On Feminism

Great Debates
261

I don’t get where you’re hearing “male privilege” as a feminist response to men’s problems. Male privilege doesn’t mean that men don’t have any problems, and I don’t know of any feminist who believes it does. (It does mean that men shouldn’t assume that the problems of sexism are the same for women as for men, or that it’s okay for men to try to divert discussions of women’s problems with sexism to talk about men’s problems instead, which is the sort of context in which I generally hear “male privilege” applied to men talking about their problems.)

In terms of traditional sexism, there isn’t really any culturally embedded “female privilege”, just as in terms of traditional racism, there isn’t really any culturally embedded “black privilege”. The residual privilege left over from traditionally sexist and racist societies still so disproportionately benefits men and whites, respectively, that it’s hard to know what “female privilege” would even mean.

If it means “there’s a culturally embedded sexist expectation that certain kinds of irresponsible behavior should be tolerated in women where they wouldn’t be tolerated in men because women are innately inferior so consequently less is expected of them”, that certainly exists, but it’s not actually a counterpart to “male privilege”. Any more than the fact that small children can get away with crying and screaming in public because they’re just kids counts as “child privilege” on a par with “adult privilege”.

Toxic femininity, as we discussed at length in the previous thread on this topic, is in fact a subject of public discourse. I definitely wish people would talk more about the ways that traditional femininity is used to disempower and infantilize women under the pretense of empowering and fulfilling them—in other words, toxic femininity—but it’s not as though it never gets talked about at all.

262

And that’s the way it should stay, right? [/sarcasm] You’re not my kind of anti-feminist, but it too is a broad church…

263

:confused: Why would we need to get the state involved in the actual operation of brothels? It sounds to me as though the societal solution your uncle Bob needs is simply a revision of the overly conformist and prescriptive cultural expectations of monogamy that are limiting his blowjob options. Then the free market can take care of actually providing the blowjobs, assuming there’s anyone interested in supplying him.

(As feminists often point out, traditional monogamist expectations of marriage were established by male lawmakers in patriarchal societies to allow more men to have more power over and access to women. A monogamous patriarchal structure where most women are dependent on marriage for financial security, and fathers and husbands get to make the rules for female sexuality, gives the average male more chance to reproduce than a polygamous patriarchal structure where the most powerful men hoard women to increase their own power and influence.)

264

Please explain.

265

So again, if fathers are willingly giving up custody, why the opposition to shared custody in the small percentage of cases that are litigated?

266

How is shared or joint custody a willingness to “giving up custody”?

As to the small percentage of litigated cases, we’d have to examine each on its merrits to be able to have an informed opinion on the matter.

267

Did you miss the entire thread where it was pointed out that custodial arrangements are decided outside of court 95% of the time?

With respect to the kids, her husband behaves the same as the vast majority of fathers in the 70’s, and a significant minority of fathers now. Since he doesn’t cheat, hit, do drugs, smoke, or abuse alcohol, and works hard at his job making a decent income, if you ask a representative sampling of people today, most will decide that he is not a scumbag, just a hardworking, responsible, old-fashioned man. And that precisely is the societal problem part of the scenario – a significant percentage of fathers are not involved or only cursorily involved with their children (e.g. the “fun” parent who throws a ball with the kids on Saturday mornings), and society either finds that acceptable or blames the situation on women (like you are doing now). His friends and coworkers are not shaming him for not being involved enough. On the contrary, he’s probably praised if he shows any sign of parenting.

And then there is a significant portion of fathers who are involved, but not equally. Which directly leads to the custody disparity. If you find the custody disparity concerning, then the disparity in childcare time in cohabiting couples should also be problematic. Since the former stems from the latter, addressing the former issue at a societal level seems to be more pertinent rather than blaming the women for choosing wrong men.

268

You’re misunderstanding my point. NOW, and other women’s rights organizations, are opposed to shared custody - meaning sharing custody, unless there’s some reason to do otherwise: such as an agreement between the parties, or evidence of abuse, or the inability or unwillingness of one of the parents to do it.

Shared custody doesn’t mean parents HAVE TO share custody. They can still agree to other arrangements if they want. It only changes the legal standard (or presumption) when parents can’t agree.

One of the arguments feminists make is that there’s no reason to change the legal standard (when parents don’t agree) because the vast majority of cases are decided outside of court. Fine. It’s absolutely true that the vast majority of cases are decided outside of court.

However, the argument cuts both ways. If there’s no reason to change the standard, because fathers freely and voluntarily giving up primary custody, there’s also no reason not to change it: fathers will continue to give up custody, even if they have a reasonable shot at sharing custody if they go to court.

To make it as crystal clear as I can, the fact that feminists lobby against shared custody (successfully, by the way) shows they don’t really believe their own argument: if they really believed that fathers don’t want to be with their children, they wouldn’t bother lobbying against shared custody.

