Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

That article is really flawed in it's arguments though. I'm glad they bullet pointed the points.

While, on one hand, there are definitely advantages to such policies, there are several problems with claiming that it’s part of “female privilege”:

1)    Women were not the ones who created the policies

This isn't a coherent point. Regardless of who create a policy, it's who benefits from the policy that matters.

2) Women have fought, and continue to fight, against policies that bar them from equal participation in the military

This is a red herring, as they fight for something different to the key point here. They fight for the right to volunteer for any position in the military, not the "right' to be drafted. Being forced to do something is not the same as the right to do that same thing, voluntarily. Those are two different things.

It's like saying you had a law that black women can be forced to have abortions, but white women are not "privileged" over black women, because white women have fought for the right to have abortions. This is the exact same argument.

3) The basis for the policies are rooted in benevolent sexism (ie. the idea that women are too precious/fragile to participate)

Why a policy was enacted is not relevant to it's impacts. "Unintentional consequences" abound in legal policies. We don't disregard how a law affects people because that wasn't the intent. What matters is how laws affect people, not intentions of the law's drafters.

4) Women, both civilian and military, are specifically targeted by brutal tactics such as rape

This isn't coherent either. By the same logic we can trot out that men live shorter lives, therefore men can't be privileged in any way ... This is just emotional heartstring pulling and diverting the subject to "women got it bad, yo, so nothing good for women is really good".

[Phmcw]

And yet, the poor and the racially maligned have it worse. Action needs to be taken, and unfortunately that means that those in the privileged position will need to take that bitter pill.

And you wonder why peoples stoped voting for you.
I disagree completely with you and I think you're driving peoples away from us.

Au contraire a well thought policy must be beneficial to everybody any time it's possible. An unequal society is an unhappy society with peoples holding positions they are not able to hold, other lacking essential product and servicies and turning to criminality out of desesperation.

Affirmative action is useless and necer sucessfull. Minorities are just as capable as majorities, they just need equal opportunities. Build schools, apply the law impartially, and the "privileges" will even out.

But make sure that the opportunities ARE equal. IE that the children that need them have access to personal teachers, etc....

[lijacote]

They are privileged in not being belittled. If you want to ignore context, then I suppose the cripple and the billionaire are equals in that they don't have to walk anywhere. And FYI: I see no sane reason to treat men differently in this matter. So, yes, it is a privilege, but it is a cursed privilege. I would not take it.

I'll take being "insulted" over being forced to fight and very likely die in some pointless war any day, and I suspect you would too. Even having said that, I fail to see the insult in not being included in the pool of warm bodies to put uniforms on. I've said it already, men are seen as expendable. Women are not. This may not be easy to understand from outside, but it is a terrifying prospect. But I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "I see no sane reason to treat men differently in this matter." Could you please elaborate?

"You are not capable of fighting because you are a woman" is an insult. It is not sparing, it is trying to optimise the war machine by excluding WEAK and IRRATIONAL women. It is propagating suffocating and insane gender roles that serve to reproduce the oppressive system.

And if you think I can't imagine the horror of being considered expendable... well, I am in the working class. I am not a woman, nor would I consider myself a man, though I do "enjoy" a lot of male privilege. I would also ask you: what do you know about being put on a pedestal, being "protected" and patronised? As men, we don't have to put up with that. We are not infantilised.

If you want me to consider the terror of being a man, then consider the terror of being a woman. Now, if both roles are terrible, why keep defending them against critique? Not saying you do, but you do seem to oppose feminism. Correct me if I am wrong. But the aim of feminism, as far as I and others like me can be considered an authority, is precisely the abolition of those terrible norms. It will benefit us all, but especially those who are relatively underprivileged. Women, sexual minorities, feminine men, queer folk . . .

And by the sane remark, I meant that there is no reason for male only service.

And yet, the poor and the racially maligned have it worse. Action needs to be taken, and unfortunately that means that those in the privileged position will need to take that bitter pill.

And you wonder why peoples stoped voting for you

You are lost. Lost. I will mourn you.

[Rolan7]

Rolan:What? Affirmative action is needed but those in the better position aren't privileged? That is precisely what being privileged means.

Alternatively, give me your definition of privilege -- perhaps then this will make sense.

Lower-class white males are not in the better position.  They are in the worst position.  They help pay the price of affirmative action through lack of scholarships and hiring quotas - a price that *needs to be payed* to bring equality to the genders and races - but they do not personally benefit from the inequality.

