The most easily de-railable topic on the internet.

[wagon]

In short-- because of physical differences and childrearing being a "woman's job", male privilege is justified?

I'm sorry to have gone on such a tangent about child rearing, biology, and the like, so I"m trying to tie this back into the idea of male privilege. You seem to only be focusing on one aspect.

It's not a privilege and I keep coming back to biology because that's the root of most inequalities between men and women. Men took the role of hunting not only because they were physically stronger but also that women can stay home and avoid the risks associated with such activities. That's how we survived as a species -- we minimized the possibilities of harm for women. plus, not until the invention of baby formulas, women have to breastfeed children every a couple hours and children instinctively response to mom's voice and various bodily language that they dont share with the dad. I am going out on a limp to say that mom's care is much more intimate, crucial to the child's development and well being compared to dad's input. All these add up as to why women are the default choice in childcare, and there's nothing wrong, unfair about it. You dwell on how "unfair" this is because you place too much emphasis on the negative aspects of childcare and probably personally find it a chore.

[wagon]

Yes. In pre-industrial world, when a male goes out and 'brings home the bread' so to speak, if he has a family is he bringing that back for himself alone or his wife and child/ren as well?

for the family including himself.

[Not not Mattaru]

for the family including himself.

Does this mean a father, in this scenario, is partially responsible for providing for/rearing a child?

[Weiing]

I'm not even talking about childcare anymore... I wasn't even dwelling on that fact and calling that unfair. But it seems like you really want to justify it all with biology and physical differences. Let's move on from childcare, but you seem to really want to bring it back to just that narrow topic.

You're right, biology is the root of inequalities and the development of male privilege. Men used biological/physical differences as reasons why women are inferior and thus, certain rights were not granted to them.

[Shade]

Right so. In ye-olde hunter-gatherer society, men went out and hunted, and women stayed home to raise the kids and maybe pick berries. You can pick berries with a squalling baby on your back, hunting animals is a bit more difficult. This isn't about rightness, it's just a matter of efficiency. The success of the society is tied to the next generation surviving to adulthood, so as long as the baby needs mother's milk, she should probably stay away from tigers. Comparatively, as long as you have a decent supply of them, menfolk are expendable.

Because this is the way things were "naturally", nowadays hospitals and healthcare plans should give preferential and priority treatment to females, regardless of actual levels of need. Right? I mean, it's not as though the way that society functions today is so far removed from the original model that basing how we run things now on what worked back then would be silly or anything...

None of the women here are confused as to WHY society assumes females = default for raising children. Talking about uteruses isn't going to convince anybody, we kinda already knew about those. The question is, how can this STILL be a valid position to hold when the original reasons for the arrangement no longer exist?

[Meresgi]

Does this mean a father, in this scenario, is partially responsible for providing for/rearing a child?

We've already said this at least a dozen times throughout the thread. No one has said that it's the SOLE responsibility of a women to raise a child and that they should be left alone to do it while the men do man things. In you're example yes, he's responsible for providing for the woman and child while the woman rears the child while he is away hunting.

And like some others have said, this was partly due to the fact that men fought in wars and served in armies. It's not exactly the same nowadays as women can serve in the military too, but I still believe certain restrictions are placed upon them in what they can do combatwise. It's biology, we protect the part of our species that makes it possible to continue our species existence.

You're right, biology is the root of inequalities and the development of male privilege. Men used biological/physical differences as reasons why women are inferior and thus, certain rights were not granted to them.

Your shitting me right? 90% of the people in this thread all admit that yes there are inequalities between men and women..but that's because they are MALE and FEMALE. They can't be equal on EVERY playing field. There are certain privileges women enjoy that men can not and vice-versa. Now are there some inequalities that do need to be altered? Yes. Can men and women be completely equal? Fuck no.

[Not not Mattaru]

We've already said this at least a dozen times throughout the thread. No one has said that it's the SOLE responsibility of a women to raise a child and that they should be left alone to do it while the men do man things. In you're example yes, he's responsible for providing for the woman and child while the woman rears the child while he is away hunting.

UGhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhagsd;lkh.

There is a reason I am asking a line of questioning, and that is not it.

[Meresgi]

UGhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhagsd;lkh.

There is a reason I am asking a line of questioning, and that is not it.

