welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Mar 7 2013 -- Victim Blaming 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 33, 34, 35  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3242
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leohan wrote:
...Look. I know that men having no say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings is a perfectly logical consequence of the woman's right of body autonomy which I agree on. However, the consequence of this is that women have a say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings and men don't.

Wouldn't you call that an advantage of sorts? A benefit? ...A privilege?


No. Because pregnancy itself has been used to systemically place female bodied people at a disadvantage. Therefore, the ability to terminate pregnancy is not some form of female privilege.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I might propose a definition? Essentially, privilege means "private law," or a rule that only applies to a distinguishable class of people as opposed to applying equally to the entire population as a whole. It usually carries connotations of advantage, but that's not necessarily the totality of privilege. A law that allows a person to buy his or her way out of a punishment is as much privilege as a law that punishes blacks harsher than whites for the same transgression. Thus, when discussing "white privilege," "straight privilege," "male privilege," etc., one should be able to show how the privilege applies unequally to the named demographic as opposed to the whole population, particularly if such application grants a substantiatable advantage to that demographic. Similarly, "female privilege" would be a privilege (law, rule, or social norm) that applies to women but not to men, especially if such a rule grants women an advantage not granted to men.

Thus, Roe v. Wade technically is a female privilege, since men will never need abortions, but its advantage is somewhat questionable. Is it advantage, or simply recognition of bodily autonomy? A law requiring paid maternity leave for women only, without allowing the same for men (paid time off for a new father to remain at home with his wife and new child), though, would firmly be female privilege. It applies unequally, and grants a definite advantage to women.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3242
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leohan wrote:
Cactuar wrote:
Leohan wrote:
...Look. I know that men having no say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings is a perfectly logical consequence of the woman's right of body autonomy which I agree on. However, the consequence of this is that women have a say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings and men don't.

Wouldn't you call that an advantage of sorts? A benefit? ...A privilege?

I think the problem we are having here is akin to the clash between the colloquial and the scientific use of the word "theory" when it comes to creationist debates. They just mean different things in those contexts.

Sure, colloquially "privilege" can be and is often understood to describe advantages and benefits in a general sense, but that isn't the definition in which it is being used when people talk about things like "male privilege" "class privilege" or "white privilege."

...Could be. It sure wouldn't be the first time that literal interpretations of concepts would make me go on an useless argument...

Well, today I sleep. Will research that tomorrow.

Cheers! ^^


I do not think that is the only problem here, but it is one of them. Privilege in discussions of minorities doesn't mean, "Something happened in my favor." It is more the sum of advantages. One or two particular things being in a group's favor hardly outweight the hundreds of things being in the other group's favor.

In this case, it is in a female bodied person's favor to have the final say in whether she will have children. It is not in a female bodied person's favor to have such high potential for medical complications if she chooses to go through with a pregnancy. It is not in a female bodied person's favor that the ability to become pregnant can be used by an abuser to make them stay. It is not in a female bodied person's favor that medical care regarding her pregnancy may be expensive, or may not be covered by insurance. It isn't in a female bodied person's favor that women are stereotyped as natural givers of childcare - because many are not, and many do not want children.

In a relationship where a couple makes decisions mutually and talk like adults, both partners are going to discuss the issue at length. They will value each other's words, and they'll reach a compromise. Great for them! The safeguard is not needed there. But where abuse is happening, it is important that the person who is most likely to be abused is protected. And female bodied people are forced into carrying babies against their will without laws to protect them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3242
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
If I might propose a definition? Essentially, privilege means "private law," or a rule that only applies to a distinguishable class of people as opposed to applying equally to the entire population as a whole. It usually carries connotations of advantage, but that's not necessarily the totality of privilege. A law that allows a person to buy his or her way out of a punishment is as much privilege as a law that punishes blacks harsher than whites for the same transgression. Thus, when discussing "white privilege," "straight privilege," "male privilege," etc., one should be able to show how the privilege applies unequally to the named demographic as opposed to the whole population, particularly if such application grants a substantiatable advantage to that demographic. Similarly, "female privilege" would be a privilege (law, rule, or social norm) that applies to women but not to men, especially if such a rule grants women an advantage not granted to men.

