This is a comment by bobbt on the post “Magic Mike: Something Much Worse than the Objectification of Men“.
“Men would never get together to see such a movie [as Magic Mike] with the genders reversed because it would be labeled ‘sleazy’ by the gyno-centric press. Anytime women perform erotic stimulation for men it’s considered immoral so we just sneak into such places and hope we’re not recognised. When you reverse the gender however, it’s considered ‘good, clean fun.’ Just another example of the double standard we all live under.”
More Comments of the Day
Photo credit: Flickr / xlordashx
About the Editors
I just read the original article and the comments there, or at least most of them. I think this particular comment glosses over the importance of a double standard. We have different standards for male conduct because we live in a patriarchy in which the vast majority of violence, and sexualized violence, is perpetrated by men. So the Reverse-the-Gender test works for scrutinizing men’s behaviour, but can present a false positive when making judgements about women’s behaviour. That said, I haven’t actually even seen the movie…
Even taking that into account that still does not explain why they are held to different standards. It should be about people’s actions, not who they are. I think that one of the big problems people have today is that they put so much focus on the “who” that it’s like they think that somehow takes precedence over the “what”/”how”.
bobbt’s comment points out how men’s behavior is being called bad not because of what they are actually doing but because of who they are.
Sure the reverse gender test may work for scrutinizing the behavior of some men but at the same time it can (and does at times) create false positives as well via casting the motives of other men (or past men) on the men in question instead of looking at the motives of the men in question.
Hey Danny, I think you’re making sense. I do think motives are important. But we also need to get past looking at individuals and look at the systems and patterns in place. And, I think there are lots of different kinds of equality. And I think that’s why we need to have different standards.
I think when we live in a culture that is not gender equal, then we need to aspire to be wise. And fair. Most people agree that fairness, like balance, does not mean symmetry. By that I mean that sometimes an asymmetrical approach to a problem, is actually the most balanced.
I’ll give you an example. Both the supreme court of the U.S and in Canada (where I’m from) accept that affirmative action hiring is a fair approach in a society that is not equal. This is a kind of recognition that everything is so skewed and out of wack, that an asymmetrical standard to hiring is wise. If this is a controversial example for you, we can ignore it.
I really don’t want to stray so far from my original point which is that different standards are important. I’ll give another example.
If a man is walking down a sidewalk at night and a women, that he doesn’t know, is walking in front of him on the sidewalk, I believe the man has a responsibility to be aware that he might be impacting her. He could cross the street, or lag behind or go around and speed ahead. But walking directly behind her could be impactful because of the culture we live in and because of the deep patterns and social realities that we are surrounded by. But if it’s a woman that is walking behind a man, the same is not true. So we can’t simply observe the behaviour of a woman walking behind a man and say, if the genders were reversed we would think it’s wrong, so it must be wrong for the woman too. Does that make sense?
Ha ha, I’ve probably opened up a can of worms!
I don’t understand how affirmative action relates here. Affirmative action tries to reverse a prior discrimination. What discrimination are you talking about that is being reversed? The banner quote is talking about the discrimination against men whereby under the equivalent circumstances as the Magic Mike movie is for women, men would be called sleazy.
But that’s a prejudice that has always held isn’t it? Men’s sexuality (outside marriage) has always been called out in that way. Porn and prostitution have always been seen as immoral. Until recently the same has been true for women. Nowadays it’s OK for women but still largely unchanged for men. There’s no affirmative action case here.
The affirmative action example relates, I think, because it demonstrates how the Reverse-the-Gender test, which Bobbt relies on to make the point, doesn’t apply in all contexts. So, for example, given the power gradients and the flow of violence in the culture we live in, there is a very different meaning for women to get together to watch a ‘sexy’ movie than for men. Bobbt’s comment glosses over these differences by applying the Reverse-the-Gender test, in a way that affirmative action does not. I don’t know. Does that make sense?
No it makes no sense at all. The Reverse-the-Gender test is a basic application of what it means to be fair and just and “equal”. To treat people the same regardless of the circumstances. To put yourself in other peoples shoes. You don’t throw that out lightly.
And even affirmative action is quite controversial for that reason. But the reason unequal treatment is allowed with affirmative action is because of a tightly bound pre-existing issue which can only be addressed adequately with unequal treatment in the reverse direction. You can’t just say oh well equality is not big deal after all look at affirmative action. You’d need to argue why it’s OK to discriminate based on the merits of your case.
given the power gradients and the flow of violence in the culture we live in, there is a very different meaning for women to get together to watch a ‘sexy’ movie than for men
That just doesn’t make any sense at all. Talk me through that. I am a man. I don’t do anything violent, but you argue that because other men might attack and beat me that means that I must be morally condemned if I watch porn or a sexy movie but a woman should not?
That makes no sense. In fact it sounds like collective punishment which is immoral. It sounds like you are transferring the guilt from one individual to another on the basis of how they were born. Even then it makes no sense. Even if you said “Men and women who are violent should not be allowed to watch sexy movies” that would still make no sense but at least it wouldn’t be sexist. When you say “And now the non-violent men must be punished as if they were violent, but the violent women we must be treated as if they never did anything wrong” that goes beyond nonsense to being prejudice.
Plus too it is men and not women who are the majority of the victims of violence to begin with. It’s women and not men who are the majority of managers in the country so you’re doing the same thing with your “power gradient”; you are punishing most men because for some reason you believe some men need punishing because they have power. But you don’t want to similarly punish women who have power, even though there’s probably more women than men in positions of power in our society.
False. You have definitely taken what I’ve said far beyond my interests. I claimed, and still claim, that having different judgements for different situations is important.
Logic tells us that when we apply principles to importantly different contexts, we get different inferences. So we get different judgements, whether we are talking about men or women. That also includes, by the way, someone’s brilliant suggestion to include orientations, racializations, economic status, etc. These change the context in significant ways.
It’s not sexism to pay attention to the importance of gender. Actually, I would argue that it’s sexism to not pay attention to the significance of gender, when we live in a sexist culture.
I may not be prepared to say which cases actually are more sleazy or less. That’s partly because I’m ignorant of movies. But I am prepared to defend the principle importance of not flattening the contexts of whether the viewers are men or women, or whether the viewers are straight or gay, etc.
A meta question. Can you understand that from our point of view what you are saying just looks like straight up sexism?
