Here's a question that was never answered in that article.

"What are men's rights?"

In essence they are admitting that even men don't really believe that 'Men's Rights' is a valid cause. Nicely done.

Is that a joke? It's so hilariously paranoid and stereotypically misogynist -- surely it wasn't written without ironic intent.

"We hear all the time how a rich widow just died and left untold millions to foundations which are well known for then parceling out serious funding to feminist organizations."

Really? All the time?

Hurry! Change your wills to benefit the Rich White Protestant Men's College Fund! A rich white male protestant can't make it without you.

Where is this oppressive feminist machine? I'd like to become a part of it.

I am totally serious about this: does anyone know who started "men's rights" groups, and what their beliefs are, exactly? Because I see it as a bunch of privileged men sitting around bitching about how tough they have it, and how the big, evil feminists are taking over.

I could be wrong. "Men's Studies" could be a whole academic field on its own, I just can't seem to take it seriously.

I remember how someone in one of my classes was bitching about how there are no network for white men and it wasn't fair.

"Uh, check out C-SPAN, dude," I said, almost starting a class riot.

No, ankathry, it's not a joke. They really are dumb enough to see Larry Craig as a feminist puppet (because us feminists just loooove family-values candidates who cheat on their wives) and battered-women's shelters as a "front" organization. Next issue, the writer will name 257 card-carrying feminists who've infiltrated the Justice Department.

*scratches head* So why bother having a wife?

"please do NOT leave all your money to a woman (wife or daughter) who could knowingly or unknowingly turn your grandson and great-grandson into the slave of a system completely dominated by feminists."

hahahahaha
Well, we can dream can't we?

And FEMily- this was the response by one respondant:
"There will be background checks (sex offender checks) for men to be allowed into nightclubs and discos and bars…probably within the next 10 years if we do not get the support of at least one billionaire.

I guess this is his interpretation of what men's rights are. I won't even begin to tackle this though- it makes my head hurt. *sigh*

Damn it! I commented, but then it didn't take. I am about to beat the Internet with a stick.

Here was my original question: does anyone know the origin of "men's rights" groups and what it consists of? Because it seems to me like it's a bunch of men sitting around bitching about the big, bad feminists.

I don't doubt that, if it exists as an academic field, that intellectual values can come from it, but I just have a lot of trouble taking it seriously.

On the same note: I once almost started a riot when I told a classmate to watch C-SPAN when he was bitching about how there was no television network for "white men."

ProFem -- Not sure who started them, but I know that most men's rights organizations also have ties to white supremacist groups. There are probably people here who know more about that than me, though -- I know about a year or two ago there was one men's rights site whose owner also owned and ran a racist site.

"Astonishingly, donating to feminists gets people tax write-offs these days. The feminists do this by calling their organizations 'women’s shelters' and operating 'shelters' as a front."

They can't be serious...the entire article just seems like a huge ignorant joke. Wow...

Actually, as a matter of law, you *can't* disinherit your spouse. Laws vary by state (and the amount a spouse omitted from the will will be entitled to also varies), but it's basically impossible cut your spouse out.

Sorry for the double post. I actually did some wikipedia spying on men's rights groups and it is, to say the very least, amusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights

The feminist groups are also getting big dollars from big politically correct corporations like Exxon-Mobil (see their support for the women-as-victims Tahirih Justice Center) and, of course, an American Congress which is filled with blackmailed perverts like Senator Larry Craig who have clearly been doing almost everything the feminists wanted just to keep themselves in business at the local men’s restroom.

Wait, Exxon-Mobil is a politically-correct corporation? The Larry Craig business is FEMINISM'S FAULT?

...

Speechless.

“does anyone know the origin of "men's rights" groups and what it consists of?�

I think the origin is found in angry, socially inept 34 year-old men living in parents’ basement.

And as with many wingnut sites, MND could nearly be confused with The Onion. In addition to the article linked, several juicy headlines today include “Girdles For Men�, “Was JFK a Pedophile?�, and (personal favorite), “My Violent Ex-Wife Destroyed My Career, then Complains that Her Support Payments Are Insufficient�.

I made the mistake of reading the comments of that article. They seem awfully concerned with keeping their right to harass women online. Charming.

it's tuesday afternoon, dear...

I think that Men's Rights groups could actually tremendously benefit the feminist community if they were approached with the right attitude. Few feminists would disagree that patriarchy hurts men, too, and if masculist groups would focus on gender egalitarianism rather than knee-jerk reactions to feminism, we could make a lot of progress.

I have a male friend who is a self-identified masculist AND feminist, and he blogs and writes often about the need for changes in the way our society approaches masculinity; this includes some criticism of mainstream feminist views of men. If "Men's Rights" organizations would place their focus on creating gentler views of masculinity, gender-balancing the military, taking female-on-male sexual assault seriously, granting equal rights to fathers in custody cases, and challenging the idea that gay males are "gross" while lesbians are "sexy", I think that the masculist movement could go hand-in-hand with the feminist movement, and benefit us all.

Articles like this one are a gross setback to any progression made by men's OR womyn's rights organizations. I think it's unfortunate that this article would identify itself as pro-male, when it's really merely anti-female.

I made the mistake of reading the comments of that article. They seem awfully concerned with keeping their right to harass women online. Charming.

MRA's (men's rights activists) insist that it's men's right to dominate women. Period. There's no other way to interpret their bullshit. Feminists and men COULD come together to battle patriarchy together, but MRAs are not anti-patriarchy. Oh, they'll cry "patriarchy hurts men too!" when you bring up women's oppression, but they're not actually interested in ending patriarchy. They're content with their place in the patriarchy as long as women suffer worse.
It's amazing how they can simultaneously claim that feminism is irrelevant and unpopular while screaming that it's taking over the world and controlling everyone. Hah! If only.

why were all of my posts deleted? A computer error or site error posted them 3x, I only posted once..was it necessary to not leave one of them?

"MRA's (men's rights activists) insist that it's men's right to dominate women. Period. There's no other way to interpret their bullshit."

Often,yes. Not ALWAYS, though. They can't all be grouped together and assumed to all think alike. I think that many self-identified men's rights activists really do identify with the feminist cause. I've known and been close friends with many of them. I think you're conforming to the stereotype that feminists are anti-male, by implying that everyone who supports men's rights is inherently anti-female. Men and womyn can work TOGETHER on creating a gender-egalitarian society.

Don't get me wrong--I think that we clearly live in a male-dominated society that is in desperate need of change. I just also think that we need to take men's concerns seriously, too, if we expect to be heard. I'm not talking about bullshit "the dirty feminists are coming to get me!" articles like this one--I'm talking about movements to protect gay males, to promote fathers as single parents, to take female-on-male physical abuse seriously, and to let little boys know that it's okay for them to like the color pink. Many men's rights activists really DO stand behind a balanced view of gender egalitarianism and simply think that the deconstruction of patriarchy needs to come from both a feminist and masculist perspective. Don't throw all men's rights organizations out the window just because some asshole wrote this terrible article.

One of my favorite hobbies has become frequenting MRA sites. It's pretty twisted. If MRA groups were really interested in men's rights they wouldn't be homophobes in my opinion. I've read an aweful lot of homosexual hating on those types of sites.

PROFEMINISTMALE: "I could be wrong. "Men's Studies" could be a whole academic field on its own, I just can't seem to take it seriously."

Why not? The basic premise of men's studies is to examine how gender roles constrict and define men's experiences (e.g., you need to be strong, stoic, a work object, anti-female, always ready for sex, etc.). Further, they examine factors that promote acceptance of rape myths and violence among men, how to prevent domestic and sexual violence, etc. Most people in the men's studies field are interested in deconstructing standard gender roles.

For example, I do research on how men perceive their bodies - in particular, perceived need to be muscular to demonstrate your masculinity physically, and how this effects boys (e.g. protein supplement abuse, body dissatisfaction).

This might interest you:

http://content.apa.org/journals/men/8/2

This book is a pretty good summary of that work:
The masculine self by Kilmartin

One of my favorite hobbies has become frequenting MRA sites. It's pretty twisted. If MRA groups were really interested in men's rights they wouldn't be homophobes in my opinion. I've read an aweful lot of homosexual hating on those types of sites.

