I think my response to Mithrander in the post directly above yours addresses this point.
Having two homes can be great, e.g. vacation homes. Having two homes that they have to go to equally during the week, however, is not an ideal situation for school-aged children. Either splitting mid-week or alternating weeks would still wreck havoc logistically and psychologically. Of course they would not be actual nomads, but imagine having to pack most of your stuff once or twice a week (clothes and toiletries can stay in each house, but in most cases one cannot have two copies of school work, books, computer/tablet/phone, sports equipment, music equipment, uniforms if there are any, favorite toys, etc). They will essentially be living out of a suitcase, which makes one feel like a nomad. And there will certainly be times where something needed for school or activities is forgotten, which is stressful.
Unless of course, these two homes are connected, adjacent, or very nearby. Which would be a good arrangement for the children as well. Someone I know had this arrangement – the kids can walk over to the other parent’s house in the same block, which certainly helps with their psychological well being, and makes more equal parenting time possible without the logistical nightmare of 50/50 custody. Though again, not everyone can afford to do this.
Is that so? I’d say it has more to do with the general impression that women are better people than men. It’s inheritably more difficult for many people to believe that a woman has done something very wrong, because women are simply considered better people. And in any case, the reason doesn’t really matter. The results do. And those are clear that women are privileged in the justice system.
I think this is wrong. Women aren’t considered better people – they’re considered less violent, less aggressive, more nurturing… but they’re also considered less decisive, less capable in most things (any task not traditionally considered a feminine task), less brave, less strong (physically, which is obviously true on average, but also mentally), less skilled, lesser in leadership, and lesser in many other characteristics that are generally considered “good”.
That would definitely be a sexist impression, but I’m not convinced that it’s actually a “general impression”.
I do think it is widely (and erroneously) believed that women are innately less violent then men, and consequently less of a threat, but that’s not the same thing as believing that women are “better people”.
I only have one friend who had true split in the middle arrangement with her parents. Half the week one house, half the other, alternating weekends and holidays. She grew up with it and seemed fine, and like you mentioned, it was OK since her parents lived relatively close (at least when she was smaller).
It worked for her, and she seemed to like it. As she got older, the arrangement changed a bit, as now she had a say and could say “nah, I want to spend this whole week with my dad” or when she got to college (still same area), she decided to stay for months in one of the parents’ house. I’m guessing in a way, it also helped the parent get some time off from her (if she was annoyed with one parent, she would then switch and be with the other). In fact, at some point her mom got mad at her for something, so she instead passed some time living with her father.
But that only works out when the parents have had an uncontested separation.
Yeah. If women were really traditionally considered objectively superior to men as human beings, women would have been the ones entrusted with the responsibilities to make the laws, to handle the money, to decide what men could and couldn’t do, etc. That’s not the way it panned out.
Women are traditionally considered “good” in the sense of being more docile, less threatening and more controllable, as I said. But that’s not the same thing as being considered “better” in the sense of higher-status, more powerful, more important, more authoritative. And that’s what “privilege” in this context signifies.
I see. So we are definitely using the word privilege in a different manner. I checked several on-line dictionaries to find the definition of privilege that you are using, and I didn’t find one. Instead, I found fairly standard definition of “A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.” So in the name of fighting ignorance, do you have a cite for your use of the word?
I personally fail to see the difference with getting away with something due to power and status, and getting away with something due to not having power or status. Either way, you are getting an advantage over the other group.
The problem here, and the reason it bugs me, is that this totally comes across as having your cake and eat it too. By bending language, and redefining privilege, it results in (some) feminists demanding every advantage a man has in society, while refusing to give up or even acknowledge any of the advantages that women have, because it’s not privilege when a woman has it. This isn’t equality, nor is it fair, but it is totally human nature, and it’s a huge part of my beef with feminism.
Whatever, women are considered better in the sense less violent, more compassionate, etc. which in the context of assigning suspicion or guilt for crimes translates into a clear advantage and privilege.
I don’t think she’s using the word in an unusual manner, she’s just taking a wider view of these issues - that widespread, almost always unflattering stereotypes of women can, in some narrow contexts, work to their advantage, doesn’t really make them “privileges.”
To make an extreme comparison: slaves in the antebellum south never had to pay taxes. Not paying taxes is pretty sweet, but few would consider that to be a “privilege” of slavery. So, too, with your examples, to an obviously much lesser extent. Women are often stereotyped as weak and ineffectual. While there are some narrow contexts where this is to their advantage (such as beating a murder rap) the vast majority of times this comes up in an individual woman’s life, it’s going to be a detriment.