I am not trying to persuade you in this comment, OK? I am saying can you understand our side of this debate enough to get what it looks like from out perspective? I am not asking you to agree or anything. I am asking you to empathise / understand.
(1) You’re saying men and women should be treated differently which is a prima facie case of sexism.
(2) You can’t really explain to us why it shouldn’t be considered sexism.
(3) You talk about men being violent and powerful – which is a sexist stereotype.
(4) You want that sexists stereotype to be used to justify ill treatment of the entire birth group
So basically I look at that and I think “sexism”. Do you understand why I might reach that conclusion given that basis? I am not asking you to agree with how I characterised the conversation. This is just my view of it. I know you don’t see it that way. I know you don’t agree on the facts. I am asking you if you can understand my point of view here? or do you read that and just have no idea what I am saying?
Moderator Note: Edited to remove personal insult.
@David Byron: Hey, thanks for putting it that way. Helps me understand. And to answer your question, I totally get that having different standards of judgment for behaviour of different genders, can look like sexism. In practice, in our cultures, it often is sexism.
So I’ll try to think of more examples to try to illustrate my position.
This last exchange between David and Sherwin reminds me of some feminists fighting for the right of women to go topless anywhere that men do.
There are some feminists that fight for true equal legal rights for women to those of men, regardless of the greatly different cultural context. The simple fact is that breasts are considered sexual in the USA. To simply change the law without first changing the culture means that women going topless are doing something completely different to men going topless.
I personally feel that you need to change the culture before you can change the law (for women to go topless). Similarly, I think the culture around female lust-crazed activities need to change. The simple fact is women have just as much power in society as men. Women are the majority of supervisors. Women make 80% of household purchasing decisions (of the couples I know who have bought houses, typically it’s the woman’s happiness w/the house that is of primary importance, not the mans).
In my view the behavior of women being hound-dogs *is* no different than it is for men. If a man or woman would shame a man for engaging in hound-doggish behavior, then they should shame a woman also.
There is nothing any more “cool” about cougars than there is about silver foxjes (or whatever the equivalent for men would be). There is nothing any more “cool” about female teachers seducing 13y/o boys, then the reverse.
It’s time to start calling a spade a spade.
Okay, some of you have been very clear that you think absolutely equal treatment is the ONLY way forward. Let’s call this kind of equality The Absolutely Equal Moving Forward Principle or TAEMFP.
Here’s my hypothesis: I don’t think that you’re as interested in absolute equality as you think you are; I think most people have an instinct for a more dynamic fairness IF they can see the problem. Here’s a thought experiment that I’ve devised that might press on your intuitions:
Imagine that you are a new human resources manager at a company, Blerg Widgets. You discover that a highly qualified woman, Pat, has applied for a position at your company nine times over the last nine years. Looking through the human resource records you discover that she was overlooked on the basis of her gender. In fact, she was the best qualified person every time. And qualifications are the stated criteria for hiring at Blerg. Now the rub is that the position is open again and she has applied again. But this time, because of sheer bad luck, there is another, slightly more qualified man, Biff, that is applying. Knowing that Pat has an obvious passion for working with Blerg, and that she has been wrongfully overlooked for nine years, and that qualifications are the stated criteria for hiring at Blerg, what do you do?
The Absolutely Equal Moving Forward principle says that you have to give the job to Biff. My hunch is that most folks will have the impulse to act fairly by giving Pat preference, even though she is just slightly less qualified looking than Biff. Am I wrong?
Remember that it’s my thought experiment so you can’t change the premises. Also remember that I only need to find a single counter example to disprove The Absolutely Equal Moving Forward Principle.
I hear that 80% of human resource managers are women btw.
I find the scenario a bit problematic because… basically you’re saying that the company has been breaking the law. Do you really want to work for a company like that and one that (presumably) expects you to continue to break the law? Also do you want to work for a company that has some sort of freakishly bizarre attitude towards women? It’s an unrealistic scenario because it would never happen but if it did you might be best running out the door without notice. And why on earth would they keep records proving their guilt? That’s a really whackjob company on many levels.
But ignoring all that…. and other stuff that you don’t intend to be part of the question….
Yes you give the job to the best candidate. Why would you commit a crime and a sexist act to screw over the male candidate AND get a worse employee, just because you feel guilty that some OTHER person did the woman candidate a wrong in the past? If you feel compassion for the woman over what was done to her why would you commit the same crime to the man? Makes you just as bad as whoever screwed the woman in the first place.
If you want to make up for the companies prior history then suggest a payment to the woman in exchange for an agreement to not sue the company.
This is not an example of a place where affirmative action would make sense. (1) it’s not an example of an area where there has been discrimination towards an entire group of people that needs to be rectified, (2) there’s easier ways to fix the problem.
You could change the scenario so it is a place where affirmative action would make sense. I don’t get the impression that anyone here is firmly against affirmative action. Despite what you said I don’t think anyone is being absolutist here. You could come up with scenarios where people would agree with you. Just not this one. For me anyway.
But I think the original point was that regardless of the exact details of how you’d judge these things the basic concept of equality is one that should be respected unless there’s a very strong reason not to, and there’s no other way to solve the problem. And that simply was not the case with the scenario under discussion, namely, making a moral judgment about men and women going to see sexy movies.
There was no strong reason why you’d treat men and women differently in that situation.
“I don’t think that you’re as interested in absolute equality as you think you are. “
No, the difference is that I don’t believe in discrimination, no matter how the victim is. I stand for equality, including in employment practices, in adherence to federal and state law.
The scenario you laid out defeats your argument that equality is the wrong.. Employment law is something I know about. Here’s how this would work in your scenario.
The HR Manager doesn’t usually make hiring decisions. Their job is to ensure that the company adheres to federal and state law and internal HR policies. Hence, the first thing I as the HR Manager would do is stop the hiring process, report the apparent violations of federal and state laws against employment discrimination to Risk Management/Legal.
Legal would then conduct an internal investigation to determine who was responsible for the discrimination, and probably fire the persons involved to protect itself. The company would then be required to either hire both applicants or neither, since discriminating against a man is just as illegal (albeit more commonly practiced) as it is to discriminate against a woman.
Ultimately, the company would be wise to hire no one for a period of time and hope and pray that Pat does not report them to EEOC and sue them in civil court for discrimination.