I think you're conforming to the stereotype that feminists are anti-male, by implying that everyone who supports men's rights is inherently anti-female. Men and womyn can work TOGETHER on creating a gender-egalitarian society.

What?!
The status quo IS "men's rights." If men were concerned with egalitarianism, they'd support feminism. But they don't. They hate feminists. The misinterpret our stance on just about everything. WE want little boys to be encouraged when they show an interest in "girly" things. MRAs? Not so much. In fact, they bemoan the "feminization" of education and the culture in general (I wish). Feminists want single dads to have support, for SAHDs to have support. MRAs may SAY they want the same thing, but at the end of the day they still rally for traditional shit.

Oooh, I have an idea! Would Jessica and other feministing owners be opposed to making an entry about feministing on wikipedia? I just thought of that for some reason.

I'd write it, but I have no idea how you guys came about.

Ugh god I can only imagine ths shit-storm of trolling a wikipedia entry would provoke.

I'm talking about movements to protect gay males, to promote fathers as single parents, to take female-on-male physical abuse seriously, and to let little boys know that it's okay for them to like the color pink.

Feminists are already doing this. Can you point me to any non-anecdotal evidence of self-described MRAs doing this kind of work?

UCLA - Perhaps I wouldn't be so opposed to "men's rights" groups if they didn't play it off as though they were the victims of patriarchy and gender roles. But in all the sites that I've came across, it's always about how men have been "oppressed" because of feminism or gender roles.

If men were truly interested in deconstructing gender roles and preventing rape, they'd be taking women's studies courses, rather than these men's studies courses.

Again, I still don't buy into this idea that men are the victims of anything. You can't be a victim when your gender is the oppressing one. You might give in to stereotypes, but you're also benefiting from stereotypes (not you personally, as I am assuming you're female).

I am sorry - I just can't feel bad for men and their perceived plight when one-half of my fellow human beings are still being marginalized and discriminated against.

On a scale of priority, I'll take feminism over "men's rights" anyday.

Besides, what issues can these men cover in men's studies classes that aren't already covered in a women's studies class?

SARAHMC: "The status quo IS "men's rights." If men were concerned with egalitarianism, they'd support feminism. But they don't."

I definitely agree with you that some men's rights group exist specifically to try and gain male advantages.

But I do think males who support egalitarianism should also focus on male-specific issues. For example, you would be unlikely to see posts on feministing.com about how men's health is affected by working obsessively, how stoicism effects men's health, etc. Most of the posts focus on things that effect primarily women (which makes sense), not negative things men experience because of the gender system.

DELIRIUM: "If "Men's Rights" organizations would place their focus on creating gentler views of masculinity, gender-balancing the military, taking female-on-male sexual assault seriously, granting equal rights to fathers in custody cases, and challenging the idea that gay males are "gross" while lesbians are "sexy", I think that the masculist movement could go hand-in-hand with the feminist movement, and benefit us all."

Those are pretty much the viewpoints of people in the men's studies / psychology of gender fields.

Everyone is on to something here. Maybe the catalyst to breaking patriarchial behavior is a men's rights group that actually focuses on the rights men are actually denied. Things like parental leave policies, equal opportunities in traditionally female oriented education and work opportunities. Oh, and ALL men, that means rights for gay men. When you start addressing the real rights issues for men rather than the cloaked desperate attempt to keep the ability to oppress women suddenly the patriarchy looks rather cornered.

It is sort of an empty space nobody is filling. Just like the empty space between girls gone wild and virginity pledges. There isn't enough helping young girls find their way between the two.

PROFEMINIST MALE: "If men were truly interested in deconstructing gender roles and preventing rape, they'd be taking women's studies courses, rather than these men's studies courses."

Hey PFM - given your posts I would actually have thought that work in men's studies courses would be right up your alley. Here is a quick summary of those studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_studies

I'd recommend "The masculine self" by Kilmartin.

There are just some things in women's studies courses, which focus on women's experiences rather than men's experiences, don't cover. Personally I would prefer to teach gender studies rather than men's studies.

"""Again, I still don't buy into this idea that men are the victims of anything. You can't be a victim when your gender is the oppressing one."""

If you view "patriarchy" as "all men have dominance over all women", than that view somewhat makes sense. But if you also view patriarchy as "Some men dominating other men", which is after all a defining feature of patriarchy, then it makes sense to also consider what ideologies help maintain this structure where a smaller group of men wield dominance and privilege. Further, it makes sense to examine how men enforce these rules on other men, and the experiences of men who both do and don't fit the standard mold, and the strain that men feel when they feel like they don't live up to gendered expectations.

"""(not you personally, as I am assuming you're female)."""

I'm male.

"""On a scale of priority, I'll take feminism over "men's rights" anyday."""

I don't see it as having to choose one over the other. I definitely support some feminist goals. More generally, though, I'm interested in how men's and women's experiences are influenced by gender ideologies and interactions between men and women. Some of this might fall under "women's studies", some might fall under "men's studies". All of it falls under "gender studies".

PROFEMINISTMALE: "If men were truly interested in deconstructing gender roles and preventing rape, they'd be taking women's studies courses, rather than these men's studies courses."

Ahh, this was the book I was looking for. It might be a little weird for a "women's studies" course to focus exclusively on the study of men?

Men's Lives:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0205321054/qid=1026146799/sr=12-3/102-6540463-1388933

Best-selling reader on men and masculinity, edited by two of the most prominent researchers on men, contains the most current articles on masculinity available.
Organized around themes that define masculinity, this reader takes the position that men (as well as women) are "gendered" and that this gendering process is a central experience for men. The authors explore how working class men, men of color, gay men, older men, and younger men construct different versions of masculinity. One reviewer says, "This reader does a remarkable job of showing the interconnectedness of race, class, and gender ... It also makes clear that any discussion of `men's lives' of necessity involves an understanding of the social roles of both men and women, and of gender inequality."

Again, I still don't buy into this idea that men are the victims of anything. You can't be a victim when your gender is the oppressing one. You might give in to stereotypes, but you're also benefiting from stereotypes (not you personally, as I am assuming you're female).

Not true. That which happens in the aggregate does not always benefit the individual. Our experiences are not the complete average of the experiences of people who are like us.

I will hammer you on this, because I don't want anyone saying, "Look at Hillary, if she's gotten this far, sexism doesn't exist."

For anyone who thinks that men are UNIVERSALLY treated better than women, I invite you into family court. I know men who have been screwed out of custody of their children. One attorney told her female client to jump-start the divorce proceedings by going to the police and saying that she was worried that her husband would shoot her. Woman did as told; her husband was arrested in front of the kids. In court, the judge reviewed his record. He has never owned, touched, or shot a gun; however, the accusation was sufficient. She got immediate, sole custody; he hasn't seen the kids in over a year. It is explicitly acknowledged among that legal community that her strategy is immensely successful, albeit utterly immoral.

So yeah, some men do get screwed.

That doesn't mean that women have achieved gender parity; it just means that we are still judging people based on their sex. That's wrong, no matter whom it hurts.

UCLAbodyimage: "If you view "patriarchy" as "all men have dominance over all women", than that view somewhat makes sense. But if you also view patriarchy as "Some men dominating other men", which is after all a defining feature of patriarchy..."

My all-encompassing view of patriarchy is: Some men dominating all other people in a given society, and creating a system within which it will be easier for men to dominate those considered to be 'inferior,' especially women, at all levels.

UCLA, it seems like you're unfamiliar with the MRAs we're talking about. 'Cause they sure aint interested in smashing gender roles.

And oenophile, it's a myth that the courts are biased towards women. The courts are interested in preserving the "status quo" for the children involved. What that means is that if the mother was the primary caregiver while married, the courts will try to allow her to stay primary caregiver after the divorce. If men are truly interested in custody issues, they'll promote stay at home fatherhood. I won't hold my breath.