Sure, in the context we’re using here of male privilege, “a term for social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are made available to men solely on the basis of their sex.”
You don’t have to agree with me, of course, but I see a clear difference between the substantive “social, economic and political advantages or rights” embodied in traditional assumptions like “a man is the head of the household” and “men are the responsible members of society” and “a position of authority needs to be filled by a man”, and the sort of chivalrous but patronizing solicitude embodied in traditional assumptions like “a woman is a delicate creature that needs to be cared for and protected” and “a woman shouldn’t have to trouble her head about financial and political matters” and “a woman is a gentle creature who would never be violent”.
As Miller said, an (exaggerated) analogy would be coining a term like “slave privilege”. Hey, slaves didn’t have to pay taxes or pay for their own food or make difficult decisions about where they would live or whom they would marry; definitely advantageous in some respects! But of course, the differences in the substantive nature of the advantages enjoyed by slaves and those enjoyed by masters are immense.
[QUOTE=Mithrander]
I personally fail to see the difference with getting away with something due to power and status, and getting away with something due to not having power or status. Either way, you are getting an advantage over the other group.
[/quote]
I just don’t really know what to say to that remark, since it seems so evident to me that the power differential that you openly acknowledge is at the center of that situation makes a huge difference in the type of “advantage” one gets from it.
I mean, seriously, do you really see no difference, say, between a child getting away with screaming in public because it’s “just a kid” with no power or status, and a parent getting to decide everything about the child’s life because the adult does have power and status? We’re talking about the benefits of being considered not really responsible versus the benefits of being considered the one in charge. I don’t see how you can consider them essentially comparable.
[QUOTE=Mithrander]
The problem here, and the reason it bugs me, is that this totally comes across as having your cake and eat it too. By bending language, and redefining privilege, it results in (some) feminists demanding every advantage a man has in society, while refusing to give up or even acknowledge any of the advantages that women have, because it’s not privilege when a woman has it.
[/quote]
But obviously, one needn’t (and shouldn’t) “refuse to give up or even acknowledge any of the advantages that women have”. I’ve been saying all along that just because the unfairness of sexism benefits men in disproportionately substantive ways doesn’t mean that women don’t get any unfair benefits, or that women shouldn’t renounce the unfair benefits they get or be called out on their unfairness.
I don’t understand why you seem to feel that equality or fairness requires you to set up a false equivalence between the nature of men’s unfair advantages and women’s unfair advantages. Why not just reject all sexist unfairness on its own terms whenever you encounter it, without having to pretend that there’s no fundamental difference between the types of unfairness that men and women experience?
So, for instance, if a woman in a bar expects you to buy her a drink because you’re a man and she’s a woman, just tell her “That’s a sexist gender-role expectation that demeans both men and women, and I don’t participate in that.” (Or words to that effect, I’m not really good at writing dialogue.) If she counters with a complaint that women’s work is traditionally underpaid because of sexism and it’s not fair that she should have to be equally self-supporting on unequal pay, just reply firmly *“It’s definitely wrong that women’s work is often underpaid and I support fixing that. But two wrongs don’t make a right, and I’m not going to try to compensate for one unfair sexist outcome by perpetuating another.” *
No need whatsoever to set up a sort of defensive “well, you’re actually just as privileged as I am!” false equivalence in order to stand up for fairness, self-actualization and equality for all.
Thanks for the cite. You are right that I don’t completely agree with it, but I am trying to expand my horizons a bit here and keep an open mind.
Also, I personally refute all those stupid sexist clichés. Especially the women being gentle creatures who are never violent part … I have a couple of scars that say otherwise. Of course, I got arrested over that one instead of her, which is part of the being bitter part that I stated in my first post to this thread.
Also, for the record, I’m flat-out not comparing women in America in the 21st century to slaves. If that analogy is supposed to be convincing me, it’s having the opposite effect. Compared to the mountain of slavery, the problems women deal with in our society seem like very, very tiny molehills.
Of course I see a difference in that example, the two situations are not even close. Let’s try a different one. Today I got to deal with a contractor who was screaming up a storm in my office. Due to the power differential between us, I had no choice but to sit there and take it. Later I go out. While out in public, maybe trapped in a line somewhere, I end up next to a child who is screaming up a storm. Now these situations have very different power dynamics. However, in the end, I have a headache either way.