They do have the privilege of not being as subject to unjust arrests and police brutality, and that is something.  But they are not "in the better position", and they get no thanks at all for biting the financial bullet.

Red: Being considered capable is a relative privilege. Could you read what I say?

Having high expectations placed on you is not a privilege.  Women are expected to be thin and look pretty, that is not a privilege.  Men are expected to be strong and good at math, that is not a privilege.
They're backwards sexist gender stereotypes.

[Redzephyr01]

Women aren't barred from joining the military. They just aren't forced to join it.

[Ogdibus]

I'll take being "insulted" over being forced to fight and very likely die in some pointless war any day, and I suspect you would too.

It's not just being insulted. It's also being raped and or murdered, regardless of whether your country is at war. 

It's also having your words dismissed constantly, regardless of what they are.  It's having your very nature regarded as superficial and inferior.  It's having your identity used derisively to belittle others.  It's having people that know nothing about you decide what is best for your health in the rare instances that they bother to give your well being any attention at all.


The draft sexism is nothing compared to that.  Child support sexism is intended, in part, to compensate for it.

If you don't like the draft or child support laws, fight them, but don't shit on other groups of people that are standing up for their own rights.  Don't shit on groups of people that have less power than your own for not fighting for your rights while you do nothing but whine at them.

[lijacote]

Expected competence and expected incompetence are not the same. They are not -- and the expectation of competence does not manifest in the same cruelty that its inverse does.

Now, I am done with this olympics of suffering. Think freely that you are the worst off, I do not think it is very consequential.

I did not say lower class male. When I speak of male privilege,  I do mean male privilege. Take two "equal", say, middle class persons, one male and one female. Which one is in need of affirmative action? Neither, male, or female?

That is not to say that every male has it better over every female. This is not so simple, and I never said it was so simple. Let me repeat that since it does not seem to sink in.

Male privilege does not mean that every man has it better than every female. Privilege is not necessarily good for you. Both men and women suffer for these norms.

[Sergarr]

Privilege is not necessarily good for you

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/privilege

1. A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group: education is a right, not a privilege.
1.1 Something regarded as a special honour.
1.2 (also absolute privilege) (Especially in a parliamentary context) the right to say or write something without the risk of incurring punishment or legal action for defamation:

I don't see what's so bad about being privileged.

[Redzephyr01]

I'll take being "insulted" over being forced to fight and very likely die in some pointless war any day, and I suspect you would too.

It's not just being insulted. It's also being raped and or murdered, regardless of whether your country is at war. 

It's also having your words dismissed constantly, regardless of what they are.  It's having your very nature regarded as superficial and inferior.  It's having your identity used derisively to belittle others.  It's having people that know nothing about you decide what is best for your health in the rare instances that they bother to give your well being any attention at all.


The draft sexism is nothing compared to that.  Child support sexism is intended, in part, to compensate for it.

If you don't like the draft or child support laws, fight them, but don't shit on other groups of people that are standing up for their own rights.  Don't shit on groups of people that have less power than your own for not fighting for your rights while you do nothing but whine at them.

Nobody was saying that sexism against women didn't matter. What they were arguing about was weather or not being forced to fight in the military was a privilege. Please, show me where anyone was saying that misogyny doesn't matter.

[lijacote]

Privilege is not necessarily good for you

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/privilege

1. A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group: education is a right, not a privilege.
1.1 Something regarded as a special honour.
1.2 (also absolute privilege) (Especially in a parliamentary context) the right to say or write something without the risk of incurring punishment or legal action for defamation:

I don't see what's so bad about being privileged.

Sure, not being infantilised, raped, harassed and all of that is cool, but there are downsides to expectations and norms. If men are strong and hairy, for example, then hairless men will pay regardless of their male privilege. It is not simple.

I totally expect the service guy to jump you now. You're saying that being expected to serve and die for some ruling class interest is a bonus. But then, you're not a damned dirty feminist, so you get a free pass.

Prove me wrong, service guy.

Also, maybe you shouldn't just stare at dictionaries.

[Baffler]

Except physical weakness is completely irrelevant. The military requires everyone to be able to meet certain standards, and if you can't, well that's what basic training is for.

And if you think I can't imagine the horror of being considered expendable... well, I am in the working class. I am not a woman, nor would I consider myself a man, though I do "enjoy" a lot of male privilege. I would also ask you: what do you know about being put on a pedestal, being "protected" and patronised? As men, we don't have to put up with that. We are not infantilised.