Thus, Roe v. Wade technically is a female privilege, since men will never need abortions, but its advantage is somewhat questionable. Is it advantage, or simply recognition of bodily autonomy? A law requiring paid maternity leave for women only, without allowing the same for men (paid time off for a new father to remain at home with his wife and new child), though, would firmly be female privilege. It applies unequally, and grants a definite advantage to women.


No. Not at all.

If black people are being denied the right to vote, and then a law is made to ensure their right to vote is respected, is that black privilege? No. Other groups did not need this law, because they could already vote freely.

If gay people are denied the right to marry, is a law ensuring they can marry a privilege? No. Other groups do not need this law, because they could already get married.

If disabled adults are denied employment because a stereotype exists that leads people not to employ them, is a law ensuring they must be given a fair chance a privilege? No. Everyone else has the privilege (barring any other discrimination) to be judged solely on their merits - thus they don't need this law to apply to them,

If speakers of a foreign language are read their rights and other legal info while being arrested in a language they don't understand, does a law ensuring speakers of foreign languages will receive information in their own language a privilege? No, because the laws are already available in a language everyone else can understand.

If the follower of a major religion wants to put up a religious display on government property in the USA, and a law is made ensuring that only followers of their religion can do so, is that privilege? Yes. Because the law grants special rights to a single group which are denied others, this is a privilege.

If trans people want to use a bathroom in public which matches their gender identity, and laws are made upholding that right, is this an example of privilege? No, because everyone else can use the bathroom matching their gender identity - and furthermore, everyone has to pee sometime.

If women are thought of as weak, and men are thought of as strong, is a law requiring all men to sign up for the draft female privilege? No. Despite the fact that this specific instance is a negative for men, the notion of being strong - and all the other sexist ideas about men - confer a benefit in our society.

Further, if women are denied the right to serve in combat roles, does this confer a privilege onto them? No, because it prevents them from exploring careers they would like to pursue, and also prevents women who are already doing work in combat zones to be denied pay and advancements they would otherwise receive. Additionally, it reinforces the idea that women fit the stereotype.

If black people are denied the right to live certain places, but then a law makes it illegal to deny them housing, is this black privilege? No. Segregation, along with slavery, caused systemic poverty among black people. White people didn't need laws ensuring they could legally acquire housing, because the majority of places weren't denying housing to them.



A privilege is extra. If an advantage is given to you, but only cancels out a wrong that was done to you, it is not a privilege. It is justice. Since the legal ability to make the decision to end a pregnancy does not tip the scales in the other direction, it is not a privilege. If male bodied people were the only ones able to give birth and men were given the sole choice to terminate a pregnancy, that would not be an example of male privilege. I would say there might be extenuating circumstances that might change that, but we're talking about bodily autonomy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
A privilege is extra. If an advantage is given to you, but only cancels out a wrong that was done to you, it is not a privilege. It is justice.
I can see your point, there.

However, among your examples, I find a problem:
stripeypants wrote:
If women are thought of as weak, and men are thought of as strong, is a law requiring all men to sign up for the draft female privilege? No. Despite the fact that this specific instance is a negative for men, the notion of being strong - and all the other sexist ideas about men - confer a benefit in our society.

Further, if women are denied the right to serve in combat roles, does this confer a privilege onto them? No, because it prevents them from exploring careers they would like to pursue, and also prevents women who are already doing work in combat zones to be denied pay and advancements they would otherwise receive. Additionally, it reinforces the idea that women fit the stereotype.
This looks like asking for your cake and wanting to eat it, too. I agree that a law guaranteeing women the same opportunities as men also extends to armed service, and that systematic violations of that law--women being denied career positions or advancement in the military simply because they are women--need to be redressed, by additional equalizing laws, if necessary. (There are, however, other physical requirements which may have to be taken into consideration in military service. They should be specified, however, in terms of performance or physical restriction--an ability to lift 100 pounds, or to fit into a cockpit designed for someone 5'5" tall--that are determinable without recourse to gender.) But the converse is: if men can be conscripted, so can women. The same rules apply to all, or there is privilege at work, and the privilege would be to whom gets the advantage.