So in other words you're trying to ask a series of questions to trap someone into agreeing with your viewpoint. I answered your question, not my fault you don't like it .

None of the women here are confused as to WHY society assumes females = default for raising children. Talking about uteruses isn't going to convince anybody, we kinda already knew about those. The question is, how can this STILL be a valid position to hold when the original reasons for the arrangement no longer exist?

The arrangement doesn't exist really anymore. Women are not confined to sitting at home, picking berries and raising our children while us men go out to have adventures! If you're at home raising a child, and your husband is off working..and you don't like that arrangement..FUCKING SAY SOMETHING. Fix the problem, it's not a problem with society, there are tons of women who have made a great way for themselves. Was it hard for them? Yeah, but it's hard for anyone trying to rise up the ranks. Sitting there bemoaning how rough you have it doesn't make anyone feel sorry for you, or want to give you handouts. It annoys the shit out of people. You want something, take it.

[wagon]

None of the women here are confused as to WHY society assumes females = default for raising children. Talking about uteruses isn't going to convince anybody, we kinda already knew about those. The question is, how can this STILL be a valid position to hold when the original reasons for the arrangement no longer exist?

It's still a valid position is because only women have uteruses, vagina, breasts. I listed too many reasons as to why women are the default caretaker, I am not going to repeat myself.

Does this mean a father, in this scenario, is partially responsible for providing for/rearing a child?

your point?

I'm not even talking about childcare anymore... I wasn't even dwelling on that fact and calling that unfair. But it seems like you really want to justify it all with biology and physical differences. Let's move on from childcare, but you seem to really want to bring it back to just that narrow topic.

You're right, biology is the root of inequalities and the development of male privilege. Men used biological/physical differences as reasons why women are inferior and thus, certain rights were not granted to them.

Because biology is what it all comes down to. Again, a lot of your perceived "male privileges" arent exactly privileges. It's not a question of inferiority, men are better at certain things, so are women. We are different therefore have different roles to fill. Meresgi is pretty spot on with his response.

[Not not Mattaru]

So in other words you're trying to ask a series of questions to trap someone into agreeing with your viewpoint. I answered your question, not my fault you don't like it .

Often the most effective way of proving a point is getting someone to do it for you?

But you did answer, so I will respond.

We've already said this at least a dozen times throughout the thread. No one has said that it's the SOLE responsibility of a women to raise a child and that they should be left alone to do it while the men do man things. In you're example yes, he's responsible for providing for the woman and child while the woman rears the child while he is away hunting.

So if he has a role in providing for the family, why is it fair to assume that women have the obvious majority role to support children? That women are the 'caregiver'? More specifically, I was trying to get at the problem with this statement:

While you may think it's a unfair, antiquated or even barbaric arrangement, men are physically stronger so there's a biological, evolutionary basis to such an arrangement. Sure, nowadays, you can work with your spouse and share the responsibilities, but there's nothing inherently unfair about women assuming the role of childcare.

The idea, in short being, despite the change of society, biology is still a reasonable excuse for roles to be divided a certain way. The problem is that a) childcare is not simply sucking from the tit and assuming in pre-modern society men are not 'caregivers' is simply a result of a presumption about what caregiving means. It is circular logic. And b) despite the important premise others have said repeatedly (in short, we are not in the 'state of nature' anymore if you will) the conclusion ought to be the same.

And like some others have said, this was partly due to the fact that men fought in wars and served in armies. It's not exactly the same nowadays as women can serve in the military too, but I still believe certain restrictions are placed upon them in what they can do combatwise. It's biology, we protect the part of our species that makes it possible to continue our species existence.

As I mentioned earlier, wars started by who and for what reasons? Definitely the large majority by men, and the benefit of history on our side the life or death nature necessity of said wars is questionable and on a case by case basis.

Of course, one dude can impregnate many ladies, so in that sense women are more integral to continuing a species, but the manner in which men treat and view women throughout history almost makes you think the opposite.

[Weiing]

Because biology is what it all comes down to. Again, a lot of your perceived "male privileges" arent exactly privileges. It's not a question of inferiority, men are better at certain things, so are women. We are different therefore have different roles to fill. Meresgi is pretty spot on with his response.