I know you are an advocate of discrimination against men but federal and state law don’t allow that in hiring practices. Back to the main point that I hope you eventually grasp. Discrimination is wrong, no matter how the victim is. Yes, even if the victim is male.
Sigh. Okay. Hey, you keep mentioning that managers are mostly women these days. Do you have any links to data on that?
About 70% of HR Managers are women. I already explained what their role is in hiring and ensuring compliance to state and federal workplace discrimination laws.
http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/28/02/2011/57376/is-hr-really-a-womans-world.htm#.T_9ax5FQQk4
Um. Fail. You realize that the stat you just quoted is wrong, right? According to the link you sent, only 70% of CIPD members are women. That’s big time different than saying that 70% of HR Managers are women.
Wrong again.
CIPD is an HR organization.
It says: “HR has long been perceived as a female-orientated profession, and women do in fact account for the majority of its workforce. According to the CIPD, roughly 70% of its members are female.”
Forbes.com:”Forbes cited HR Manager as a “best paying job for women” in 2011, with over 70 percent of the profession dominated by females.”
A study done by the OPM said this: “Since 1969, the gender composition of HR occupations has changed dramatically. In 1969,
women represented only 30 percent (5,181) of employees in these series. By 1989, female representation had substantially increased to 60 percent of the HR workforce. As of 1998, the proportion of women had risen further, to almost three-fourths (71 percent) of the Federal HR workforce.”
>70% of the people who authorize hiring, firing, raises, etc., ensuring that there is no discrmination, and that there is adherence to equal employment law are women.
Fact.
@Eric M: Did you know that the article you linked to is British? Why didn’t you quote the part that says this: “The report also found that women in HR face a projected 107-year wait until their take home pay is equal to that of male colleagues.”
Here is the data: http://www.xperthr.co.uk/blogs/employment-intelligence/2011/04/the-uk-hr-profession-is-758-fe.html
This data also shows that in Britain:
- the best jobs in HR are held mostly by men
- men make significantly more than women on average in HR
But I am willing to concede that women make up a majority of the Human Resources workforce, even in the USA. But there is also a gender pay gap favouring men: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
Forbes, who you cited, gets their data from the Institue for Women’s Policy Research, which is American. They published their recent research findings in April of 2011 (http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-updated-april-2011) and concluded that:
- “Women earn less than men in (almost) all occupations”
- “Women earn less than men in the most common occupations”
- “Women earn less than men in the highest paying occupations”
- “Women earn less than men in the lowest paying occupations”
- Women make less than men as Human Resource managers
Actually it’s interesting. If you seach Forbes for the term “gender gap”, you get hundreds of articles: http://search.forbes.com/search/find?tab=searchtabgeneraldark&MT=gender+gap
So, tell me again, what is your point about women in HR management?
Sherwin,
I would love to hear you explain the rationale behind your advocacy of violating federal and state law employment discrmination laws.
You obviously believe that discriminating against men should be legal and encouraged. You are not alone. Other feminists who agree wiht you. It would just be good to hear a clear argument.
Eric M.,
No, I have not advocated for breaking any state or federal laws. I am willing to discuss the morality of certain laws. That is why I mentioned that both the Supreme Court of the US and the Supreme Court of Canada have defended various affirmative action practices.
No, I do not want to defend sexist discrimination of men. I do care what the criteria for sexism is. You and I disagree, among other things, about what constitutes sexist discrimination.
I worry that you’re not reading my comments in good faith.
Sherwin,
“@Eric M: Did you know that the article you linked to is British? Why didn’t you quote the part that says this: “The report also found that women in HR face a projected 107-year wait until their take home pay is equal to that of male colleagues.”
It was not relevant. You challenged whether the vast majority of people who enforce EEO laws (HR Managers) are women. I proved that they are, in England and the US. I only deal in facts.
“Here is the data: http://www.xperthr.co.uk/blogs/employment-intelligence/2011/04/the-uk-hr-profession-is-758-fe.html
“This data also shows that in Britain:
- the best jobs in HR are held mostly by men”
The best jobs in HR require business and IT knowledge, which means that business and STEM professionals will get those jobs – which feminists refuse to tell women to take, instead of “women’s studies” et al, which guarantees low wages, and complaints that they aren’t being hired as CEOs.
“men make significantly more than women on average in HR.”
See the above. Also, statistically, men work longer hours and take less time off. That hits the bottom line every time.
“But I am willing to concede that women make up a majority of the Human Resources workforce, even in the USA. But there is also a gender pay gap favouring men:”
Men and women often make different decisions about education, have different views on career and the amount of personal life sacrifices they are willing to make to advance at work, plus other factors. That will always produce different compensation.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States”
Let’s talk when the feminists tell women to stop taking women’s studies, sociology, psychology, English Literature, teaching, history, etc. and take business and STEM instead – as or more often than men – and choose those fields as careers. Also, when they tell them to work as many hours as men, take as little time off as men, go on business travel as often, commute as far, and work in the heat and cold, and in the trades as often as men. When that all happens, the wage gap would disappear. But, not until.
“So, tell me again, what is your point about women in HR management?”
The point is that HR managers are the ones that ensure that there is no gender discrimination in hiring, firing, and salary. Women control HR. Hence, if your argument is that there is widespread gender discrimination in hiring, firing, and salaries, that require tens of thousands of women HR Managers to collectively conspire to discriminate against all of their female employees. You’ll need a lot of evidence to prove that one. Feel free to try.
Eric M.
Sigh. It’s the research you pointed to. If you’re willing to accept one of their conclusions and not the others (that men are advantaged even in a field where women make up a higher percentage of the workforce, that strikes me as a problem and we’ll probably not have much to talk about.
“f you’re willing to accept one of their conclusions and not the others (that men are advantaged even in a field where women make up a higher percentage of the workforce, that strikes me as a problem and we’ll probably not have much to talk about.”
Where did they say that “men are advantaged?”, using the word “advantaged?” They didn’t, YOU did.
What strikes me as a problem is your advocacy of discrimination against males.
One of the things that seperates you and I is that I am against sexism and discrimination, period. Even if boys or men are the victims.
” So, for example, given the power gradients and the flow of violence in the culture we live in, there is a very different meaning for women to get together to watch a ‘sexy’ movie than for men.”
No, you personally have a different opinion (which is your right) but there is no different meaning. It’s simply sexist to claim that it’s
its wrong for men but right for women.