So the exemption is based upon a stereotype that is disadvantageous to women in general; then work on correcting the stereotype, which, I admit, is itself a male privilege. But there are two injustices being done, here, not one: one to women, and one to men.

Unless you think you can successfully argue that being told to go get his ass shot off by fiat is to a man's advantage.

This also leaves open the issue of laws specifically enacted based on childbearing--the hypothetical paid maternal for women only, for example. What injustice is being redressed, here? That women become pregnant? Is this truly an injustice? If so, then how shall we address the injustice that men cannot become pregnant? What human law will serve to curtail this biological one?

Granted, millennia of male-dominant thinking has indeed established structures in society, in law, and in personal habits that promote iniquity, and those need to change. But, no matter how much the playing field gets equalized, there will still remain the central dichotomy between men and women about which privilege will congregate. It will either be male privilege, or female privilege (or, most realistically, a mix of both) because true equality is not possible when it comes to the functions of reproduction. My advice is: admit privileges exist and are not the sole demesne of any one demographic, then martial your arguments and begin trying to convince those from whom you are asking these privileges that said privileges serve everybody's interests the best in light of that fundamental and insurmountable difference between men and women. Then grab every privilege you can and wait for the courts to settle the dust, afterwards.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3242
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
stripeypants wrote:
A privilege is extra. If an advantage is given to you, but only cancels out a wrong that was done to you, it is not a privilege. It is justice.
I can see your point, there.

However, among your examples, I find a problem:
stripeypants wrote:
If women are thought of as weak, and men are thought of as strong, is a law requiring all men to sign up for the draft female privilege? No. Despite the fact that this specific instance is a negative for men, the notion of being strong - and all the other sexist ideas about men - confer a benefit in our society.

Further, if women are denied the right to serve in combat roles, does this confer a privilege onto them? No, because it prevents them from exploring careers they would like to pursue, and also prevents women who are already doing work in combat zones to be denied pay and advancements they would otherwise receive. Additionally, it reinforces the idea that women fit the stereotype.


This looks like asking for your cake and wanting to eat it, too. I agree that a law guaranteeing women the same opportunities as men also extends to armed service, and that systematic violations of that law--women being denied career positions or advancement in the military simply because they are women--need to be redressed, by additional equalizing laws, if necessary. (There are, however, other physical requirements which may have to be taken into consideration in military service. They should be specified, however, in terms of performance or physical restriction--an ability to lift 100 pounds, or to fit into a cockpit designed for someone 5'5" tall--that are determinable without recourse to gender.) But the converse is: if men can be conscripted, so can women. The same rules apply to all, or there is privilege at work, and the privilege would be to whom gets the advantage.

So the exemption is based upon a stereotype that is disadvantageous to women in general; then work on correcting the stereotype, which, I admit, is itself a male privilege. But there are two injustices being done, here, not one: one to women, and one to men.

Unless you think you can successfully argue that being told to go get his ass shot off by fiat is to a man's advantage.

It is an injustice, but it isn't female privilege. Also, while being shot at isn't a privilege, the assumption that men are strong and capable while women are not is. My point was the reasons given for drafting men and not women benefit men far more - the drafting itself is another matter.

And what do you mean, wanting my cake and eating it too? When did I say women shouldn't be drafted? Seriously? That argument is old and tired, and needs to go the way of 1950s comedy where female characters go all out for equality until they realize they have to pick up the check at dinner and men won't hold doors for them.

As for the physical qualifications - why does anyone think that the military will not require the same of women who will enter combat as of men? That's nonsense. People are asking for the right to try out for the job, not a guarantee that they'll get it.

I also think that disabled people should be able to serve, incidentally. There are a lot of different jobs in the military. Many of them are not combat jobs, and never will involve a person in fighting. There is no reason, for example, that a file clerk in Alabama needs to be able to hear or to get around without a wheelchair.

Anyway, you say that we should work on correcting the stereotype. That's great. Did you know people are already doing that, and have been for some time? I will also point out it is much, much harder to destroy a stereotype when people only see representations of that stereotype. It is hard to show someone they are wrong for believing black men are ignorant and lazy if underfunded school systems for black children result in lower achievement and systemic racism leads to higher unemployment for black people. It is also hard to prove that queer people live happy lives in fulfilling relationships if what many people think is the only happy relationship is not legally available to queer folks. So while there are strong women living their daily lives and fighting sexism along the way, if there are laws like the draft and bans on women in combat in place, then it's pretty hard to prove to some folks that women are actually strong and capable and intelligent.

