and total progress is NOT foreordained.Women are now in an environment where they are more directly competing with men. By the numbers - in the labor force and in wages - they are doing rather well. However, to get here, they are now in an environment with competitive and aggressive men and that entails risk.In that connection, you would do well to remember the words of Edmund Burke, "Manners are of more importance than laws. Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in."The reforms were able to touch the law. They have less reach - and will only ever have an imperfect reach - in the manners that first define the relationship between men and women.
Maybe I got things off on the wrong foot! I want to reply because I found your response intelligent, and I like intelligent antifeminists. I hoped replying would lead to a productive engagement - surely you don't post something and then hope that no one sees it! Anyway, to address your points:1. Right, but the point I'm making is that if women make up the majority of the industrial labour market in the third world, that challenges the connection you make between women's increased role in labour and the metropole's movement away from industrial labour. 2. I like drawing the connection with Burke's manners a lot, although I don't know that it troubles my argument. The point I'm making here is that the structure of everyday life plays the most significant role. This is what I mean when I say 'when everything looks like a nail...' Our everyday life - in the workplace, in the school, etc. - structures how we come to see each other because it is responsible for how we really reate to each other. If you were my boss, how could you ever see me as anything but your underling - how could I see you as anything but my superior? The contention I make here is that sexual violence does not spring from some deep irresistable instinct of mankind but from the actual relations of society.
To clear up any ambiguity, I'm arguing for the most radical of the feminist positions - the abolition of the family, of marriage, and the abolition of work, of social hierarchies in general. It is here that Burke & I would tend to agree: if marriage is "the origin of all relations" and "the first element of all duties", then, if the object is the discovery of radically new relations, then its abolition must be the first step. We have not yet seen enough "horrible consequences", to put it Burke's way. But I rather think that it isn't marriage but everyday life which is foremost in establishing the manners, particularly the coercive structures of everyday life (work, family life). To move from Burke to Hobbes, "Honour consisteth onley in the opinion of Power." I think it is power, not manners, which is most like the air we breathe, and that while the manners reproduce power, they also express it. So if the task is to overcome gendered manners (and I know this is not your task), it is to overcome power in general, and to discover radically new manners.
@Laura_Marx Forgive me, I cannot follow what you are attempting to say. For example. you write - "surely you don't post something and then hope that no one sees it!" My sincerest apologies, but I am not clear what that has to do with what I said nor why I said it.Another example: You write - "but the point I'm making is that if women make up the majority of the industrial labour market in the third world, that challenges the connection you make between women's increased role in labour and the metropole's movement away from industrial labour." I made no such connection. I merely pointed out that males are being adversely impacted by the change in the nature of the economy. My point then being that males are hardly privileged in such a context. (I would add that in the Third World industrial work is "lighter work" when compared to the farming and mining work done by men in such an economy. Again, men being physically stronger, they are taking on the "heavier" work in their economic context.)At any rate, I could go on. However, on your central point, marriage is in decline and rates of child abuse and such are correspondingly on the rise. As an anthropological matter, marriage arose as an institution to protect women and children by committing the male to their protection.CONT.
Of course, this did not work perfectly, but as we are seeing currently in the data, various social pathologies have worsened as marriage has declined. In a nutshell, society and its institutions are a complex organism and not a tinkertoy to be pulled apart and reassembled at will. Where efforts have been made to engineer it according to some a priori vision, the law of unintended consequences is apt to pertain and the effects will likely be quite negative. The radical feminist position treats social institutions and traditions as mere options when in fact they have developed over long periods and are deeply connected to human nature.Pull them apart and you are as apt to find - as indeed we have found - that the effects will not be pleasant and will as likely as not be the opposite of those intended.Hope that answers your question. That is the best I can make out what you have written.
Bullshit argument, basically saying "there is nothing to point out, but I'll still pretend there is something, and if you disagree it's just because you can't see it".I could say the same. Women are extremely privileged. It's just invisible to you, so don't pretend it's not true.
Makes sense why most women do not realize how privileged they are unless guys would do the same thing to them.
Check your female privilege
In that case women are privilege. You can't say no, because "it is invisible to those whom have it".
Why are divorces usually settled with the man having to pay the women?
And that proves my point.
I said they are NOT privileged in court. Reread dear.