You may not think male privileges are actually privileges because you have them, so can't recognize the fact. It's only when you don't have a right to something that you can recognize that it is a privilege to have it. OF COURSE you assume that whatever you have, whatever came easily for you, means it'll come just as easily for someone else. Talking specifically about sex, but can be applied to age, race, ethnicity, etc. this would be so much easier to convey if we weren't currently living in an extremely progressive era (which I'm grateful for)...but then again, if that was the case, I probably wouldn't have learned how to type, read, or possibly even write because I'm a woman(as I'm not from a high social class).

I never denied that men and women are different, and excel in perhaps different things. However, I'm still talking about the limitations that men set for women using biological differences as the excuse.

@Meresgi:
You must be trolling. Truly. Really? Women who want to do more than just stay at home should just talk to their husbands? Great idea! Except, no...it's not so easy for everyone in every culture. Even in the good ol' US-of-A, there was a time when a wife expressed her desires to explore outside the house walls would be deemed insane.

I see that I can't get through to you guys, if people like Mattaru, Tristam, and Shade couldn't...and they're guys!

[Shade]

It's still a valid position is because only women have uteruses, vagina, breasts. I listed too many reasons as to why women are the default caretaker, I am not going to repeat myself.

No it isn't, because the vast majority of what constitutes child-raising has nothing to do with standing around going "I have a vagina" with a baby hanging off your tits.

The arrangement doesn't exist really anymore. Women are not confined to sitting at home, picking berries and raising our children while us men go out to have adventures! If you're at home raising a child, and your husband is off working..and you don't like that arrangement..FUCKING SAY SOMETHING. Fix the problem, it's not a problem with society, there are tons of women who have made a great way for themselves. Was it hard for them? Yeah, but it's hard for anyone trying to rise up the ranks. Sitting there bemoaning how rough you have it doesn't make anyone feel sorry for you, or want to give you handouts. It annoys the shit out of people. You want something, take it.

I think you're either jumping to huge conclusions about what the other side is actually getting at, or completely missing the point. It isn't (or it isn't always) about "Help, MY life sucks because of the patriarchy." It can be about subtly damaging behaviours or expectations that permeate society as a whole. And why are you advocating women fighting their way up through the ranks but at the same time dismissing talking about the fact that the ranks exist as whining or wanting handouts?

Women used to be property, traded in exchange for cattle, from father to prospective husband. It used to be natural and expected for a husband to beat his wife, to keep her properly in line. Women couldn't be painters, they had no natural inclination for it. Women used to not be allowed to own property, have jobs, or vote. At the time when these things were commonplace, they were seen as natural and right. Now we can look back and go, "Well all of THOSE things were wrong, obviously. But the way things are TODAY are natural and right! We have TRUE equality now." To even suggest that there might still be some things we can work on is met with a huge wall of resistance.

Being born with various privileges doesn't negate any of the hardships that might exist for someone or the obstacles they may still need to overcome. But everyone wants to be the underdog, and man do they get mad when you suggest there might be a silver spoon or two in their background.

[Weiing]

No it isn't, because the vast majority of what constitutes child-raising has nothing to do with standing around going "I have a vagina" with a baby hanging off your tits.

If only child raising was that easy. :\

[Bluefrostie]

Before the sexual revolution, women were able to enforce and control the rules in a relationship. With the birth control pill becoming more readily available, protection from seduction had to be given by the government because women around the country had not felt the need to secure themselves with refusal from sex. Female promiscuity led to concepts like date rape and a plethora of sexual harassment laws.

The sexual exploitation of women has sometimes been heightened by the removal of traditional restraints, and the instability of marriages has left many women alone and overburdened with the double job of earning money and raising children.

Women usually take care of the kids not because they want to, but because men just won’t. 60% of women earn less than $25,000 annually. Black and Latino women earn 64¢ for $1 a white male makes, which leads to a loss of approximately $210 per week.

[Not not Mattaru]

That is just screaming out:

"Warrant me, warrant me hard"

If you want to make these claims give some freaking sources BF.

[Bluefrostie]

I can provide the sources, not sure if you can look them up for free, as these are scholarly sources provided by my school.

Graglia, F. Carolyn. “The Sexual Revolution Has Harmed Women.” Opposing Viewpoints: Feminism. Ed. Jennifer A. Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001.

Stephanie Seguino, “Women Do Not Choose to Make Less Than Men.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, 2008.