If a man is identifying as a men's rights activist because he believes in things that are complimentary to feminism (paternity leave, better models of masculinity, rights for gay men) then he really needs to take a step back and look at what everyone else using the label actually wants. Some MRAs talk a good talk about equality that can make feminists (both male and female) assume they've found an ally who sees the issues from a different, but important, point of view. Not so much. When you scratch the surface, the men's rights movements are all about anti-feminism. Is it unfair that they took the phase "men's rights" and should feminist men reclaim it for good? Of course, but it can't be reclaimed by simply saying "not all MRAs are bad". An analogy would be a feminist trying to reclaim the term pro-life. Saying that anti-choicers aren't really pro-life because anti-abortion laws force women into unsafe, illegal abortions that could kill them, and feminists are more pro-life because we support better access to pre-natal care which prevents stillbirths and infant deaths and maternal deaths works a lot better at getting a point across than just saying "not all pro-lifers are bad". A feminist man who wishes to identify as an MRA has to recognize that the vast majority of MRAs have opinions and beliefs that directly contradict his, and he can't ever just say "I'm an MRA" and expect people to know what he believes in.

SARAHMC: "UCLA, it seems like you're unfamiliar with the MRAs we're talking about. 'Cause they sure aint interested in smashing gender roles."

hey sarahmc, I'm familiar with the MRAs you are talking about (e.g., the promisekeepers). What I'm differentiating between is those groups vs. the men's studies groups who have a very different perspective on gender compared to the reactionary MRAs.

But why are you even bringing UP the men's studies groups you're referring to? They have nothing to do with MRAs other than the fact that they have "men" in their name. Just plugging another study you're doing? Seems like you always join a discussion and muddy the waters, causing people to waste time questioning you and clearing up the confusion you've caused.

Well, as much as I hate to admit it, I agree with a few posters who say the courts are biased towards women in custody cases. I worked with such families at one point and I just found that the burden is always on the man to prove he can be as good as the mom (with the exception of when the mom is not a fit parent).

I'm not agreeing with the whole men's rights movement as it is, but yeah, this is a valid statement, IMO.

Taina, did you not read my comment about preserving the status quo?

Not that anybody here would be interested in my opinion, but I would caution against lumping all men's rights advocates into one group. It is true, unfortunately, that there is gaybashing in the movement, as well as misogyny and paranoia. These are in the minority, however, and the grievances that MRAs have are real. Would you argue that the feminist movement doesn't have legitimate issues because it contains some loonies and bigots? I wouldn't.--GS

I'm interested in getting an answer to Jenny Dreadful's question.

oenophile, I've heard that as well. But when MRAs spend so much of their energy fighting for the "right" not to have to take financial care of their children (ie, fighting not to pay child support), it's hard to take them seriously when they pay lip service to the idea of wanting fair custody hearings.

UCLABodyImage

Hey, I recognize some of those articles. I almost wrote my master's thesis about male beauty (and vanity) and was looking at some of the research on body dysmorphic disorder in men and such.

UCLABodyImage

Hey, I recognize some of those articles. I almost wrote my master's thesis about male beauty (and vanity) and was looking at some of the research on body dysmorphic disorder in men and such.

Again, I still don't buy into this idea that men are the victims of anything. You can't be a victim when your gender is the oppressing one. ...

I think that's an unfortunate attitude, profeminist male. I mean, how many million men (as young as 18) have been forcibly conscripted (drafted) to fight and die overseas? You can talk about it in terms of "gender", I guess, but I think you really have to look at it in terms of individuals ... the 18 year old men, disproprtionately poor and black, who fought and died in Vietnam were not part of some big, entrenched power structure.

There are some kooky men's rights' activists out there, that's for sure, but there are also some pretty respectable ones. The eye-opening book for me was "The Myth of Male Power" by William Farrell, a former member of the board of directors of NOW. The book isn't about being anti-women or denying women's concerns; it's about saying, "hey, we should also be talking about X, Y, and Z."

I support the idea of men's groups.

Men's violence against women and children, men's high rates of suicide, men's high levels of addiction, men's hesitation to seek medical help when they should, men's high rates of incarceration, men's straitjacketed sexuality (etc etc) are all MEN'S problems.

I fully support men getting together to find ways to solve these problems. I fully support men exploring "new" ways of being men.

There is nothing in the above that cannot co-exist with feminist principles, in fact some are feminist principles.

If that was what was meant by "Men's Rights Activists" I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately it isn't.

Alaric, from this point forward, when I see your posts, I'm going to pretend they don't exist, but I just wanted to remind you that we no longer have a draft.

Anyway, yes, the patriarchy hurts men too. Since feminists want to dismantle the patriarchy, men who take issue with the way the patriarchy hurts them ought to aline themselves with feminists, like ProFeministMale for instance. Kudos to you by the way for not feeling threatened by the feminist movement. I always think it is worth acknowledging, because wanting to give up unmerited priveledge is hard.

And the men who want do dismantle gender roles and the like who identify as MRA's are in the minority, so I don't think comparing it to feminist bigotry not overshadowing the greater movement works. It's not a few "kooks" who poison the well with supposed Men's Rights. The kooks are the majority.

Last point: men's studies? Seriously? Um, isn't that what I grew up learning from kindergarden up until I entered college? That reminds me of the time a guy in one of my classes asked why we need African American studies, and why we don't have European studies instead. Because that's the only kind of history we've learned. I mean, really.

Actually kissmypineapple, both Masculinity/Men's Studies and White Studies exist as legitimate academic areas of investigation.

I know, I know, they both sound dreadful, but they're about how these two paradigms are constructed, it's all tres postmodern and about questioning culturally-held "truths" about masculinity and the construction of "Whiteness" respectively.

I think both areas have something to contribute to the pool of human knowledge (come on in, the water's fine!)

And I'm with you on the ignoring thing.

Allow me, just for a second, to jump back in, at the risk of sounding like a patriarchal, chivalrous asshole who attempts to silence women.

Request 1: Can we cease from offering to "bitch slap" people on this blog? It is, after all, feministing.com and not misogynisting.com. It's not very nice, and it certainly isn't entirely feministic.

Disagree with the ideas, but don't offer to beat anyone up.

Besides, we're educated (or getting an education in many cases) people who are in this for the same cause. Telling a feminist you'll bitch slap her isn't appropriate.

Second request: CAN WE PLEASE HAVE MORE PICTURES OF MONTY? AND DID YOU NAME HIM AFTER MONTY PYTHON?

Marc

Profeministmale -
Oenophile is a long time contributor who is often controversial. I totally agree with you on the bitchslap issue.

Oenophile is a strange one, who sometimes says very disturbing things. (Oenophile - I'm not saying this to get you going, but there are few commenters here who haven't come to metaphoric blows with you at some time or another.)

It's evidence of your feminism, profeministmale, that you find the term and the threat offensive.

kissmypineapple: I guess I'm a little unclear why you felt compelled to point out that there's no longer a draft. I mean, I am actually aware of that point. (Although when I was in the post office today, I saw selective service cards that read, "Men: do your part.")

Anyway, yes, there is no draft today, but about 20 million American men were forcibly conscripted because of their gender and forced to serve in wars, and that many of them gave their lives. I think it's fine to point that out as a historical fact, as an example of historical female privilege. It doesn't mean that women's concerns today are invalid, but I certainly think it's worth noting, and there's no reason for you to be defensive about it.

I would also say that using the term "the patriarchy" to describe elements in society that are unfair or oppressive to men misses the point that men's rights activists are trying to make. E.g., the number one men's right issue that really gets may blood boiling is paternity fraud. Where a guy is cheated on in his marriage, finds out later through DNA that the kid he's been paying child support for isn't his, but still has to keep paying. That to me is outrageous -- and it seems odd to call it an example of "patriarchy."

Exactly, under_zenith. Is advocating for "equality" in custody battles about wanting to care for one's children or wanting to beat one's ex-wife? Methinks it's the latter. Because the same folks who cry foul when their exes are awarded custody cry fowl when they have to pay child support. It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about him and his selfish desires.

Oenophile, did you just offer to bitch-slap me?

And the draft no longer exists. In fact, feminists have been fighting for women who serve in the military for a while... the same people who whine about the draft selecting men only complain when they have to serve alongside women! "Women don't belong in the Army. Men are just going to rape them; what do they expect?" Nonsense like that. So which is it? Do you want women out of the armed services or not?