Honestly, it boggles my mind when I hear people talk about how women can't carry people x number of yards and they just aren't hardcore and up to the task - because I've worked with stateside female military members. They were indeed kick ass and nobody would mess with them.

bitflipper wrote:

This also leaves open the issue of laws specifically enacted based on childbearing--the hypothetical paid maternal for women only, for example. What injustice is being redressed, here? That women become pregnant? Is this truly an injustice? If so, then how shall we address the injustice that men cannot become pregnant? What human law will serve to curtail this biological one?


It redresses the injustice of pregnant women being fired. Some women need leave because of complications in the pregnancy, or to care for the child. This would be especially important for single mothers. Culturally, women are expected to take care of the baby right after it is born, though I think that option should be available for men.

Here is the privilege: Male bodied people do not have to take medical leave for child bearing. I would imagine in some cases a male bodied person may need to take time off if their partner has complications resulting in a need for full time medical care, or maybe they want to take care of the baby while the mother goes back to work. But they don't have the need physically to take off from work to have a baby.

Saying women taking maternity leave gives them privilege is like saying someone suffering from a long term illness and not working has privilege over the non-ill.

bitflipper wrote:

Granted, millennia of male-dominant thinking has indeed established structures in society, in law, and in personal habits that promote iniquity, and those need to change. But, no matter how much the playing field gets equalized, there will still remain the central dichotomy between men and women about which privilege will congregate. It will either be male privilege, or female privilege (or, most realistically, a mix of both) because true equality is not possible when it comes to the functions of reproduction. My advice is: admit privileges exist and are not the sole demesne of any one demographic, then martial your arguments and begin trying to convince those from whom you are asking these privileges that said privileges serve everybody's interests the best in light of that fundamental and insurmountable difference between men and women. Then grab every privilege you can and wait for the courts to settle the dust, afterwards.


The dichotomy is artificial. Gender exists, but it is not just male/female. Also, your argument reminds me of the one where if we cease to eat cows, suddenly they'll become too numerous and what then?

I assume this is all what you really believe? You're not going to pull some devil's advocate thing, right? You are literally saying that gender inequality exists because it's us versus them, right? Might as well be men on top!

Congratulations, you are sexist, because you fundamentally believe that if women are not dominated, then they will control the world and subjugate you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
It is an injustice, but it isn't female privilege. Also, while being shot at isn't a privilege, the assumption that men are strong and capable while women are not is. My point was the reasons given for drafting men and not women benefit men far more - the drafting itself is another matter.
Precisely; the draft is a separate matter from the assumptions given to justify it. There are two injustices at work, which require two solutions, if one pursues equality.

stripeypants wrote:
And what do you mean, wanting my cake and eating it too? When did I say women shouldn't be drafted?

You didn't. However, your statement:
stripeypants wrote:
If women are thought of as weak, and men are thought of as strong, is a law requiring all men to sign up for the draft female privilege? No. Despite the fact that this specific instance is a negative for men, the notion of being strong - and all the other sexist ideas about men - confer a benefit in our society.
reads to me as if you are condoning the law requiring only men to register for the draft as it offsets the injustice of sexist ideas about men prolific in society giving men advantages.

When you follow that with the statement:
stripeypants wrote:
Further, if women are denied the right to serve in combat roles, does this confer a privilege onto them? No, because it prevents them from exploring careers they would like to pursue, and also prevents women who are already doing work in combat zones to be denied pay and advancements they would otherwise receive. Additionally, it reinforces the idea that women fit the stereotype.
it reads as if you are demanding equal opportunities in the military for qualified candidates regardless of gender--a notion I fully support--but also condoning a gender-biased law for the draft at the same time.

If you wish to make it clear that you believe both genders should be subject to the draft, or, alternatively, that you believe the draft to be a violation of civil liberties for all affected and that it should be done away with, then I will happily retract the cake statement and apologize for misreading you.

stripeypants wrote:
As for the physical qualifications - why does anyone think that the military will not require the same of women who will enter combat as of men? That's nonsense.