269

If NOW truly believes that primary custody is better for children than shared custody, then their argument is perfectly consistent.

270

For those of you who insist that feminism is really about equality: 18% of Americans consider themselves feminists, but 85% believe in “equality for women.”

Now I realize that’s not going to convince you of anything - you and your friends are equality feminists, after all - nevertheless, I hope you’ll at least agree with me that you’re in the minority. Most Americans don’t seem to think that “feminism” and “equality for women” are the same thing.

While I realize nothing I can say will change your mind, I do have a question for you: When I say that feminism is not about equality, you call me pathological and accuse me of hating women.

When a feminist says that feminism isn’t about equality, you have nothing to say at all.

Why is that?

271

When have I done this?

Actually, there have been a lot of responses to things like this – mostly “I condemn this statement and disagree with it” or some variation.

I wonder why you continually misrepresent the arguments and assertions of the feminists in these threads.

272

How the hell does that prove that feminists don’t believe in equality?

So what? Doesn’t mean they are right. All it proves is that people like you may be succeeding in bashing a label. Suppose you win your quest to make the label “feminism” evil in the minds of everyone. What would you accomplish? Nothing. People would just find a new label for whatever they believe in. You’d have to start all over again.

Stop obsessing over labels. They don’t matter. It’s policies that matter. If you believe in equality, say that.

Nope. That’s not why they say that. It’s your unfair, irrational assertion that all feminists can be said to hold the views of some, and your irrational obsession with bashing the label, and your willingness to completely ignore contrary evidence, that makes you appear to be pathological.

Bullshit! Don’t you dare speak for me or ignore what I say! I do have something to say about that, and I have - I say that feminist is wrong, and certainly doesn’t represent my views about feminism.

273

Well, most Americans support liberal positions but don’t call themselves “liberals”, too.

AFAICT, most people who support feminist positions and don’t call themselves “feminists” are either (a) men who still have a residual impression that “feminist” is a female-only descriptor, or (b) women who have been frightened away from the term “feminism” by overwrought misrepresentations of it on the part of backlashing antifeminists, or (c) people who assume the term belongs to a particular historical moment that’s now past, like the word “suffragette”.

But the views of group (c) may be changing as awareness spreads of growing antifeminism and misogyny in society, in addition to the increasing restrictions on women’s reproductive rights and the increased visibility of sexist rightwing-religious movements like the Quiverfulls. More people seem to be recognizing that feminism isn’t an obsolete survival from the Women’s Lib movement but still has some serious relevance.

For example, the survey you cited has 35% of respondents asserting that the issue of feminism is being talked about more often in the past couple years, as opposed to just 18% who think it’s talked about less often now (43% say it’s about the same). 85% of respondents agreed that they believe in equality for women, and 76% agree that “there is still work to be done” to attain “full equality for women in work, life and politics”. And 72% of respondents say that in choosing which candidates to vote for in elections, “women’s issues around equality” are “extremely important”, “very important”, or “somewhat important” to them.

Those supermajorities are espousing classic feminist positions, even if they don’t choose to wear the “feminist” label. Moreover, self-identifying as “feminist” seems to be on the increase among young women and non-white women, suggesting that the term is regaining more general appeal among women. (I doubt that most men are ever going to think that “feminist” is a label for them no matter how much they support feminist positions, as per group (a) above.)

Sure we have something to say in response to such assertions: we disagree with them. All your antifeminist threads have been filled with feminists patiently telling you over and over that no, we don’t think maleness is a “deficiency”, no, we don’t think men are inferior to women, no, we don’t think that women are entitled to be violent against men just because they’re women, no, we don’t think that women are automatically more trustworthy or more compassionate etc. than men are, no, we don’t agree with people who spout such anti-egalitarian views, on and on and on and on. All of which, AFAICT, makes no impression on you whatsoever.

Ignorance on its own we can successfully fight, in most cases. The comorbidity of ignorance with wilfull irrationalism, on the other hand, is a much harder proposition.

274

Would you want to live half a week in one place and half a week in another, week after week? Wednesday and Saturday mornings you wake up in one house, and go to sleep in another? Dealing with the stress of having to bring all your school supplies and clothes and toys and sports and music equipment from one place to another? I can’t imagine forcing this on all children dealing with divorcing parents, especially if the divorce is already contentious.

If it were up to me, I’d decree that children stay in the same house and parents can rotate in and out. But this is not practical for everybody (basically three households are needed instead of two, and what happens when parents remarry?), having a primary home is still better for the children than forcing them to be nomads.

And if the father provided half or more of the childcare when the parents are together, he has every right to be the custodial parent barring any issue (abuse etc). By previously cited info, fathers who ask for custody have a fair share of getting it. So again, getting fathers more involved in childcare in cohabiting couples solves the problems you pose. Why then do you constantly avoid the questions on how to get fathers more involved?