Fighting to be able to choose to serve in the military is a bit different than being drafted. But you are, of course, correct: the draft no longer exists. We should just acknowledge it as a relic of female privilege and move on.

How the fuck is the draft a relic of "female privilege?" The privilege to be considered too fragile to serve in the military? The privilege to be too busy raising babies at home to serve in the military? I don't get it. NOBODY IS DRAFTED ANYMORE. If it's reinstated, women should be drafted along with men. What else do you want me to say?

Yeah, women have a real easy time of it during times of war. *eyeroll*

C'mon Sarah. I can't believe you're fighting me on this. How many women had to flee to Canada, because they didn't want to fight in the war? How many 19-year-old women were forced to fight and die in Vietnam? Whatever the rationale for it, being exempt from forcible conscription certainly strikes me as a privilege. I don't see how we can have any honest discussion about gender-based privileges if you can't see that.

"The courts are interested in preserving the "status quo" for the children involved. What that means is that if the mother was the primary caregiver while married, the courts will try to allow her to stay primary caregiver after the divorce. If men are truly interested in custody issues, they'll promote stay at home fatherhood. I won't hold my breath."

WORD, SarahMC! This deserves repeating again and again and again.

Also, anyone suggesting we are too anti-MRA: please, just answer JennyDreadful's question.

Yeah, women have a real easy time of it during times of war. *eyeroll*

Guess I'm a bit confused here, Jenny. Do you really think that women stateside had a hard time of it in Vietnam or Korea? In WWII, yes, times were tough all over with rationing etc. Do you really think that compares in any way to the experience of the men serving abroad?

I guess I'm really shocked and dismayed at this response. You say you're against both oppression of both women and men, and that the patriarchy in fact hurts men. And yet when I cite an example of a very real historical way men have been oppressed and women privileged because of their gender, people get all defensive.

Obviously alaric has no idea what the term "privilege" actually means.

Oh and alaric, thanks for proving my point about what MRAs are really fighting for with your example above!

PamelaV,

So sorry about that mistake; it seems someone meant to delete the 2 additional posts and accidentally deleted the third. Our bad.

Oenophile,

Check out our comments policy, and refrain from the threatening language. I've already erased your last comment.

Alaric, during war, women suffer even more than the men (and women) fighting. That's the women living in the war-torn countries, not the women at home. That's what was meant by Jenny's sarcastic comment.
As long as you keep calling it "female privilege" I can't take you seriously.

"But if you also view patriarchy as 'Some men dominating other men', which is after all a defining feature of patriarchy, then it makes sense to also consider what ideologies help maintain this structure where a smaller group of men wield dominance and privilege."

Also, doesn't the word "patriarchy" literally mean "rule by fathers," not "rule by men"? Not every man is a father, and some men will never be fathers.

"'Again, I still don't buy into this idea that men are the victims of anything. You can't be a victim when your gender is the oppressing one. ...'

"I think that's an unfortunate attitude, profeminist male. I mean, how many million men (as young as 18) have been forcibly conscripted (drafted) to fight and die overseas?"

Also, what about men who were oppressed for something else (race, religion, caste, orientation, etc.) even while they were not oppressed for their gender?

"I always think it is worth acknowledging, because wanting to give up unmerited priveledge is hard."

Hmm. What if someone wanted to keep it and wanted to share it with everyone else too (a la not giving it up, and not having it be a privilege for only some people either)?

"kissmypineapple: I guess I'm a little unclear why you felt compelled to point out that there's no longer a draft."

I thought there are still drafts, just not in the U.S. these days.

Hmm- Sarah, I think it may depend on the war and the region. The Germans didn't do much raping during WWII (from my limited knowledge), but the Japanese did. I was just thinking of American men & women.

In any case - why isn't women's gender-based draft exemption for many decades properly called a privilege? Dictionary.com defins the word as a "right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most." It certainly seems to fit.

Under_zenith, how would you define the word?

Hmm- Sarah, I think it may depend on the war and the region. The Germans didn't commit many mass rapes during WWII (from my limited knowledge), but the Japanese did. I was just thinking of American men & women.

In any case - why isn't women's gender-based draft exemption for many decades properly called a privilege? Dictionary.com defins the word as a "right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most." It certainly seems to fit.

Under_zenith, how would you define the word?

Going by that definition, I suppose it could be considered a privilege, though it was unintentional. But it wasn't some sort of "gift" to womankind for being such sports about the rest of patriarchy. It wasn't about women being more deserving of their lives than men.

I'm not sure why we're even debating this idea as if it were a legitimate position. This is coming from a website whose top three headlines are: "Welfare Funding Obstructs Shared Parenting: Welfare and the 'Road to Serfdom'", The State of the Fatherhood Movement in India: Corrupt Radical Feminist President Appointed", and "Video: Should Alimony be Abolished?" (courtesy of Fox News).

Obviously, this website has a strong bias towards the radical conservative right. This article only proves that, yes, there are some real nutjobs out there, and, no, you don't have to take them seriously.

Think of it this way, aleric: it can't be female privilge when females did not establish the rules from which they supposedly benefitted. Looking at the Vietnam war era, women held little political or social power compared to men - especially as far as the military was concerned. While I would say that not being included in the draft is a benefit (who wouldn't want to avoid being forced to risk their life when they were not willing to do so voluntarily), I wouldn't go so far as to call it an example of female privilige because the reasons women were excluded based in sexism. Not only were women considered too weak, too emotional, and too incompetent to serve, but excluding women from service made it much easier to limit women's rights in other areas.

Just two quick comments:

1. I'm all for equal parenting after a divorce. I'm also for equal parenting BEFORE a divorce, and I suspect that fewer divorces might occur if both parents managed to work part time and be with the kids part time. Let's get rid of the idea that a woman's greatest value lies in her role as a mother, and we might see some changes.

2. War. Yes, men are more likely to die as soldiers in battle. Men are also more likely to be the people who declare war; they are far more likely to be the leaders who order young men to be drafted. This is a case of men oppressing other men, not women oppressing men. Thus, there is no reason for MRAs to suggest that we feminists support this in any way-- particularly since the vast majority of feminist orgs are anti-war and anti-draft. (And I'm aware of the effects that war has on women too-- that's been covered really well already by other commenters. My point is that even if you only look at the effects on men, you STILL don't find any evidence of women oppressing men through war).

SARAHMC: "But why are you even bringing UP the men's studies groups you're referring to? They have nothing to do with MRAs other than the fact that they have "men" in their name. Just plugging another study you're doing? Seems like you always join a discussion and muddy the waters, causing people to waste time questioning you and clearing up the confusion you've caused."

What in the world are you talking about about?

I was clearly responding directly to Profeminist's post about Men's studies as an academic field. You then responded to my response.

Don't accuse me of "bringing up" irrelevant information or "muddying the waters" when it is completely clear I was responding to material directly on the thread.

Further, as you will note, a number of other people on the thread have made this exact same distinction.

So please don't muddy the waters by making baseless attacks on me.

RE: "what their beliefs are exactly?"

MRA's are conservatives. They are divorced men who are concerned about child support and child custody issues as well as alimony and property-division laws arising from divorce. Along with Evangelical Christians they espouse "family values", want to abolish "no-fault divorce", are anti-gay, and anti-libertine. They believe that not only should women conform to conservative traditionalist roles but that men should conform to conservative traditionalist roles of doing one's "duty" by marrying, having children, being "productive workers", and serving society through military service.

Thanks to manda and Beppie for saying what I was trying to say in a much clearer way. Alaric, take note.

I'm sorry UCLA for personally attacking you.

SarahMC: It wasn't about women being more deserving of their lives than men.

Actually, I think that women's lives have been historically thought of as being worth more than men. (Which makes sense, from an evolutionary standpoint). The average male has traditionally been thought of as disposable, as cannon fodder. When people talk about innocent victims they often talk about "women and children" -- as if the innocent men aren't worth as much. (And when they are, it's because they "leave behind a wife and three children," not because they have intrinsic worth of their own). In his book, Warren Farrell gives lots of examples of media coverage of innocent people being killed, "including xx women."