Just to clear, I’m not saying that “it’s wrong for men but right for women.”
I am saying that even if it is wrong for men, it doesn’t automatically follow that it is also wrong for women.
That might seem cagey to you, but it feels like an important distinction to me.
If and when-ever women are on the short of that “important distinction”, it ends up being called discrimination, and rightly so, because it is – no matter who the victim is, though. That’s where this logic fails.
This is the same logic that failed during the civil rights movement and when women were fighting to gain equal legal rights. Fortunately, many people realize that discrmination based on gender or race was wrong, that no one should be favored or penalized simply based on their race or gender. The principle of equality is not complicated.
To me individually and institutionally the only way forward is to threat people equally. At institutional level I agree on the idea behind affermative actions. But the way how their are implementet leaves me unsatisfied. Because they seem more to be kinda a political compromice rather than a effective measure.
I totally get that. It’s messy and difficult to act in ways that feel fair and wise to everyone. Actually Malcolm Gladwell has an interesting chapter in Blink about gendered hiring practices at symphony orchestras. They positions used to be very gendered because it was believed that women weren’t as good as playing some instruments. When the unions were able to implement blind auditions – literally hiding the people behind curtains – the hiring committees were absolutely astonished to discover that they were selecting women for some positions that were historically held by men. Unfortunately, just like in science, there are many situations where it’s impossible to actually implement blind, or double blind testing.
I agree Blurpo. Aff action is a bandaid. If colleges (or employers) get less able candidates in minority races, or women, or men (which seems to be the case in college these days) then primary schools need to be reformed from the ground up to give a great education to everybody, and/or to engage everybody.
Of course, a large component of this is the childs home environment and that is another issue with another fix.
There is no distinction here. I don’t hire men over women because of gender, or vice-versa. Period. That is illegal, per federal and state EEO law.
Philosophy about gender has no place in determining who should get hired or what they should be paid. It should be based on the work they produce, both in quality and quantity.
Actually, I think that equality might be more complicated than you’re giving it credit for.
No, equality it’s a very simple concept. Ask MLK.
Trying to justify discrimination is so 1950s/early 1960s, and is what complicates things.
There are several varieties of equality, both philosophically and practically. Each will supply different inputs and judgements about gender fairness and what constitutes discrimination. For example, there is opportunity equality, outcome equality, process equality. People sometimes distinguish between equality and equity.
Here is, for example, a helpful description of the difference between equality and equity.
I meant to place my comment made July 16, 2012 at 7:16 pm here instead of above.
Oh I get what you’re saying. And I think this is one small problem I’ve had when talking to people about the systemic vs. the individual. It seems like when it’s all said and done the systemic is declared to be more important than the individual.
In that example you give it comes off as saying that since certain conditions are not met we can ignore that man’s experiences and say that woman has no responsibility to be aware of any impact she may have on him while at the same time saying that regardless of that woman’s experiences we can just copy and paste the experiences of other women onto her and say that that man does have a responsibility to be aware of any impact he may have on her.
Which goes back up to what I said when talking about this comment and the movies. Women get a free pass no matter how ill their intentions are but men are guilty no matter how innocent their intentions are. Guilty (or Innocent) by gender association.
Hmm. I think I see what you’re getting at. But we may disagree more than I originally thought. I think we both think that the systemic and the individual are both important. So that’s all good. But perhaps you are more interested in intentions than I am.
I am much more interested in impacts than intentions. The road to heck is paved with good intentions, as they say. What really matters is impacts. I’m not saying intentions don’t count – they do. But impacts matter more.
No it’s not that I’m interested in intentions to a major extent. It’s that for all the talk of impact when it comes down to it people have no problem dismissing one impact totally in order to highlight another. Even to the point of dismissing one’s intentions and putting someone else’s in their play.
I so agree with you, Sherwin. Thanks for the fantastic distinction.
“If a man is walking down a sidewalk at night and a women, that he doesn’t know, is walking in front of him on the sidewalk, I believe the man has a responsibility to be aware that he might be impacting her. He could cross the street, or lag behind or go around and speed ahead. But walking directly behind her could be impactful because of the culture we live in and because of the deep patterns and social realities that we are surrounded by.”
Here’s a can of worms for ya…
Imagine adding “black” before every time the word “man” in the above paragraph. Most people would bridle at your suggestions to “cross the street, or lag behind or go around and speed ahead.”
Ha ha, yeah, that’s a good thought experiment. That is a can of worms! But I think it makes sense to bristle in that context. I think it makes sense because of the direction that power and privilege flow in terms how folks are racialized. So men generally have a responsibility for the impacts that men have on women, because of the directionality of power. I think. But the same sort of responsibility does not extend to the context you have suggested because the flow of power is not analogous. White folks, by and large and in the long run, are higher up in the power hierarchy than black folks in our cultures. And men, by and large and in the long run, are higher up the power hierarchy than women in our cultures.
But I think what is so great about your example is that it gets confusing fast. When you start to factor in other issues like class and language and ability, the intersecting power dynamics get so so interesting and muddled. But it’s all important if we’re interested in challenging the status quo power structures. And I am.
When a woman crosses the street to avoid a man, the man is not thinking of the power hierarchy. He simply sees a woman afraid of him.
The thing is that in most of the examples of women clutching their purses or crossing the street are trying to avoid black MEN. The cliche is not about black people, its specifically about black men .
What I get from this is: being afraid of a black man = racist.
-being afraid of a man in general = just common sense.
But women are the ones with power over men in that situation. If you don’t take account of the situation then your argument is reduced to an unprovable faith in the fact that no matter what, men are always in the wrong, never mind the facts ever. The word for that is “prejudice”.
The Supreme Court had a case maybe 40 years ago about a man trying to get into a college and he was refused because he was a man and it was a women only college (it was a nursing college). Many on the court made your argument that men had “power” and so they never suffered any discrimination so they could always be picked on and denied equality. But the majority said that in the situation it was women not men who were dominating (in going to a college for nurses) and it was just as bad to discriminate against the man as it would be for a male college to stop a woman trying to get in.
By the way did you know that most women in America think that men are worse off in our society than women are, or else that men and women are equal? Most women REJECT the idea that men have all the power etc etc.
David, simply because there are individuals who aren’t in power and some individual women are does not invalidate the existence of patriarchy as a system that creates systematic advantages.