This is a book that I read myself
Rosalyn Baxandall et al., America’s Working Women: A Documentary History – 1600 to the Present.

I think that's it.

Edit: Wendland, Joel, “Reversing the Gender Gap.” Political Affairs Magazine March 2004.

Here's a link to the article: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/arti...eview/106/1/28

[Byrthnoth]

Throwing out averages is stupid with heterogeneous irregularly distributed populations.

Lets take this fact, which is almost certainly true:
* White men make more money than black and latino women.

Could there be some kind of confounding factor, like average education level?
How about parent's SES, could that be a confounding factor?

Can we conclude from this that people are both sexist and racist? Can we conclude anything from it beyond what it says? Probably not.


I'm outnumbered 3:1 female:male in my PhD program. Whatever inequities there are will be naturally equalized in the next few decades because the women will be eminently more qualified for highly paying jobs than the men. If they aren't, it's because women have to sacrifice months during the most productive years of their lives if they want to reproduce. I don't feel a need to compensate them for this career-advancement-wise, though I'm fine with a mandate that companies pay for a month or two of maternity leave.

Leave the uninformed and poorly interpreted statistics usage to Fox News. Instead, lets talk about how awesome Lou Gehrig was.

[Not not Mattaru]

Before the sexual revolution, women were able to enforce and control the rules in a relationship. With the birth control pill becoming more readily available, protection from seduction had to be given by the government because women around the country had not felt the need to secure themselves with refusal from sex. Female promiscuity led to concepts like date rape and a plethora of sexual harassment laws.

There is some truth in this. Pre-sexual revolution or even now in more traditional marriages it is fallacious to say women are unable to make rules etc. I spoke of such a traditional marriage, in a different culture, earlier in this thread. Women are able to make and enforce rules inside of the home because it was seen as their sphere. In said marriage the woman basically made decisions on what expenses came out of the husband's pay check etc.

At the same time this only goes so far. While women can make and enforce these rules, this enforcement can be undermined by a less than kind mate. If there is no safety net available (i.e. one that is provided by anti-discrimination laws) women are put in a particularly precarious situation.

Your second sentence is confusing. I assume you are saying: actually I just don't know. The syntax is weird.

Saying female promiscuity leads to date rape drugs is a causation = correlation fallacy. I would say a mix of the idea that women are property which can be taken/swindled along with the joys of chemistry could be as easily claimed.

I'm pretty sure harassment is the cause of anti-harassment laws. Are you saying promiscuity (or whatever myths about it you or someone else believes in) led to increased harassment? That seems pretty difficult to warrant with real numbers since it is a difficult statistic to track since people even started tracking it.

The sexual exploitation of women has sometimes been heightened by the removal of traditional restraints, and the instability of marriages has left many women alone and overburdened with the double job of earning money and raising children.

Sometimes? Which times? Are there more times than before? Sure, traditional restraints have always existed and played a stabilizing role. Your first assumption is that stability, is in and of itself, a useful thing. Think totalitarianism.

Sure, the instability of said marriages can lead to extra burdens on women. The double shift has existed since there has been industry and in some societies, types of agriculture. It is not inherently an effect of the sexual revolution. I am sure the sexual revolution, affording women greater freedom, leaves them with some extra burdens in bad scenarios, but it also gives them choices and opportunities to fix and check those scenarios. The alternative being. Well nothing. Out of any form of support in a system geared to not giving women support in the public sphere.

Women usually take care of the kids not because they want to, but because men just won’t. 60% of women earn less than $25,000 annually. Black and Latino women earn 64¢ for $1 a white male makes, which leads to a loss of approximately $210 per week.

Yeah, we should probably work on making said men more culpable if they are not paying child support to the best of their ability etc. And are you trying to make a point for me at the end there?

That last source you posted a link to...I'm not sure how that is making a point for you. It is pointing out some extra burdens placed on women because of the sexual revolution and pointing out that boys are not really 'the second sex' yet despite articles saying otherwise, but it does not make a value judgment if those burdens are worth what they get in exchange: greater freedom to make life choices. That is a choice every woman should be able to make for herself (the choice being, if it is worth it to them).

[Tristam]

Throwing out averages is stupid with heterogeneous irregularly distributed populations.

Said better in one sentence than I could have said in thirty.