Think of it this way, aleric: it can't be female privilge when females did not establish the rules from which they supposedly benefitted.

Are you SERIOUS Manda? The 18-, 19-, and 20-year old men didn't even have an effing vote when they were drafted in Vietnam. They were sent to war based on the decisions of leaders who were elected by *men and women* aged 21+, but they didn't have any say about it.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it an example of female privilige because the reasons women were excluded based in sexism. Not only were women considered too weak, too emotional, and too incompetent to serve

Ehh, you could just as easily say that the reasons that men were drafted were rooted in anti-male sexism. Men were thought of as more brutual, more violent, and more disposable.

This is the point Farrell makes in his book: traditional gender roles oppress both women and men. Historically women have been the "protected class" (which is indeed oppressive) and men have been the "disposable class." Traditional feminists focus on the ways gender roles oppress women, while ignoring how men have gotten the short shaft.

, but excluding women from service made it much easier to limit women's rights in other areas.

How so? Do you really think the draft wasn't institute against women to limit their rights?

Mina, if a privilege is shared with everyone, it is no longer a privilege. I looked it up, just to make absolutely sure that I was using the word correctly, and my dictionary says that a privilege is "a special right or advantage granted or available only to a particular person or group of people." It then uses the example, "Education is a right, not a privilege." And to bring up an old example, men used to have the privilege of going to university, while women did not. Now that both can go, it is no longer a privilege (between the sexes...it is still a privilege of class, etc.) So, a privilege cannot be retained while extending it to everyone else. If someone retains their privilege and chooses to share it with others, they are still the advantaged party who gets to pick and choose which people can have that privilege and under what conditions. There are many privileges which men hold that ought to be rights, and since they are predicated on one's gender, they are meritlessly granted. I think it is important when men acknowledge that, and further, understand that to help women, they may lose out on something that they previously exclusively enjoyed.

In some other situations, the privilege may be particularly oppressive, and it may need to be gotten rid of all together, such as the privilege that alaric so desperately wants to keep, that of deciding what rape is and also whether or not women can be raped if they did not explicitly utter the word "no." It is because some men, alaric included, think they can define other people's experiences, that I choose not to acknowledge their comments. (This really will be the last time.)

Anyone who believes that women who do not struggle enough (in their *expert* opinion) can not say that they were raped or experience a rape or that the onus is on women not to be raped and says as much on a feminist site is exactly this: a troll. (And really, rape apologists are more than trolls; they're terrible people.) If no one feeds them, eventually they starve. Some trolls are very resilient, and it may take some time, but no matter how persistent or tempting it may be, don't feed them. Let them wither and die.

Women and children are considered the innocent bystanders in war because it's usually MEN making the decision to engage in war.

Beppie: Men are also more likely to be the people who declare war; they are far more likely to be the leaders who order young men to be drafted. This is a case of men oppressing other men, not women oppressing men.

But since 1920, women have had an equal say in the election of those leaders.

Look: my point isn't that "women oppress men." Or even that "men are oppressed." It's that traditional gender roles oppress both men and women.

RE: "Men are also more likely to be the people who declare war"

This illustrates how silly anti-male ideology has become. Did the Jewish banker foreclose on your house because he was Jewish or because he was a banker? Did the women rulers - Queens and Empresses - during the middle-ages send the male peasants and serfs to die in senseless wars because they were women or because they were dictatorial rulers who used the masses to gain land and riches? According to your logic (if applied to women rather than men), all women are brutish, rich, and warmongering because some women have been dictatorial rulers. You have taken your anti-male ideology to such a laughable level that you simply utter nonsense and are incapable of analyzing history, poverty, class structure, the superstition of religion, the oppression of the first-world against the third, or anything else for that matter without burping an un-analytical comment that "but it was men who..." as if everything is the fault of all men everywhere BECAUSE they are men - gay-men, poor men, men who were slaves and serfs and peasants. It's ridiculous, simplistic, and childish.

Read Riane Eisler's new book, "Real Wealth of Nations" and her other book "Chalice and the Blade.

The historical perspective for this 'dominator' value system impacts all of us. It isn't that 'men are bad', its that we've all been born into a system that teaches this either/or, good/bad, dominator/hierarchy system.

When you see where it comes from, you can stop blaming and start changing.

See more at www.seachangetoday.com.
We have a choice to change this!

The absence of an unconscionable burden is not a privilege.

If there aren't enough people to fight a war, congrats, Congress: you made a bad choice to go to war. If we are invaded and people do not care enough to fight, perhaps the democracy has spoken.

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah....

If you are telling me that NO men are ever screwed by the courts; that NO man ever unjustly loses custody; that NO man is ever unjustly accused of violence or assault - then you need help. I'm sorry, but there's no way to put this without insulting you, because your thesis (general privilege extends to every single member of the group) is too ridiculous to argue rationally.

I'm sorry, but I personally know a primary caregiver male who got screwed out of custody because his wife abused the court system. He now has a criminal record that his state will not get rid of. They will not bring the charges; they will not drop the charges. They will not let him see his children.

I know a male who obtained custody, received no child support, and paid alimony. I know a male who lost 80% of his assets; the judge routinely makes that distribution, despite the fact that the ex-wife earned less, never bore children, and made no sacrifices upon her career.

But apparently, you know that every single male is treated with utter deference in the court room. It's ridiculous. Who are you - Nifong? Get over yourself, your white-woman privilege, and realise that decent men get screwed, too. If you would honestly look these men in the face - who have lost CHILDREN because of sexist stereotypes - and tell them that they are men so they deserve it, you have earned anything that comes your way.

Feminism is good for decent, honest people - male or female. When people get screwed over because of sexist stereotypes, we are failing as a society. Unlike you, SarahMC, I happen to acknowledge that men occaisonally get screwed over, too. I recognise that it's harmful as a social issue AND harmful to feminism. Feminism: political, social, and economic EQUALITY of women. Are you trying to set up a freakin matriarchy here, to substitute your lust for power for that of men of ages past? It makes me physically ill.

...such as the privilege that alaric so desperately wants to keep, that of deciding what rape is

kissmypineapple: I don't want to get into a big debate about this, because it's completely irrelevant to this thread. But given that you're lying about me here, I just want to refute your comments. This isn't what I believe... I think that rape should be defined by democratically elected representatives, hopefullya both male and female, who carefully weigh the issues involved.

And oenophile, it's a myth that the courts are biased towards women. The courts are interested in preserving the "status quo" for the children involved. What that means is that if the mother was the primary caregiver while married, the courts will try to allow her to stay primary caregiver after the divorce. If men are truly interested in custody issues, they'll promote stay at home fatherhood. I won't hold my breath.

So you should lose your child because you worked? EXCUSE ME? Do children not mean anything to you?

What usually happens: at litem, the court awards custody to either party. This is often the woman, especially if they are young. Two years later, when litigation concludes, the court awards custody to the woman, because that's the status quo.

You play dress-up as feminist and ENDORSE the status quo, because it's always been that way? Because an unjust practice happens to help YOUR side, this time? I'm sorry, but the courts do not analyse the best interests of the child; custody just defaults to the person who got custody during the divorce. (That is why my friend's ex-wife lied and cried about abuse; she got immediate custody away from the primary caregiver, and she'll get it afterwards.)

Maybe your relationship with your parents sucks, so you just don't see why people would care. Not all of us live that way. My dad got custody of me in the early '80s, and, frankly, that was really rare. It was also the best thing for me, the child in question. He and my mom worked out weekend visitation and summer visits with my grandparents, but that's unusual. How can you be a parent when you are only legally allowed to see your kid once a month? Once every other week? It's hard as shit to develop a good relationship with them.

Also, let me open up your eyes, oh Naive One: it's about this little thing called money. A lot of women game the system because child support does not need to be spent on the child. She gets a percentage of his income, tax-free, until the kids hit a certain age. It's a nice job, if you can get the work. Best part: even if custody is truly joint (i.e. three nights at one house, four nights at another), fathers STILL pay child support.

Lawyers have told men in the Massachusetts court system, for decades, to basically bend over and take it. Yes, other states may differ, but there is one particular court system that is out of control. There are MRA groups who are trying to change it so they can get to see their kids after a divorce.