We all know that the most oppressed/disenfranchised groups of people in this country are black men and undocumented workers.
So there are men who aren’t in power. But their existence doesn’t invalidate patriarchy, which generally looks white and benefits white men.
Again, that is changing, no one is saying it’s going to always be that way. And just because patriarchy existed (and still does to some degree) does NOT mean that individual men aren’t being fucked over OR that men don’t have major issues in our society (i.e. lack of support for abuse/sexual assault, misrepresentation in studies of domestic violence, lack of balance when it comes to family court or custody issues, birth control, etc).
It just means that there is a system designed to benefit white males that is still creating a gap within a certain population (generally men over 40, before the education gap began).
SEE I get men’s issues, David. I really do. But I see both sides.
Patriarchy = father is head of household. OR are you just redefining the word to suit your purpose while attempting to keep the historical negative connotations of the word. That is disengenious (sp??) at best.
Joanna, you continue to gloss over the fact that white females, on average, enjoy greater protections and privilege than any other demographic. The only other that even comes close is white men.
I can substantiate this statement with facts, if you doubt this.
There you go again with that ‘Male Privilage” senerio. I’ve had my right knee replaced, my right arm is held togeather with titanium screws, my left rotator cuff isn’t torn, but in the words of my doctor, is ‘shredded’.I just had another 30 stiches sown onto my arm where i had some skin torn back. I figure this brings the total to somewhere between 500-600 stiches in my lifetime (I had over 300 in one incident). Oh, also, I went to a wake last November for a co- worker killed on the job. By my rough count, that makes 6 men I’ve personally worked with that have died on the job. Please let me know when I get to the part that describes my ‘Male Privilage’.
Got it. So shitty. I just heard that a guy died dumping gravel yesterday close by. I think what you’ve said is a good reality check for those of us sitting behind desks.
I would understand if you ignore this, but I don’t think that talking about male privilege discounts your experience, or any other guy’s experience, of having a definite lack of privilege. I would also understand if you ignore this, but I’m interested to know what kind of work that you do.
I work in Heavy construction. You know, the ignorant people who build the buildings, roads and bridges that the smuglysmart people and the poor oppressed (like joanna) drive across each day in your 50K suv’s on your way to a brutally hard day at your computer keyboard.
Cmon bobbt, what’s with the attack on Joanna and the assumption she drives a 50k suv? For all we know she could have faced far tougher situations with finances than you and has a 100dollar “beater” car. I understand your anger but don’t drag people here into it. I think you’re also underestimating the level of stress office workers can get and the energy they use…
Archy:
Bobbt’s comment might have been over the top, but in my opinion Joanna’s use of the sentiment of male privilege is an attack upon men.
The ideas of patriarchy and male privilege are simply narratives. They are not proven. Futhermore, they are used to bludgeon men and women into believing that sexism against men is okay (would the unconstitutionally discriminatory VAWA have been passed if the idea of male privilege wasn’t so prevalent, or the anti-male text in the Affordable Care Act?)
The idea of male privilege is total horse crap. Even when men make more than their wives, it is often at great personal sacrifice. But the sacrifices are his alone to make, while these men purchase for their wives much greater freedom of choice by surrendering their own. Men are 95% of on-the-job deaths, the vast majority of those who work outdoors, in unclean conditions, work on-site (think oil rig), near chemicals etc..
Counterbalanced to that is the fact women make 80% of all purchasing decisions. Men are not women’s oppressors, but their emancipators.
Male privilege is a ***HIGHLY OFFENSIVE SMEAR AGAINST MEN*** (that has nothing to do with the reality of men painfully sacrificing themselves for the women in their lives) and it’s time for the term to go in the trash heap of bullshit theories.
Except you are making a huge assumption that IMHO is wrong, men are NOT (in canada) by and large higher up in the power structure. Most men (although a few do) have virtually no power in canada same as most women don’t either. We don’t live in a patriarchy in canada, fathers are not the head of household anymore. Women do the vast majority of the spending, they get custody the vast majority of time in divorce. WOMEN control the family unit. Patriarchy = father is head of household.
“Women do the vast majority of the spending, they get custody the vast majority of time in divorce. WOMEN control the family unit”
Are you implying that Canada is a matriarchy?
Sherwin writes:
“And men, by and large and in the long run, are higher up the power hierarchy than women in our cultures.”
Sherwin. I feel like there is something you’re not getting. Women may not historically had an equal role in creating the culture or law, but they have had an impact. Even when women didn’t have the vote, they still had a very large impact on the men around them.
Look at the white feather campaign during WWI. England needed more recruitment, and a general thought up the white feather campaign.
This consisted of women handing men in civilian clothes a white feather as a mark of shame. The opinion of stranger women had such a dramatic affect upon men, that this strategy was very successful. Thousands of men went through hell because a stranger women might think him a coward.
I heard a story on NPR about a dairy farm being shut down. The grizzled rancher was crying in the interview that he had to fire five families. Often being in charge simply means having more people to answer to. Often being in charge means having *less* control over your own life. If society were to tell a stay at home mother that her family was her power, and to have more power she should have more children she would laugh.
But when we tell men the key to power is to take on more responsibility, they fall for it hook line and sinker (and then we turn around and wonder why men die earlier).
The fact that men earn more doesn’t really matter in common property marriages. What doesn’t seem to get measured is the health risks and stress men go through to earn the money that women disproportionately get to spend (women make 80% of spending decisions). What is happening is not men lording over women their greater money, but men being responsible for women’s livelihood and their freedom of choices by men surrendering theirs. Men are not women’s oppressors, but their emancipators.
This narrative that men have all the power is just that: a narrative. And many times it is proven to be false. There are many men who are losers at the male role (just as many women are losers at the beauty role, but these male washouts at the male role never get reviewed by feminism).
Men are 95% of on-the-job deaths, 80% of all suicides, 90% the victims of violence, live 7 years shorter, 90% of the destitute homeless. FAthers get primary custody 6% to mothers 80%.
Hi John,
Read my lips. No one here is saying that “men have all the power”. No one. Certainly not me. So just put the exaggerations away and let’s keep working through your examples and numbers. I’ll look into the numbers you’ve presented and try to respond. Is that reasonable?
Okay the first stat you present, without citation, is on-the-job deaths. You claim 95% of on-the-job deaths are men. Here’s some data that says otherwise: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?cat=2&ind=59.