Sorry I just woke up, I thought you meant women.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Men die soon because other men kill then, male priviliege exist like white privilege
@ded13 Before you return to the university for further indoctrination, go look at an actuarial table check out the columns that have "Death probability" comparing male vs. female and really educate yourself.https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
@I-am-a-nobodyI've heard that men are "privileged" because we get to stand up and pee.
@David92506 I stand corrected. Good one. (ha ha)
@KrakenAttackinShow proof of thise percentages that you have mentioned.
@MysteriousDarkness Show proof? Are you that much of a dumb a**? It's so obvious and you can't figure it out? If you actually believe men are not disposable, when I get time, I'm coming back and I'm going to give you a list that will spin your head.
@ThisAndThat Once again show proof. You say it is obvious so how is it then.
@MysteriousDarkness Homeless women vs men: endhomelessness.org/.../Percentage of women divorcing men: www.psychologytoday.com/.../women-initiate-divorce-much-more-men-heres-whyChild Custody Women vs Men:www.divorcenet.com/.../divorce-for-men-why-women-get-child-custody-over-80-timeMan jailed for non payment of child support:www.ncsl.org/.../...support-and-incarceration.aspxhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-Dtcvqcjc8Let me know if you need more.
Do men are afraid to being killed by their girlfriensDo men are killed by woman bc they are menDo men are afraid to being rapedAre men being opressed for being menPatriarchy exists
What he posted is legit problem with society what you posted @ded13 is intrusive thoughts of few very loud retarded women...
@humanearthNot all women get free drinks at the bar.Not all women get out of getting a ticket regardless of what they say and or do..Women do get judged based on what they wear.
@ded13 You go white knight simp soy cuck a doodle do.
False rape acusations are 0,01 percent of rape acusations so shut up
Try 2-10%. And look at Kavanagh. That is the direct result of a movement that has no morals or concept of justice. The media tore him up. Would have ruined his life over baseless accusations. They could do it a justice they could do it to anyone. Some privilege.
@ded13 Actually, that's bullshit. False harassment and rape allegations range from 8 per cent to 41 per cent, depending on the jurisdiction. That's been documented. No idea where you got your miniscule number from, the lowest range put out was from a 1970s book from a feminist author named Brown who claimed the range of two to 8 per cent, which has since been discounted. Also, don't tell people to shut up if you don't know what you're talking about.
@coffeewithcream I fully expected it. I didn't say anything controversial but there's some male feminist ready to white knight and trivialize actual problems that don't conform with feminist doctrine. Ignore the suicide rate in men. That's part male privileges too I guess.
@MeatPuppetWhat height are you?
160 pounds. I'm kinda stocky.
I think this is a serious argument against the privilege narrative. Many feminists would make some kind of gesture like, 'you suffer from heightism, but you still have male privilege...' but I think this is a kind of stupidity. Realistically, whenever we talk about Manhood, something is always negated or refuted. 'Man', a radiation of strength and manliness, contians its shadow: weak men, effeminate men, short men; f*ggots and ethnic outsiders, etc. A boys entry into gendered socialization is almost always marked by some kind of abuse (verbal, physical or especially sexual), with harsh regimes of discipline, having his behviour and appearances surveiled and policed; and at school they carry it out on each other, subjugating one another to whatever they think they should think. Gender is so brutally, suffocatingly coercive - it doesn't make sense, to me, to speak of male privilege. What man does not feel, deep down, truly oppressed by patriarchy?
@MeatPuppetI aked what height you are not how much you weighed.
Think the dynamics under which it manifests itself depends on a myriad of factors. I don't think all men benefit equally either. There are also those who are perceived as "real alpha males" and those who are "beta male trash". Any man who is wealthy, tall, muscular, dominant, and borderline sociopathic is an alpha male. Any man who is broken, short, non-dominant, and capable of empathy and compassion is deemed to be beta male trash. The later has a tendency to become an incel and blame women and " Chads" for their problem, unfortunately. Instead of wanting to be rid of all of this unfair social stigma and to rid the world of all forms of stigma, they turn around and basically just yearns for the power, prestige, and charisma they'll never have or subjugate women.
@Laura_Marx Although you do make some very good points.
@MysteriousDarkness Oh! Right. I'm 5'3".
yes, definitely ^^
@Laura_Marx @MeatPuppetYou are both awesome 🔨 🌺
Explain how that is ;
Men don't have privileges over women just because they are men.
No one has any privileges over anyone. We just have different commandments from GOD , that's all.