Think of it this way: in custody disputes, the government, with its threat of physical force, prevents you from seeing your child. Excuse me, but let's not treat this subject lightly. Again, maybe you lack a heart and therefore don't see the issue, but it's a large one, for both men and women in the system.

Disagree with the ideas, but don't offer to beat anyone up.

Besides, we're educated (or getting an education in many cases) people who are in this for the same cause. Telling a feminist you'll bitch slap her isn't appropriate.

Au contraire. Disagree with the form of my response, but not the sentiment. SarahMC said that it is a myth that courts are biased towards women in response to this:

. One attorney told her female client to jump-start the divorce proceedings by going to the police and saying that she was worried that her husband would shoot her. Woman did as told; her husband was arrested in front of the kids. In court, the judge reviewed his record. He has never owned, touched, or shot a gun; however, the accusation was sufficient. She got immediate, sole custody; he hasn't seen the kids in over a year.

Um, where's the concern about physical violence there? This woman lied her butt off to get custody away from the primary caregiver. But it's a myth that it works? That once the word "gun" is uttered in court, he's never going to see those kids again? That it affects a criminal record?

I'm sorry, but that woman's mind is not normal. In her world, it's okay if a man gets a criminal record he doesn't deserve. Sarah has a soul mate in North Carolina.

Well, as much as I hate to admit it, I agree with a few posters who say the courts are biased towards women in custody cases.

Actually, various studies (I can dig them up on request) have shown that men do quite well when custody is contested (which it usually isn't). The courts are "biased" in favour of stability for the child. The men who complain that their "rights" to the children — openly called "chattel rights" by some groups, including Fathers' Manifesto — are being abridged were generally quite happy to leave childcare on the shoulders of their wives during the marriage, but suddenly want joint legal (NB: not physical) custody when it will save them some support money.

The whole rhetoric of MRAs on the custody issue is quite telling. It's rarely about the children. It's about man's right to the children, as if the children were just another asset to be equitably divided.

RE: "Men are also more likely to be the people who declare war"

This illustrates how silly anti-male ideology has become. Did the Jewish banker foreclose on your house because he was Jewish or because he was a banker? Did the women rulers - Queens and Empresses - during the middle-ages send the male peasants and serfs to die in senseless wars because they were women or because they were dictatorial rulers who used the masses to gain land and riches? According to your logic (if applied to women rather than men), all women are brutish, rich, and warmongering because some women have been dictatorial rulers. You have taken your anti-male ideology to such a laughable level that you simply utter nonsense and are incapable of analyzing history, poverty, class structure, the superstition of religion, the oppression of the first-world against the third, or anything else for that matter without burping an un-analytical comment that "but it was men who..." as if everything is the fault of all men everywhere BECAUSE they are men - gay-men, poor men, men who were slaves and serfs and peasants. It's ridiculous, simplistic, and childish.

Wow, you get first prize for totally misinterpreting what I said Sgt. York. I think if you'd bothered to read my whole response, you might have gotten a better idea of my position. I never said that women had NEVER declared war, or that we are incapable of doing so. I'm just saying that, in spite of what MRAs say, men dying in battle more than women, is not a sign of women having more power or privilege than men-- because most wars HAVE been declared by men, because men have been the people with the most access to power. Yes, women have helped to prop up those systems too, but when you look at the FEMINIST movement, it is overwhelmingly anti-war, and anti-draft: that is, it is overwhelmingly OPPOSED to the processes that lead to men dying in war.

I did not, at any point, say that one should blame an entire gender for the actions of a few of its members-- I am saying that because we have had patriarchal societies for a good long time, most wars have been declared by men-- where men are oppressed through war it is the men at the top of the power hierarchy oppressing other men. Certainly, if women had equal access to the top of that power hierarchy you would see a lot more women declaring war-- I'd venture to say that you'd also see a lot more women fighting in war. However, given that women with the power to declare war have been the exception rather than the rule throughout most of history, it is ludicrous to say that the prevalence of male soldiers is because women have some sort of privilege.

It'd be like saying that an ornament that I keep safe on my shelf is privileged over my partner because I clean and polish my ornament, and I make sure it's always safe, while I let my partner take care of his own safety and upkeep. My ornament is an object, and I treat it as such. My partner is a human, and so I respect his agency. Women's role in war has traditionally been that of precious objects-- to stay at home, to produce babies, and, if home is invaded, the enemy will destroy those objects as best they can, just as they destroy or steal other markers of wealth. Male soldiers of course have been objectified in other ways-- as I have consistently acknowledged throughout both my responses here, gender is not the ONLY exploitative hierarchy active in patriarchal culture: and I have argued the fact that there are exploitative hierarchies operating in which men oppress other men does NOT indicate that women have a position of privilege.

However, given that women with the power to declare war have been the exception rather than the rule throughout most of history, it is ludicrous to say that the prevalence of [forcibly conscripted] male soldiers is because women have some sort of privilege.

I dunno -- I actually think your point is kind of ludicrous Beppie. Because political leaders (who make up about, what, 0.001% of the population) are men, that means women can't be privileged in certain respects? What if the Congress had passed a law saying women didn't have to pay income tax? Would that or would that not be a privilege?

It'd be like saying that an ornament that I keep safe on my shelf is privileged over my partner because I clean and polish my ornament, and I make sure it's always safe, while I let my partner take care of his own safety and upkeep. My ornament is an object, and I treat it as such. My partner is a human, and so I respect his agency.

Uhhhh... I really can't believe you're making this comparison. Whatever social pressure women faced in the '60s and '70s, you really can't honestly compare it to the legal coercion of the draft. I mean: talk about not respecting someone's agency!

"Mina, if a privilege is shared with everyone, it is no longer a privilege."

Yeah, that's what I had in mind.

"It then uses the example, 'Education is a right, not a privilege.' And to bring up an old example, men used to have the privilege of going to university, while women did not. Now that both can go, it is no longer a privilege (between the sexes...it is still a privilege of class, etc.) So, a privilege cannot be retained while extending it to everyone else."

Why not?

Men sure retained the chance to go to university while it was extended to women too and while it stopped being a male privilege.

"Women and children are considered the innocent bystanders in war because it's usually MEN making the decision to engage in war."

No, women and children were considered "innocent bystanders" because it was usually men who were armed soldiers, even the vast majority who didn't make the decision to go to war.

"And oenophile, it's a myth that the courts are biased towards women. The courts are interested in preserving the "status quo" for the children involved. What that means is that if the mother was the primary caregiver while married, the courts will try to allow her to stay primary caregiver after the divorce. If men are truly interested in custody issues, they'll promote stay at home fatherhood. I won't hold my breath.

"So you should lose your child because you worked? EXCUSE ME? Do children not mean anything to you?"

I got the impression that it's less "So you should lose your child" than "So you already gave up your child during the marriage."

If, when A and B were together, A paid all the childrearing expenses and B did all the supervision, then continuing to have A paying the expenses and B supervising the kid would be less disruptive for their child than having A and B suddenly split up that work some other way. No matter if A is male or female and no matter if B is male or female.

"Because political leaders (who make up about, what, 0.001% of the population) are men, that means women can't be privileged in certain respects?"

Good point. It's entirely possible for a person or group to have some privileges and lack some other privileges at the same time.

"Whatever social pressure women faced in the '60s and '70s, you really can't honestly compare it to the legal coercion of the draft. I mean: talk about not respecting someone's agency!"

I think she was talking about unarmed Vietnamese women getting bombed in the 60s and 70s, not unarmed American women facing employment discrimination in the 60s and 70s, here.

Wow, Oenophile, you've really gone off the deep end.
I never claimed individual men are not sometimes screwed over in court cases. Never. I claimed that the courts are not systematically biased against men. A few anecdotes do not prove that the courts, as a whole, favor women.
Second, do you think it's clever to compare me to NIFONG? You're not cute, not funny, not clever. The comparison is totally out there and is based on YOUR misinterpretation of what I said.
Get over yourself.
And it's hilarious that you're bringing my feminism into question. This, coming from the woman who reverts to anti-woman, pro-stereotype and often violent language in the heat of an argument. Yikes.