According to this data, 58% of on the job deaths in the US are men. So that’s a majority, but not a huge majority. That’s 900 men per 100,000 and 643 women per 100,000. Where is your data claiming 95% of on the job deaths are men?
That page doesn’t mention on the job deaths.
“Causes of death include all ICD-10 codes.”
Sure you linked the right stats? Looks like the deathrate for all people, not just on the job. I’ll link Australia’s,
ht tp://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20Jun+2011
“Of the 111 people who died in workplace incidents in 2009-10, the vast majority (95%) were men.”
As for suicide rates, how’s this?
ht tp://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/
(per 100,000)
AUSTRALIA Year:06 Male:12.8 Female:3.6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Year:05 Male:17.7 Female:4.5
Deaths by violence:
Men: 17.9Million Women:3.8Million
War and Civil Conflict Deaths:
Men: 6.3Million Women:1Million
Self Inflicted Injuries:
Men:11.7Million Women:7.9Million (Worldwide the gender gap closes a bit however in the US and Aus it seems it’s about 3-4x more men than women that successfully commit suicide)
ht tp://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/DALY6%202004.xls
Pretty significant numbers to me, especially since many are quite preventable. So…wheres the news saying there is a global “war on men”?
Hey Archy,
I think you’re right – I did link to the wrong job stats. According to http://www.cdc.gov/ the work related deaths are mostly men. But you’re also right that the work related deaths is relatively small: only 4.8 men per 100,000 in the US. So that’s even less than suicides – like half as many.
Huh, it’s interesting that male suicides appear to be mostly by gun. And even though female suicide attempts outnumber men’s, the tool of choice is poison which is far more likely to fail.
Wow, 31,000 people died from firearms in the U.S. in 1998. Wow! The US has the single largest incarceration rate in the world. And it’s mostly men. Crazy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Comparison_with_other_countries
But you’ve overlooked rape, sexualized violence and intimate partner abuse.
I am still intending on following up on some of these other stats. Might take me a couple of days.
I didn’t see him discuss rape, etc. Here are some for a personal safety survey in Australia. I am unsure though if they count females forcing men to penetrate in this study though, it’s one area that I don’t think is really thought of sadly. In fact the CDC stats are the first time I heard of them being counted.
ht tp://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by+Subject/4125.0~Jul+2011~Main+Features~Victims+of+violence,+harassment+and+stalking~5110
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/NISVS/index.html has the latest data for the U.S on sexual abuse/violence, and domestic abuse that I’ve seen. Remember with this one that forced to penetrate isn’t classed as rape, and the majority of male sexual abuse is via forced to penetrate and mostly by female perpetrators. It’s a hidden but powerful stat, NEVER seen it discussed in mainstream media. It makes men appear to be harmed far less than the reality as often people only quote “rape” and the definition many people have for rape is forced sexual intercourse, but these stats don’t define it that way. Lots of tricky bullshit with stats, it’s annoying!
“Huh, it’s interesting that male suicides appear to be mostly by gun. And even though female suicide attempts outnumber men’s, the tool of choice is poison which is far more likely to fail. ”
I’m glad you saw that, there is a good reason for that.
“”An attempted suicide is not really an attempt at suicide in about 95 percent of cases. It is a different phenomenon. It’s most often an effort to bring someone’s attention, dramatically, to a problem that the individual feels needs to be solved. Suicide contains a solution in itself,” he says.
In attempted suicide, both men and women tend to use methods that allow for second thoughts or rescue. Murphy says that when people intend to survive, they choose a slowly effective, or ineffective, means such as an overdose of sleeping pills. That contrasts to the all-or-nothing means like gunshots or hanging used by actual suicides. ”
Women tend to use it as a cry for help, men tend to use it as an end-game solution, so they choose a method that has a very very low failure rate such as hanging, gunshot, etc. Pills are much more survivable (especially if you don’t know the dosage required to kill, which can be substantially high for some meds).
ht tp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/11/981112075159.htm
Basically with violence men die the most, men are harmed the most often via stranger based assaults, crime, war, etc as far as I can tell from all the stats I’ve posted, however women suffer mostly from sexual violence, stalking, and Domestic violence. However I believe the gap is closing between the genders for the sexual violence even up to equal rates of victimization for the 1 year table. The gender gap for domestic violence is also closing, some studies showing women hit and initiate more, others showing men doing it. Injury rates tend to favour female victims.
In some stats though it’s hard to get a super accurate picture as both genders have their own reasons for holding back information, eg I didn’t report being sexually and physically assaulted by men or women so it won’t be counted in police reports. Women also have their own reasons not to report so there could be FAR more abuse and violence victims out there that we don’t know about. Hence why I try not to think of statistics as how life is, but more of a guideline. The only reason I discuss them is to combat myths that men aren’t harmed often enough to be worthy, I’ve heard too many “99% of rapists are men” lines which start to piss me off when we have proof showing that males are often victims of violence and abuse, and that even women are quite often perpetrators of violence. So the gender ratio of abusers is closer to parity than I think many people realize.
It’s annoying to actually NEED to post stats to combat myths n perceptions of the perpetration and victimization each gender has, my goal is to get both genders adequately supported for abuse n violence instead of smothering the field with gendered laws, gendered campaigns which leave a HUGE amount of people unsupported.
No one on this thread has said that 99% of men are rapists.
If you’re claiming that the gender ratio of abusers is getting close to parity in intimate partner violence, without any citation by a credible source, you are making a claim that contradicts contemporary, evidence based, best practices, without being willing to demonstrate it.
I think we should just agree to disagree. Peace.
Sherwin writes:
“I think you’re right – I did link to the wrong job stats. According to http://www.cdc.gov/ the work related deaths are mostly men. But you’re also right that the work related deaths is relatively small: only 4.8 men per 100,000 in the US. So that’s even less than suicides – like half as many.”
Do you think if roughly 4800 women were dying per year and only about 200 men that feminists would feel that this should be a discussion about gender? Or do you think they would talk about how insignificant this is, because the death total isn’t that high?
If men are 95% of on-the-job deaths, then most likely they are the overwhelming majority of those who have other issues from work: maiming, injury, quality of life altering injuries, poisoning, exposure to chemicals, reactions to long exposure to dangerous substances, etc..