Because the U.S. military has a record of not doing so in the past, and, apparently, are still not doing so as recently as 2012 despite how much noise the military has made about ensuring truly equal opportunities within its ranks. (And you're really not supposed to get me to do your research for you if you're arguing a position counter to my own. Razz )

stripeypants wrote:
I also think that disabled people should be able to serve, incidentally. There are a lot of different jobs in the military. Many of them are not combat jobs, and never will involve a person in fighting. There is no reason, for example, that a file clerk in Alabama needs to be able to hear or to get around without a wheelchair.
Back when I tried to enlist (more than twenty-five years ago; things may have changed a little, since then), there was a process for doing so. It involved writing a letter to ones Senator or Representative, asking to be allowed to serve and explaining why an exception to the military's usual physical fitness rules should be made in ones own case. If ones Congressperson agreed, then one would receive a letter to take to the enlisting station, granting one exemption from certain physical duties and allowing one to enlist despite a 4F rating.

stripeypants wrote:
Anyway, you say that we should work on correcting the stereotype. That's great. Did you know people are already doing that, and have been for some time?
Nope; I've been living under a rock since 1967. It's a very nice rock; it's got a vein of quartz running through it, and some sparkly bits, too.

stripeypants wrote:
I will also point out it is much, much harder to destroy a stereotype when people only see representations of that stereotype.
If you want easy, hop on the global warming bandwagon. If you want to make a difference, however,...

stripeypants wrote:
bitflipper wrote:
This also leaves open the issue of laws specifically enacted based on childbearing--the hypothetical paid maternal for women only, for example. What injustice is being redressed, here? That women become pregnant? Is this truly an injustice? If so, then how shall we address the injustice that men cannot become pregnant? What human law will serve to curtail this biological one?
It redresses the injustice of pregnant women being fired.
Unpaid time off that does not count against attendance suffices to address that issue. If interrupted income is an issue (and it most often is), then I advise people to purchase Short Term and Long Term Disability insurance well in advance of needing it.

stripeypants wrote:
Saying women taking maternity leave gives them privilege is like saying someone suffering from a long term illness and not working has privilege over the non-ill.

I was unaware that pregnancy was an illness; I had been taught it was the normal course of reproduction for all placental mammals. And paying someone for undertaking a normal biological activity that inconveniences the company and brings no advantage to the company--paying that person because she is female and pregnant--is indeed privilege.

stripeypants wrote:
The dichotomy is artificial. Gender exists, but it is not just male/female. Also, your argument reminds me of the one where if we cease to eat cows, suddenly they'll become too numerous and what then?
Cows and cake; your turn to explain.

stripeypants wrote:
I assume this is all what you really believe? You're not going to pull some devil's advocate thing, right?
If I were interested in playing the Advocate, I would already have said so.

stripeypants wrote:
You are literally saying that gender inequality exists because it's us versus them, right? Might as well be men on top!
...And, where am I saying that? Those certainly don't look like my words, yet you claim they are literally what I have said. So you'll be able to find and quote where I've said that, right?

stripeypants wrote:
Congratulations, you are sexist, because you fundamentally believe that if women are not dominated, then they will control the world and subjugate you.
I just love how you apparently know my private thoughts and deepest held beliefs even better than I do. So tell me, what are my thoughts on the long-running Chevy versus Ford debate? What wine do I prefer with braised salmon? Who's my favorite author?

Or, I'll make it easier on you: simply quote where I've stated what you claim I fundamentally believe. You needn't even limit yourself to the Sinfest forums; since you know my deepest thoughts, it should be no difficult task for you to know to what other forums, blogs, and news groups I contribute and have contributed in the past.