I think she was talking about unarmed Vietnamese women getting bombed in the 60s and 70s, not unarmed American women facing employment discrimination in the 60s and 70s, here.

Well, I've only ever claimed that the draft was an example of female privilege when comparing American men and women. I'm not sure why you would could do a gender-based comparison of American men and Vietnamese women. You could just as easily claim that American women are privileged today compared to men in subsaharan Africa. That's true, but it's not a gender-based privilege.

whoa it took me a minute to find my comment- seems the comments tripled while i slept...
But SarahMC- just responding to your response on whehther I read your post. Yup, I did. But I was actually just making a general statement with my last comment, not necessarily in respnse to anyone in particular. Not sure if you thought I was responding to you...?

I'm not sure why you would could do a gender-based comparison of American men and Vietnamese women.

The comparison is supposed to be between Vietnamese women and Vietnamese men. Or you could do Iraqi women and Iraqi men.

The idea is that in a war-torn country, women are worse off. America, while at war with Vietnam and Iraq, could hardly be described as war-torn.

I don't think anyone was directly comparing American men to Vietnam women. I think some are looking at the history of the sexism of preventing women from fighting. Traditionally, women have been the "spoils of war" for the winning army to take and use and abuse (we still have that problem to some degree, look at Iraq). Now, which sounds better, being forced to fight or waiting at home for the invading hoards to come and rape you? Maybe those hoards never come, and in that case then sure, you're better off than the men who were sent to the front lines to die. But the rules of war were not designed on what's best for women. If they were, every country would have trained women to fight so they could defend their homes instead of leaving them as trophies for the winners because they only mattered as property to their men, and once those men were dead they were to be taken by new men. Yes, that sexism worked out better for women in the 60s and 70s than men, but that wasn't the originally intention, any more than if racism at one point made things better for blacks than whites in one situation. It has also since been corrected.

I understand what you mean Mina, but what I'm saying is that once something is accessible to everyone, it is incorrect to refer to it as a privilege. The definition of privilege precludes its use to describe something that everyone can have or do. That's all I meant. I think we're just missing each other on that, because you said what I meant when you said that education stopped being a male privilege. I didn't mean that they couldn't be educated once women were able to be, I meant that it could no longer be considered a privilege because it was not exclusively accessible to men.

The comparison is supposed to be between Vietnamese women and Vietnamese men. Or you could do Iraqi women and Iraqi men.

I'm not arguing with this, necessarily, but can you provide some evidence?

In any case, the status of women overseas doesn't mean that American women have not had female privilege within the context of U.S. society.

Wow, this thread is pretty intense.

Regarding draft/female privilege:

I see this as part of a broader context where women are given some advantages (i.e., men open doors, men pay for dinner) and are viewed as more moral, pure, and delicate, worthy of men's protection. This is Benevolent Sexism.

In contrast, hostile sexism punishes women for deviating from their social roles.

Thus, women are punished for deviating from these roles and rewarded if they stay confined in these roles. Benevolent sexism and hostile sexism go hand in hand. The "privilege" of avoiding the draft comes with a cost - embracing the idea that women are too weak/fragile/moral to handle combat.

More on ambivalent sexism:http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/faq.htm

SarahMC: "I'm sorry UCLA for personally attacking you."

I appreciate that! I'm sorry if I was a little harsh in my response. -Dave

Whoops, the link didn't work.

Ambivalent Sexism:

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/faq.htm

Ambivalent sexism is an ideology composed of both a "hostile" and "benevolent" prejudice toward women. Hostile sexism is an antagonistic attitude toward women, who are often viewed as trying to control men through feminist ideology or sexual seduction. Benevolent sexism is a chivalrous attitude toward women that feels favorable but is actually sexist because it casts women as weak creatures in need of men's protection.

UCLA, I think you're reframing the debate in a way that only tells half the story. By focusing only on how traditional gender roles hurt or are unfair to women, men's voices don't get heard. I'm not saying the two gender's experiences are equivalent, but they/we should be included in the discussion.

“I see this as part of a broader context where women are given some advantages (i.e., men open doors, men pay for dinner) and are viewed as more moral, pure, and delicate, worthy of men's protection. This is Benevolent Sexism.�

UCLA, the thing is what you call “benevolent sexism� (I have to say it really sounds like an oxymoron), is always accompanied by what you call “hostile sexism� in every society out there. They are often times intertwined, as one can be framed in a way that appears like the other. For example Justice Kennedy wants to “benevolently� protect us from having to face the consequence of our own decisions regarding our own bodies. There are men (and women) out there that would argue that women not being allowed in certain jobs (or all jobs), is a privilege for women: they don’t have to go out in the world and fight. They can just stay at home and bake cookies. Now isn’t that a privilege? I have heard Islamist scholars and non-scholars argue that Hijab is actually for the protection of women. There are many more examples, but hopefully you got my point already.

It is just bizarre to call these instances of sexism female privilege. It’s more like, if we’re good slaves of the patriarchy you’ll throw us a bone every once in a while (also known as chivalry).

Alaric, I suggest you go post comments on MRA blogs. Let me explain to you why your argument is just really ridiculous: Try to imagine white people who complain about why blacks don’t discuss how racism has hurt whites too and how black slaves had the privilege of being cared for and not having to make decisions for themselves regarding their own lives.

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the two types of sexism. Chivalry is indeed sexism. Some women may be flattered by it, but it comes at a cost; that's what's often overlooked.

"
UCLA, the thing is what you call “benevolent sexism� (I have to say it really sounds like an oxymoron), is always accompanied by what you call “hostile sexism� in every society out there. They are often times intertwined, as one can be framed in a way that appears like the other. For example Justice Kennedy wants to “benevolently� protect us from having to face the consequence of our own decisions regarding our own bodies. "

I agree! You might find this reference interesting.

Glick et al., 2000
Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Across Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

ABSTRACT:

The authors argue that complementary hostile and benevolent components of sexism exist across cultures. Male dominance creates hostile sexism, but men's dependence on women fosters benevolent sexism--subjectively positive attitudes that put women on a pedestal but reinforce their subordination. Research with 15,000 men and women in 19 nations showed that (1) Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism are coherent constructs that correlate positively across nations, but (2) Hostile Sexism predicts the ascription of negative and Benevolent Sexism the ascription of positive traits to women, (3) relative to men, women are more likely to reject Hostile Sexism than Benevolent Sexism, especially when overall levels of sexism in a culture are high, and (4) national averages on Benevolent Sexism and Hostile Sexism predict gender inequality across nations. These results challenge prevailing notions of prejudice as an antipathy in that Benevolent Sexism (an affectionate, patronizing ideology) reflects inequality and is a cross-culturally pervasive complement to Hostile Sexism.

ALARIC: "UCLA, I think you're reframing the debate in a way that only tells half the story. By focusing only on how traditional gender roles hurt or are unfair to women, men's voices don't get heard. I'm not saying the two gender's experiences are equivalent, but they/we should be included in the discussion."

I don't think I was saying that. All I was doing was pointing out that something things that seem like "female privilege" as you call it are derived from viewing women as weak.

I *do* agree with you that there are many issues men face as a result of gender roles that need to be addressed.

Beppie:
However, given that women with the power to declare war have been the exception rather than the rule throughout most of history, it is ludicrous to say that the prevalence of [forcibly conscripted] male soldiers is because women have some sort of privilege.

alaric:
I dunno -- I actually think your point is kind of ludicrous Beppie. Because political leaders (who make up about, what, 0.001% of the population) are men, that means women can't be privileged in certain respects? What if the Congress had passed a law saying women didn't have to pay income tax? Would that or would that not be a privilege?

---------------------
You clearly missed the bit where I said that I still felt that things like conscription and sending men off to war was a form of oppression. I just don't think you can call it privilege for women when the reason that women aren't involved is because women's access to positions of power-- in politics, in business, even in the home-- is so severely limited.

Beppie:
It'd be like saying that an ornament that I keep safe on my shelf is privileged over my partner because I clean and polish my ornament, and I make sure it's always safe, while I let my partner take care of his own safety and upkeep. My ornament is an object, and I treat it as such. My partner is a human, and so I respect his agency.