So you’re in the first group of feminists, who actually stand for equality. That is a good thing, and I applaud you for it. Now, will you believe me when I say that (and again, stressing that this is only my personal experience) puts you in the minority of the self-identified feminists I have dealt with over the years?
Because I don’t believe it is a false equivalence, instead I believe that it is part of the “all sexist unfairness” that you yourself said I should reject whenever I encounter it.
I don’t feel like I’m am exaggerating when I say that is the single worst pick-up line I’ve ever heard, and also a near guaranteed rejection.
I’m actually trying not to be defensive, and I have never claimed that women as a group are as privileged as men. What I’m claiming is that women as a group are as bad at seeing their own privilege as men are. I think pointing that out is a crucial part of standing up for fairness, self-actualization and equality for all.
No. It’s a generalization. Me, for example, I’m terrible at math - I wish I wasn’t, but I am. I’d make a terrible engineer, and I suspect engineering would bore me to tears.
A generalization is something that’s true of a group in general, but not of every member.
Being a good father is the most masculine thing a man can do. There are a number of other traits I consider masculine. The willingness to self-sacrifice. The ability to think rationally, rather than emotionally. The realization that not everything is about me; the willingness to see the world as it is; and the ability to control your emotions, rather than allowing them to control you. The willingness and ability to overcome your fears. The willingness to use violence when necessary, but refrain from using it when it’s not (which in 1st world countries is 99.99% of the time). (Most of the time, when people do resort to violence, it’s out of fear. When you do that, you’re showing weakness, not strength.) The ability to be a leader.
Most women are attracted to what’s masculine in men. **Caveat: some women are attracted to what seems masculine, but really isn’t.
Those are masculine traits, in your opinion, that women are attracted to? So, would the opposite traits be considered “feminine,” in your opinion? A lack of willingness to self-sacrifice? Believing everything IS about me? Refusal to see the world as it is? Inability to control your emotions or overcome your fears? Inability to be a leader?
I find most of those traits to be signs of maturity, not masculinity or femininity.
True. Fish lay eggs and abandon them (or as you said, eat them).
People, on the other hand, not only don’t eat their babies, they spend inordinate amounts of time caring for them and protecting their babies. Some people would literally die for their children. Fish, not so much.
So maybe the analogy to fish isn’t such a good one.
Ruken, if you could provide the link to the data you’re referring to, I’d appreciate it. I can’t find it, which is why I’m asking.
OK, so, consider the case of me. I am, by the usual measures, an extremely radical feminist by comparison to the mainstream US culture. I’m also male, and not just male, but like a tallish, white, not poor, does OK with the ladies mainstream kind of male American. If privilege inures to the benefit of an American dude, it inures to my benefit. Not on like a Easton Ellisean level, but on some level, nevertheless.
I believe your experience and think it’s important. I believe you when you say that you’re taking a good faith approach to looking at this stuff and trying to integrate it with your own experience. I trust your judgment, is what I’m saying.
What I wonder is, as somebody who works on issues of gender inequality and violence, what do you need from me to persuade you to the belief that your experience is replicated again and again across the country, but overwhelmingly by women? If I tell you that my experience in the trenches has been that there are other men much like you, but lots and lots more women much like you, are you on my side when I say that in my own experience, an issue like domestic violence or a custody dispute is something that is very very hard on women? And that as a result, by and large, it’s fair to say that the issues of “domestic violence” and “custody” – by and large – are issues to which, if a privilege applies, it’s one that applies to the benefit of men, notwithstanding your experience? It’s kind of a big ask. But it’s important to me, because I think ultimately reasonable people like you are who are in charge of how we deal with this stuff.
If you’re a woman, and I don’t know if you are, I’ll ask you to define what you think is feminine, rather than presuming to tell you for you.
I didn’t mean to accuse you personally. When I said “those of you” I mean “you” plural - not you - iiandyiii.
If I missed your response to marshmallow, I’d appreciate your pointing it out to me.
I asked why none of the feminists in the thread responded to marshmallow’s comments. How do you construe that as misrepresenting somebody?
You have had no trouble speaking for (heterosexual) women in defining what we are supposedly attracted to. Why stop now?
What are you attracted to in women? Is it the opposite of the list you made above? If not, why are the traits described as masculinity?