Otherwise, kindly stop trying to put words in my mouth; I have plenty enough of my own, thank you.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1160
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
bitflipper wrote:

Granted, millennia of male-dominant thinking has indeed established structures in society, in law, and in personal habits that promote iniquity, and those need to change. But, no matter how much the playing field gets equalized, there will still remain the central dichotomy between men and women about which privilege will congregate. It will either be male privilege, or female privilege (or, most realistically, a mix of both) because true equality is not possible when it comes to the functions of reproduction. My advice is: admit privileges exist and are not the sole demesne of any one demographic, then martial your arguments and begin trying to convince those from whom you are asking these privileges that said privileges serve everybody's interests the best in light of that fundamental and insurmountable difference between men and women. Then grab every privilege you can and wait for the courts to settle the dust, afterwards.


The dichotomy is artificial. Gender exists, but it is not just male/female. Also, your argument reminds me of the one where if we cease to eat cows, suddenly they'll become too numerous and what then?

I assume this is all what you really believe? You're not going to pull some devil's advocate thing, right? You are literally saying that gender inequality exists because it's us versus them, right? Might as well be men on top!

Congratulations, you are sexist, because you fundamentally believe that if women are not dominated, then they will control the world and subjugate you.

I will point out here, that I don't believe he meant that domination of either sex in this case. I think he meant what I see to happen in a truly equal world...Some levels of accepted in-equality based around genetics.

Basically the idea that we are truly different, even though we are mostly the same. If we neutralize everything down to the core, where men and women don't have any claim over one another besides what they choose to share with the other, then all that's left is the genetic inequalities such as women able to give birth (and at the same time burdened with having to give birth) and the opposite for men that they never have to give birth or be burdened as such with the fear of it (yet for those who want something they have to rely on someone else). Albeit in a perfect world, men wouldn't be seen as unable to raise children, so to that they would have the concept of adoption always. But for this sake, we'll say they do want their own biological offspring. That would require someone else's permission to ever achieve it. (At least until we perfect test tube kids.)

None of these things necessarily denote privilege. And to this, I'll more address Leohan and Bitflipper to explain why I believe it doesn't denote privilege. The concept to terminate pregnancy is not privilege, but in this we do reach a point in our society that the past has established a type of privilege as far as the ability to have control of your own ability to have children...And it has nothing to do with the woman herself.

For this concept of privilege, we have to instead break it into a group concept. It would have to do with a privilege of married couples (Either male/female and female/female) and single women OVER single men and gay men. If any one of the first aforementioned groups wants a child without having to directly involve the use of a 3rd party, they have a current a society in which they can freely accomplish this. (Lesbian and single only due to the way we've set up sperm donation without the extensive rules governing adoption.) Due to the stereotypes that have been established, all of which are Patriarchally set up, the two latter groups do not have the same possibility of children, not because they lack the genetics (Genetics can't really be privilege), but because currently the society we have established says that men aren't fit to raise children without women, and therefore have much more trouble adopting, and of course any ability to produce children requires another consenting party. So the privilege is not in the inability to HAVE children, but that society has been set up to block them having them, unless they can find a third party.

So, there is privilege, but not in direct sex of the person, but rather in the groups. And it's further more able to be broken down further in that straight couples have an easier time adopting than lesbian couples (while more than gay couples) and single women. The only reason these two parts of the group are above the the single men and gay couple is that due to sperm donation being so easily acceptable, they do not have to actually find a 3rd party to involve in the process. Now of course, it all simply falls back to previously established concepts under a Patriarchal rule of living. In a better world, no group would have easier rights to the acquisition of children through adoption, as instead, the character and personality of said person/people would be the first criteria for adoption.


But in all this, women themselves have no extra privilege, as genetically they've still got all the same risks with pregnancy and right to their body. It's only if we break society into groups and concepts. If using my example above, in a lesbian only relationship, the member that carries the child has all the right to her body where the other doesn't. That is not the privilege of the one who is carrying the child, as it's only her own right to her health.

Basically, if it's genetics, it's not privilege. The fact that women won't be physically capable of performing some roles isn't male privilege. But the stereotype that women can't do the job and therefore aren't allowed to try is male privilege. The only way I might argue for concepts of female privilege is with men not able to apply for caretaker positions...At least I WOULD say that if it weren't for those jobs are purposefully underpaid due to their concept that they ARE women's jobs.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1160
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll add...The other reason genetics can't be considered privilege is that the other person involved has the ability to react how they THEMSELVES want to react. If the partner of one who has an abortion loses their feeling for said person over the act and leaves, that is their own free will in the situation. Conversely, if the partner chooses to keep the baby, the other party is not required to stay either. Not to say their aren't legal matters in all these types of things, but true autonomy of each individual isn't disturbed.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Arkhron



Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
Who's my favorite author?