Alaric:
Uhhhh... I really can't believe you're making this comparison. Whatever social pressure women faced in the '60s and '70s, you really can't honestly compare it to the legal coercion of the draft. I mean: talk about not respecting someone's agency!

----------------------
Okay, I don't know how many times I need to say that I, and most other feminists are totally opposed to the draft, and that I believe it's a form of oppression. What I'm saying is that the reason that women have not faced that form of oppression is because we've been kept away from powerful institutions in other ways. I can see how my analogy may have fallen down in that in the case of conscription, those who are conscripted are objectified too, and terribly so (although I have already acknowledged that such objectification occurs).

Consider, that until relatively recently (and indeed it still continues in many places), how many women were forced into marriage and childbearing due to economic and social pressures-- forced into an institution in which she could be legally raped, have a blind eye turned if she was beaten, and forced to risk her life through childbirth. This was expected of women regardless of whether or not there is a war on. Women have been conscripted throughout history every bit as much as men have. However, this has not been constructed as sacrfice, or nobility, or anything like that-- instead, it has been constructed as a "women are so precious" thing-- as in precious objects.

I'm not trying to argue that men who have been treated as cannon fodder have not been objectified: of course they have been. I'm arguing that this particular method of men objectifying other men does not translate into privilege for women, because women were systematically kept away from all positions of power. Many men may have been restricted from the halls of power because of class or race, etc, but they were NOT kept away from that power because of their gender. And that's where the privilege comes in.

sojourner, I think what's ridiculous is to compare the experience of blacks and women in this society.

UCLA, I don't think that women's exemption from the draft came solely from seeing women as "weak." That may be part of it, but it also came as seeing men as more brutal and seeing their lives as being worth less.

Beppie, I guess I don't see what women's access to positions of power have to do with whether or not an exemption from the draft is a privilege. And you didn't answer my question: if women were exempted from income taxes, wouldn't that be a gender-based privilege? No matter who enacted that privilege?

And I'm not arguing that men don't have privileges. Of course male privilege exists. Of course historically being able to legally beat or rape your wife -- that is a huge, repugnant example of male privilege. And yes, women being kept away from the "halls of power": more male privilege. Economic pressure isn't necessarily male privilege, but to the extent that it stems/stemmed from women being denied access to the workforce on account of their gender: still more male privilege.

But none of that means that women don't or haven't received certain privileges based on their sex. (Including, I guess, the privilege not to be aware that you are being privileged)

It's like the American Indians: you can't really find a group that has been shat on more in American culture than the Indians. But, in plain English, getting to operate a casino while others are barred from doing so: that is an American Indian privilege. (And not one that I have any particular problem with).

Alaric said,

Beppie, I guess I don't see what women's access to positions of power have to do with whether or not an exemption from the draft is a privilege. And you didn't answer my question: if women were exempted from income taxes, wouldn't that be a gender-based privilege? No matter who enacted that privilege?

______________________
I think that access to positions of power has everything to do with it: if a group is systematically kept away from positions of power, then that group is systematically disadvantaged. Occaisionally, certain boons may be given by those in power in order to keep the oppressed group compliant, such as constructing a group as "precious" and in need of "protection", as a justification for that power structure. This does have a flip side when things like the draft crop up-- but it's all a product of a system designed to keep women out of power (while the draft itself is often used to keep certain classes of men out of power too).

These discourses (of women being precious, in need of protection), not only justify patriarchal systems of power, but obfuscate the way that women have been implicitly drafted through marriage into sexual slavery and forced childbirth. And while men at least get called brave and noble for being drafted to fight in war, the best that women can hope for is to be quietly complimented for her passive virtues.

You can't just look at the one aspect of the issue (women not being drafted) in isolation-- you need to look at the entire context in which this occurs, in order to assess whether that translates into privilege for a particular group.

I'd say the exact same thing about your income tax exemption thing-- it would depend on the socio-cultural, political, and economic circumstances that surrounded that income tax cut.

Beppie's comments are right on. Alaric, sorry your mind is so simple that you can only see one aspect of one very superficial issue. Your very insistence that the draft represented some kind of female privilege is a beautiful illustration of the patriarchy at work! The *entire concept* of armed conflict is implicitly patriarchal. In patriarchal societies (i.e., almost all societies) women were not warriors, they were the sex class and childraising class. They were the *spoils* of war.

Also, the draft--contrary to your ludicrous "female privilege" argument--is implicitly patriarchal, because "patriarchy" is about a power structure, not just *men versus women* as your tiny brain seems to believe. The draft disproportionately targeted the poor and ethnic minorities, and society made available dozens of ways for wealthier, more privileged young men (i.e. white men) to avoid the draft. The whole process helped to maintain the status quo power structure...the ruling class gets to have an underclass that will fight and die in battle and get thrown a bone every once in a while for their *bravery*, which of course is very real. Many of the current recruiting strategies--while there is no draft now, obviously--still disproportionately target the working class and ethnic minorities.

I.e., try to broaden your lens to include *other parts of the world*, farther back in time than Vietnam or World War II. Women were men's property, of course they could not be armed or serve in battle! It has been a military tactic since Homer's time to rape the opponent's *women* just like any other property could be looted and just like other *inanimate* things belonging to men could be destroyed (buildings, institutions, symbols that were not strategically necessary to destroy) for extra demoralization and as a signal that one side had thoroughly defeated another. This goes a little farther back than the *benevolent sexism* that is very apparent today, or the idea that women need to be kept out of the military for fear they will be raped. Again, both those tactics are very real, but women being excluded from war goes much farther back. In fact, for so many centuries when armed conflict was (and some might argue still is) the primary means of social influence and resolution of *important* matters, women being excluded also assured we would be excluded from any kind of power or influence. It certainly is no indication of any "privilege," quite the opposite in fact.

For an example of how women are the spoils of war, see the violence in Darfur. The stories of the women there are heart-wrenching and horrific. Rape is a tool, used to intimidate and discourage the enemy army.

Charity, it's kind of sad that you can't actually engage in civil debate with someone with insulting them.

I guess we're kind of going 'round in circles here. What I've said isn't that women are a "privileged class," it's that not being drafted or hypothetically not having to pay income taxes was/would be a form of privilege. In order to answer that question, you do need to look at that issue in isolation. Getting into forced childbirth when I bring up the draft, that is the obfuscation here.

Reading what you say about women being "precious" and in need of "protection" is kinda funny in light of the previous discussion on the "grey rape" thread -- where I was bashed as an a--hole and all kinds of other names 'cause I wasn't in favor of expanding the law to further protect women. I did think there that people were viewing women as "precious" and yes, weak. It cuts both ways.

Alaric, I assure you my reply was far more civil than you actually deserve. Your tone and your phrasing, particularly the "cuts both ways" nonsense, confirm what I and most others here already suspected (others whose responses you also conflated with mine, since we must all seem alike to you), that you are a troll here to be argumentative and to do precisely what you accuse others of, not engage in debate. You presented what you thought was a point, we all presented counter-points. That's debate, my friend. But well done on the "reverse Malkin" of accusing your "opponent" of doing precisely what you are.

if you feel so bashed here, you have the option of leaving. It's not our duty to make you feel good about yourself or give you a cookie.

Charity, I do apologize for being unclear in my last response (9/6 @ 11:48 a.m.). Paragraphs two and three were meant for Beppie, not you.

Other than that, I dunno. Accusing someone of having a "tiny brain" and a "simple" mind seems a little rude to me. But if you think that was appropriate, that was absolutely your right. Let's just agree to disagree on this point, shall we?

Describing men's rights as "funny because it's sad" does a disservice and gives no justification. A more focused, and informative, web site about men's rights than www.mensnewsdaily.com is www.glennsacks.com. The owner of this site (also host of a radio show) says he's received thousands of letters from men who have been treated unjustly by the family courts. Men who were driven out of their children's lives by vindictive ex-wives, men whose child support payments are unrealistic and don't reflect their income, men who are falsely accused of child abuse or domestic violence so the ex-wife can influence the child custody decision. These are men who want to continue to have a role in their children's lives. Family courts have allowed these injustices to happen precisely because of feminism.