We really don't seem to be all that different. I'm paying for college with summertime factory work, and I don't consider myself much of a man either. And while I can't relate to someone on a pedestal, being "helped" is a fairly familiar experience, in fact it's why I don't tell people I have PKD (IRL at least. Anonymity feels good.)

If you want me to consider the terror of being a man, then consider the terror of being a woman. Now, if both roles are terrible, why keep defending them against critique? Not saying you do, but you do seem to oppose feminism. Correct me if I am wrong. But the aim of feminism, as far as I and others like me can be considered an authority, is precisely the abolition of those terrible norms. It will benefit us all, but especially those who are relatively underprivileged. Women, sexual minorities, feminine men, queer folk . . .

My opposition to feminism doesn't extend very far beyond certain... vocal minorities. But I won't waste your time discussing that. I also fully acknowledge that both roles are bad, in their own ways. Where we differ, it seems, is that I see it as a primarily economic problem, rather than a social one.

----

I'll take being "insulted" over being forced to fight and very likely die in some pointless war any day, and I suspect you would too.

It's not just being insulted. It's also being raped and or murdered, regardless of whether your country is at war. 

It's also having your words dismissed constantly, regardless of what they are.  It's having your very nature regarded as superficial and inferior.  It's having your identity used derisively to belittle others.  It's having people that know nothing about you decide what is best for your health in the rare instances that they bother to give your well being any attention at all.


The draft sexism is nothing compared to that.  Child support sexism is intended, in part, to compensate for it.

If you don't like the draft or child support laws, fight them, but don't shit on other groups of people that are standing up for their own rights.  Don't shit on groups of people that have less power than your own for not fighting for your rights while you do nothing but whine at them.

You're probably familiar with the US drone strike policy. If not, it states that all "fighting age men" are to be considered combatants. This is done in order to make it look like these strikes are more effective, but it also means men can and will be killed with impunity regardless of their actual status as combatants or not. There will also be no repercussions for doing so.

Nobody is saying that there's no such thing as misogyny, or that rape isn't a problem. That simply isn't what is being discussed, because nobody (here, anyway) thinks war is a fun time for all and there is therefore no reason to argue about it. I'd also like to know exactly where it was that I shit on anyone, let alone for not fighting for my rights.

[Ogdibus]

Nobody was saying that sexism against women didn't matter. What they were arguing about was weather or not being forced to fight in the military was a privilege. Please, show me where anyone was saying that misogyny doesn't matter.

I never claimed that anyone said misogyny didn't matter.  I don't even see where it could be inferred.  If you're trying to misdirect the conversation, stop.

I don't see what's so bad about being privileged.

It can distort your priorities.  Power and money have this effect, in particular.  Having power and/or money can cause a person to become preoccupied with keeping and increasing their power/wealth.  This won't necessarily make a person happy or healthy, and is often detrimental to others.

[lijacote]

Where we differ, it seems, is that I see it as a primarily economic problem, rather than a social one.

I disagree with that division. Economy is simply a base for our social relations. If a black man is paid less than half of what he's earned, then is that social or economic? It is both. Frankly, the division seems to serve only bourgeois interests -- as if our economy was not a set of social relations. Worker, owner, slave, serf, slavedriver. These are all social AND economic roles.

Now, I apologize for not responding to that other stuff you said, but it is nearly midnight here. I am, after all, a worker, and tomorrw morning I must resume producing surplus value for my owner :p

[Baffler]

Where we differ, it seems, is that I see it as a primarily economic problem, rather than a social one.

I disagree with that division. Economy is simply a base for our social relations. If a black man is paid less than half of what he's earned, then is that social or economic? It is both. Frankly, the division seems to serve only bourgeois interests -- as if our economy was not a set of social relations. Worker, owner, slave, serf, slavedriver. These are all social AND economic roles.

Now, I apologize for not responding to that other stuff you said, but it is nearly midnight here. I am, after all, a worker, and tomorrw morning I must resume producing surplus value for my owner :p

I won't write too much, just clarify. I take these social problems as stemming from economic ones, and believe that if those are solved, their social symptoms will not be long for the world. Anyway, goodnight!

[Phmcw]

I won't write too much, just clarify. I take these social problems as stemming from economic ones, and believe that if those are solved, their social symptoms will not be long for the world. Anyway, goodnight!

Same, and I add that everyone would win in that situation. Privilieged peoples woudn't have to take a "bitter pill".