I can answer that! You read a lot of Terry Pratchett!
_________________
Be mellow

Be compassionate
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diagram12345



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
Leohan wrote:
...Look. I know that men having no say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings is a perfectly logical consequence of the woman's right of body autonomy which I agree on. However, the consequence of this is that women have a say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings and men don't.

Wouldn't you call that an advantage of sorts? A benefit? ...A privilege?


No. Because pregnancy itself has been used to systemically place female bodied people at a disadvantage. Therefore, the ability to terminate pregnancy is not some form of female privilege.


I could choose to abort my baby, but if I choose to have the baby and the father of that baby doesn't want it, he's still obliged to support him or her financially. That's certainly female privilege.Your argument is not logically consistent. Just because pregnancy can also be used as an excuse to disadvantage women does not mean that the legal right for me to abort my baby is not an advance exclusive to women.

Then again, if you're defining "privilege" as something that already, by definition, excludes female privilege, then there's no use discussing semantics. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cactuar



Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

diagram12345 wrote:
stripeypants wrote:
Leohan wrote:
...Look. I know that men having no say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings is a perfectly logical consequence of the woman's right of body autonomy which I agree on. However, the consequence of this is that women have a say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings and men don't.

Wouldn't you call that an advantage of sorts? A benefit? ...A privilege?


No. Because pregnancy itself has been used to systemically place female bodied people at a disadvantage. Therefore, the ability to terminate pregnancy is not some form of female privilege.


I could choose to abort my baby, but if I choose to have the baby and the father of that baby doesn't want it, he's still obliged to support him or her financially. That's certainly female privilege.Your argument is not logically consistent. Just because pregnancy can also be used as an excuse to disadvantage women does not mean that the legal right for me to abort my baby is not an advance exclusive to women.

Then again, if you're defining "privilege" as something that already, by definition, excludes female privilege, then there's no use discussing semantics. Smile


Well, in that case the "privilege" in question is accruing to the child, regardless of gender, not the mother, so I wouldn't call the support a female privilege. After all, women also have to support the children they have.

So the only arguable disadvantage* would be that the man doesn't get the ultimate say over the pregnancy when maybe he wants it, and you don't get to count that twice.

Secondly, on the definition, well, yeah. The definition of class-wide privileges across every metric (race, gender, class) does, by definition mean that the group on the non-privileged side of the metric cannot have class-wide privilege, because that is not what class-wide privilege is.

And since the paradigm of class-wide privilege does not preclude a privileged individual from suffering situational disadvantage or a non-privileged individual from enjoying situational advantage, I really do not understand why people are so dead-set on insisting that those situational advantages are totally the same thing as the pervasive class-wide privilege we are actually talking about.

It's like, I actually spoke to someone once who said that black people had the "privilege" of saying the word 'nigger'. Like, the fact that that word exists in the first place and retains it's negative connotations, and is still used for purposes of de-humanizing people, cancels out any "privilege" of having societal 'permission' to say it, like twenty times over.

Women being able to terminate the pregnancy is not a "privilege" it is the very minimum amount of JUSTICE in giving the women the exact same right to control what happens to their own bodies as men already have!

Do you realize that women have DIED when hospitals tried to save the fetus instead of the woman against the wishes of the woman and her family? Look up "Angela Carder". That many others have had medical procedures performed on them against their will because apparently being pregnant means you don't get to decide about your own body anymore? That women have even had their fetuses "taken into custody" which in practice means arresting the woman herself without the messy bit of actually acknowledging that a woman even exists and that it is her that you are taking into custody.

and meanwhile, mothers have sued to have the fathers of their already-existing and sick children donate matching blood to help the sick child and lost, because you can't tell someone what do do with his body, oh, no! Now I agree no father should be forced to give even a drop of blood, legally that is what is just and proper, so don't think I'm saying otherwise...