275

I don’t see any reason to think that having only one home is necessarily better than having two. Certainly there could be times when problems in one household make the existence of the other a welcome refuge. In any case, “nomads” is certainly prejudicial and inaccurate; nomads have no fixed abodes.

276

What about you? If you have children (I don’t know if you do) what do you think is best for them?

277

I have no children now. In the future it would depend on the circumstances. I kind of like BrightSunshine’s idea – one house for the kids with rotating parents. But I can’t evaluate it without details, and from a dad’s point of view without the personal relationships. I hope the judge would make a decision based on the best interests of the children if we couldn’t come to an agreement without that.

278

I know I should just stay out of gender politics, as after my divorce I got screwed by the system so bad that no cannibal will touch me as I am far too bitter … but this statement bugged me enough that I felt obliged to reply.

Really? You can’t think of a single time when a female in our current society might have an advantage over a male in the same situation? I’ll ignore the draft, as that is unlikely to actually be implemented again, but which gender is privileged in the following situations?

A man and a woman are having a domestic argument, and the cops have been called.

A man and a woman robbed a store and got caught, and are now being sentenced for the crime.

A woman is pregnant, and her and the man involved don’t agree on how to handle the situation.

A man and a woman are divorcing, and custody is being disputed.

A man and a woman are sitting alone in a park where children are playing.

A man and a woman are both at a bar and broke, while hoping to score some free drinks.

The last one is weaksauce, I’ll admit, but there are absolutely situations where being a female is an advantage. I’m not saying those advantages are better or more numerous than the ones that men get, but they exist. So when feminists insist that they don’t have any privilege whatsoever, I don’t buy it. It comes across as trying to get more advantages without even acknowledging the ones you have.

Now, to avoid the Linus problem of painting with a way oversized brush, there are some feminists who really are about equality. I applaud them, they rock. There are also angry and entitled feminists who feel that because women have gotten the short end of the stick for so long, the pendulum deserves to swing back the other direction. I can agree with the first group and disagree with the second despite the fact they both call themselves feminists.

So Linus, here’s a tip from someone who is (marginally) on your side. You might get better results with your MRA witnessing threads if you don’t treat every person who identifies as a feminist as part of the second group instead of the first. Finally, if you just want to argue with the second group, just fucking go to Reddit, there’s plenty of them there. Your repeatedly arguing past people here isn’t doing your side any favors.

279

Sure I can. “In a traditionally sexist society there isn’t really any comparable female-privilege counterpart to male privilege” doesn’t mean “women never get away with things that men wouldn’t get away with”.

As I pointed out in the very post that you say “bugged” you so much, women traditionally and frequently do get away with stuff that men wouldn’t get away with. But that’s because women are traditionally considered less responsible and less important, not because women are deferred to for their power and status.

Yes, women getting away with shit where men would not is definitely unfair, and women should not get away with that shit. But no, that does not count as “female privilege” on a par with “male privilege”, any more than little kids being allowed to scream in public counts as “child privilege” on a par with “adult privilege”.

[QUOTE=Mithrander]
A man and a woman are having a domestic argument, and the cops have been called.

[/quote]

The woman has the advantage, NOT because she’s more influential and powerful, but rather in that she’s generally presumed to be the victim because she’s considered weak and unthreatening.

Same with most of your other examples, except the custody-dispute one which is basically about who does most of the childcare.

[QUOTE=Mithrander]
The last one is weaksauce, I’ll admit, but there are absolutely situations where being a female is an advantage.

[/quote]

I completely agree that this is true. My point is that these advantages based on being traditionally considered inferior to the other sex (weaker, poorer, more helpless, less intelligent, etc.) are not the same thing as what sociologists call “privilege” based on being traditionally considered superior to the other sex.

[QUOTE=Mithrander]
So when feminists insist that they don’t have any privilege whatsoever, I don’t buy it.
[/quote]

What I think we have here is a non-dispute based on differing interpretations of the term “privilege”. I hope I’ve made it clear now that just because I think the term “female privilege” implies a false equivalence does NOT mean that I’m unwilling to admit that women often have unfair advantages in various situations.

[QUOTE=Mithrander]
I can agree with the first group and disagree with the second despite the fact they both call themselves feminists.
[/quote]

Yup, so can I.

280

Women have tons of privileges particular to their sex. Perhaps being a women makes you blind to the fact, or perhaps being in a position to claim under-privilege is one of the privileges women demand. It’s not that “male privilege” is brought up in particular with regard to men’s problems, it’s the general tone of the whole hierarchies of privilege which seems to have become so very important to 3rd gen feminism, and which translates so easy, which I’ve seen many times, into waving away as silly or insignificant those groups which are perceived as residing higher in the privilege hierarchy.