How many peoples lives are being detrimentally affected, because (like you) nobody thinks this ranks very high, and apparently nobody feels the need to make things a gendered issue for men?
Considering most people view rape as forced sexual intercourse, then forced to penetrate logically is rape. By this logic considering 1.1% of men and 1.1% of women were raped or forced to penetrate, and 79.2% of the abusers for those men were women then 40% of so of rapists in a 1 year time period were female. 40% female and 60% male perpetration is a huge closing in the gender ratio gap compared to the often spouted statistic of 99% of rapists are men you here on many sites. That is what I was referring to.
Tables 2.1, 2.2 in the CDC report and about page 23-25 will detail the gender breakdown of abusers if I remember correctly. The link to the data is in the comment you replied to, apologies if I wasn’t specific enough.
ht tp://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/NISVS/index.html click full report PDF.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm – “SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. ”
So this study here actually shows women have flipped the gender ratio in favour of women being the dominant abuser in relationships from what I can tell.
Okay Archy,
One last reply from me and then that’s it. I won’t be replying to the other guys. You can find me at my blog if you want. You can also post back to me here and I will be happy to read them.
The difference between a peer-reviewed and published meta-analysis and an annotated bibliography is really important. The summary you quote is itself evidence that the author is misrepresenting the issues, since if you actually look at the individual studies, they are about a really wide range of issues. So the claimed sample size of 371,600 is of totally disparate sets of data representing totally different models and theses and conclusions, but he makes it out to be about one thing. That’s a gross misrepresentation. Many of the articles that I looked at do not conclude what the author suggests they do in his notes. But most importantly, there is a well received social sciences consensus that is documented and the authors conclusions don’t really fit this. His conclusions are outre. So that is why I am willing to challenge the unpublished, unreviewed bibliography. Actually the bibliography is kind of interesting – it’s his annotations that are terrible. But you don’t have to believe me. I encourage you to continue to have a critical reasoning approach to these issues and keep following up on the data and evidence and citations.
In terms of the numbers of men’s groups and men claiming they have been oppressed, some of them no doubt have been. But if we’re talking about a power gradient, over large numbers, other factors being equal, then we need to quantify the results. I can find thousands of people yelling and screaming that climate change is a socialist conspiracy; that doesn’t make it so. People say all kinds of crazy stuff, and for all kinds of crazy reasons. I’m not saying we should ignore their pain. I am saying that we need to be very cautious and critical about what we accept. As an example, right-leaning folks often complain the newspaper is too left. And left-leaning folks complain that the newspaper is to right. But the answer isn’t necessarily that they are both wrong. Someone can be still be right about this.
Look, I don’t want to convince you of anything. We’re way beyond that. I won’t even bother replying to some of the other guys on here because they don’t actually read the things I have to say about this stuff, or they keep repeating stuff that I’ve already denied or they fail to cite. But I’m responding to you this last time because you have taken the time to make some considerations and to follow up with me and I do appreciate that. I’m not done reading through the bibliography, by the way, and I still appreciate learning about kyriarchy.
So my point in saying this is that you and I are both trying to hold as much evidence in our minds as we can and weigh it. I have stated explicitly which bits of evidence I accept that has been presented by others. Some I already knew and some was new to me and interesting. Lots of the evidence that I find of high relevance I haven’t even gotten to presenting because of so much frustrating repetitive rhetoric in some of the conversations. Here is just one link that you might find some interest in regard to trying to weigh he evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States No one is saying that violence against men is unimportant. And even though John D keeps accusing me of this, I haven’t said it either. The only reason we’re comparing numbers at all, is that I’ve claimed, and still claim, that there is such a thing as male privilege, and patriarchy, and that it’s measurable, and that this context changes the way we apply the Reverse-the-Gender Test. I still believe all of that, even if I’ve failed to convince anyone else.
Actually that’s an interesting thing to look at. I invite you to read through the responses that John D, and others, have given in response to my assessments of some of his claims. For example, he has tried to discredit the New England Law Review article, because it’s been reposted by amptoons.com – and in response to my claim that his custody data was bogus, he posted links to a sports magazine. And then he accused me of ignoring evidence. And then he accused me of ignoring men’s gender issues, even though I’ve stated repeatedly that I am personally invested in improving the lives of men by challenging gender patterns. Oi.
Well whatever. I’m clearly frustrated with some of the interactions here, so it’s a good time to sign off. Sherwin Arnott is my real name, and you can find me all over the interwebs. Thanks for sharing and thanks for listening and good luck weighing the evidence.
Thank-you for the comments. I appreciate the knowledge gained, it’s good to know that the 371k study has it’s issues. I respect your opinion, hence why I asked so many questions:P and I read the other guys as well. I find statistics vary so much so I try not to have 100% faith in them, hell next year there could be a totally different study which finds a very different conclusion to a study I read the previous year. I’m just glad that people are reading them and there is a growing effort to ensure men aren’t slipping behind in equality.
Thank-you for taking the time to read the stats posted.
Sherwin:
I may have come on a little strong, but when people *seem* to be basing their worldview on assumptions and narratives *and then* advocating change based on those improper assumptions–well heck I’m not going to shut up.
I may have been a little bull-headed when I stated that you willfully ignored evidence of male oppression. But, you *do* seem ignorant of it whether willfull or accidental.
You have some very interesting detailed studies (and I would say borderline esoteric–you never bothered to prove monopolizing a conversation = power. Is a man on a date trying to qualify himself talking about himself to earn approval exerting power?) on issues affecting women. It’s obvious you’ve drilled deep into data on gender oppression………………….for women.
While at the same time you haven’t even scratched the *basics* of male oppression and disposability and issues men are very many times more likely to suffer like homelessness, suicide and on-the-job deaths and parental rights.
Furthermore, you are so entrenched in the idea of male privilege, you immediately started seeking information to prove me wrong on those issues and was so eager you mistaked a general fatality report for employment fatality (an honest mistake, but I wonder if it was because you were eager to disprove my stat).
There is not one stat you criticized that your criticism wasn’t debunked. What would you call a person who stated men suffered very much more oppression of women, and drilled deep on systems of male oppression, but wasn’t aware of the most basic female issues, and defaultly believed those issues were bs and went running for studies to prove it so? Would you call that person balanced?
I’m sorry that you feel affronted, but I hope you admit at least to yourself if not on the board that you need to hit the books again. I wouldn’t bother advocating on blogs unless you feel strongly you know the whole truth.