But it is fucked up, that we acknowledge that we can't even compel a man to give blood to save his existing sick child, but just for carrying a fetus a woman risks losing all her rights to decide what goes on with her body the moment some asshole decides they know better.

And even with all this harm, physical harm, sometimes deadly physical harm, and emotional harm, going on all the time, just for making the mistake of being born with a uterus, and STILL people have to question the tiny little bit of de-jure rights women do have because there are a few situations where it might cause a man to have sad-times.

SO, god, no. It is not a 'privilege' when a women gets to do the SAME THING men can do, and decide what the fuck gets to happen to her own physical body. It is the bare minimum of what she deserves as a human being and nothing more.
[/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cactuar



Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not actually upset FTR. Just kind of passionate about bodily integrity issues. I've been hospitalized against my will before (not for anything pregnancy-related), so I can empathize.

It's not fun stuff. Just the idea that it's perfectly legally OK to treat people like that is kind of horrific to me. Sure you've got rights on paper, but it looks real different when you're in the middle of it and no one will actually listen to you or let you go home, even though you want to, and your family wants you to.

And in these women's cases they actually had surgeries they didn't want performed on them, and some died as a result...just chilling, to me.

So yeah. I kind of feel strongly about this and may have come across as angrier than I actually am.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leohan wrote:

Yeah here's exactly where I have the big problem, see. This argument seems to run on the assumption that nice guys (What's the deal with the trademark anyway? Who will I be paying to for not using it?) that are interested in establishing a connection with a woman by friendship before attempting to actually date her are not nice people at all.


If they are only being nice because they want to date them and wouldn't be nice otherwise, then they are in fact not nice people.

Leohan wrote:

See, I don't think that a lot of people go ahead and say "As I have been good to you I'm entitled to sexy times." and if that's not the case, well, it becomes pure speculation.

I mean, debt? What would make you assume that's the mentality? I guess that in some cases they would actually use that sort of terms in private or with friends.

But not most cases.

I'm not assuming that this mentality exists, you can easily observe it by spending some time anywhere on the internet and it takes hardly any more effort to find them in real life.

Leohan wrote:

"Nice guys" as a derogative term is harmful to relationships of any kind, since it gives the perception that women in general and feminists in particular are disinterested in the emotional value of a man and will only look on the most visible surface. And that affects both genders negatively.

I agree that it is confusing terminology. Being nice is a good thing, being a "Nice Guy (TM)" is not. That's why I capitalize it, add quotation marks and a (TM), hoping that overkill makes it clear I am not talking about a guy who happens to be nice.

Leohan wrote:
But yeah, I say go ahead and tell me the difference between "nice guys TM" and men that use niceness as a form of courtship if you want this argument to go anywhere. Only then can I properly tell you just how wrong you are. And I mean difference. Contrast. A couple of definitions won't do here.


I already did in my previous post, but to re-iterate a couple of points.
A "Nice Guy (TM)" is nice to women because he wants sex; a good person is simply nice.
A "Nice Guy (TM)" thinks his kindness should be repaid in some way; a good person is simply nice.
A "Nice Guy (TM)" will complain about being put in the "friendzone"; a good person will accept that a women is not interested in him romantically.

A counterquestion, what exactly do you mean with "a men that uses niceness as a form of courtship"? Because to me niceness should be a default and not something saved for special occasions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9481

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
I get that, but I disagree that it is privilege. It is a result of her buying into sexist ideas, it is stupid, and what she says isn't true. But I don't buy that as an example of female privilege. Privilege comes from power, and being viewed as a natural child nurterer is not a source of power.


I see that the semantic back and forth has been going on for a while so I wanted to jump in and say the issue is a two-way "privilege" is loose enough to apply for pretty much everything that it is being used here for.

the issue arises when someone is used to a constrained definition of privilege such as one that matches how people use "white privilege" or "male privilege," detailing essentially what are discriminatory -ist advantages conferred on people for majority factors.

according to that constrained definition something like maternity leave isn't a privilege, or female privilege especially. but just using the word privilege to mean what it straight-up means, dictionary definition and all, that is indeed a privilege.

What it is not is a representative of part of a net privilege, which women don't have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 33, 34, 35  Next
Page 16 of 35

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group