And trust me—YOU DON’T.
The second statistic you present, without citation, is suicides. I have found some data that corroborates your claim that 80% of suicides in the US, 2005, were men, here: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/country_reports/en/index.html
This data is based on 11 total suicides per 100,000 in the US in 2005. So this data is less significant than the on the job deaths.
I don’t think you understand what the word “significance” means here. These are deaths. They count them all. It’s not a random sample polling.
I was wrong about suicides being less than job deaths. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 5000 men in the US died on the job in 1998, or about 4.8 men per 100,000. More men died from firearms: 26,000.
Here’s a paper that was published in 1990 in the New England Law Review. It’s explicitly about gender bias in the legal system, and it’s the work of a committee that was commission and sanctioned by the Massachusetts Supreme Court: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm
They concluded that in child custody cases there is in fact a gender bias. But the bias favours men.
The paper is huge and worth a read, or at least a scan. It appears to corroborate studies on court records in Los Angeles County and even a nationwide survey of custody decisions that showed that fathers obtained custody in 51% of cases.
It looks like the claim that John D keeps making about gender bias favouring men in custody cases following divorce, is false.
“It looks like the claim that John D keeps making about gender bias favouring men in custody cases following divorce, is false.”
Your paper only applies to Massachusetts unless I am blind, what about the rest of the country? Where are the rest of the studies? Are the people that comment here n at other places about being lawyers and seeing the bias themselves just trolls or is there a real issue?
The SHEER volume of fathers rights groups, comments about people losing custody and the courts bias to me suggest there are some major issues to be dealt with. I find it hard to believe they’d ALL be lying and just wanting custody when they shouldn’t have it. Even quite a few women, the current wives of the husband who’s ex wife has custody are talking about bias towards fathers. Why would there be so many detailing it? If there was no bias, wouldn’t there be absolute concrete evidence and that there would barely be a mention of bias?
Quite frankly I am unsure of what exists in the U.S, I have heard in Australia the bias is disappearing. But when I see comment after comment after comment, article after article, for years n years about the bias, from multiple groups, I start to wonder why the hell there are so many voices talking about a bias. The studies you read may suggest one thing, but why the hell are there so many voices detailing their own personal experience which points out a bias?
Something stinks, there are far too many groups around to suggest there is no bias. Either the bias has been successfully removed recently, or in some states, but if it is then why are we still seeing so many talk about the bias?
Care to explain how women continue to have custody after falsely claiming abuse?
ht tp://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/fury-at-ruling-in-custody-battle/story-e6frf7l6-1225817724269
“A MOTHER found by the Family Court to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children has been given custody of them. ”
“The ordeal has cost Bill his home, his job and about $450,000 in lost income and legal costs. He has faced court 70 times to clear his name and try for some form of access to his children.”
Even 1 case in 10000 is too many, I find it hard to believe it’s in the best interests of the children to stay with someone who wilfully lied about abuse of their father and, costs the man his family, yet receives no punishment. What are the courts telling people? That it’s perfectly fine to lie about abuse as you won’t be punished if you had sole custody before, because the time spent together means taking her from them is bad for the kids….
I truly hope it’s a rare case but it doesn’t say much for Australian family law at least when there aren’t repercussions for disgusting behaviour. She’s effectively destroyed his family connection to the children, cost him a huge amount and still gets full custody. Do you think this is a one-off case? I’m sure a quick google could find a few in the U.S of similar false accusations destroying the father’s connection to his children. There are cases of parental alienation damaging a parent connection as well, I believe recently here in Aus we had a case of a mother literally (and the judge saying this) causing the children to fear the father for no good reason, he ended up with zero custody because it’s in the best interests of the kids not to see him because she made them so terrified of him. I have NO idea how it’s legal, but apparently it isn’t all that rare.
ht tp://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/children-used-by-warring-parents-in-bitter-family-law-cases/story-fn6bfm6w-1226260011282
Maybe the U.S has surpassed Australia in equality in the courtroom. There are too many voices crying foul for it to be disregarded, I hope there are more studies into the legal systems for parents so that none of the above can happen. I am not convinced the bias has been removed though, when I start seeing people celebrate the studies showing equality I might change my mind but currently something clearly stinks and I have my doubts that it’s just bitter men in every case.
Really? Your comparing peer reviewed research that includes a national survey, to a Herald Sun article? Really?
You’re implying gender bias doesn’t happen. I posted an article saying it does happen. Of course you could always play the high road and ignore my question by stating you linked a peer reviewed study, but how about answering this question.
Why are there so many voices talking about a gender bias? Why can I easily find cases where a man loses custody through fraud and the wife gets zero punishment? If you want to close off that’s fine by me, but I wanted to know specifically why this happens. It’s on topic as the topic is gender bias in the family courtroom, so you could post proof that this happens to women as well to prove me wrong or you could address the question and let me know why it happens.
I find it hard to believe there is no gender bias when there are so many saying there is a bias, and we have cases of mothers falsely accusing fathers, ensuring the father is removed from the child long enough that the judge feels it’s in the child’s best interest to stay with the mother, whilst losing a lot of money to fight for custody. How can this happen if the courts don’t have some form of bias towards fathers? Or does this also happen to mothers? Why are there so many cases of parental alienation going on and successfully working?
You haven’t disproved the gender bias, I’ve added new data showing the existence of quite a few cases of false accusations, parental alienation being used successfully against fathers to remove their parental connection to the child, upheld by courts who apparently aren’t gender biased. I gave evidence mainly from Australia yet there are fathers rights groups in the U.S, why do they continue to exist if the bias is gone?
Look for stats all you want but I still want to know why the fathers rights groups exist still. Are they all just angry about losing control over their family, or do you think many would have legitimate gripes with the system? Your data apparently says the courts aren’t biased, so why are they still around?
And why are you changing the topic? The issue, that you and John D brought up, was custody rates? The link you provided is about a much specific and complicated issue? So your response to my having done the work to actually find peer reviewed data, is to provide a link to a single case that’s reported in a newspaper tabloid.
I think I’m done with this “conversation.”
Sherwin,
I couldn’t find one instance of that article stating 51% of fathers get primary physical custody in the link you provided, despite spending about an hour looking. Should I declare your stat false too?
Why would you be “finished”?
So far, you’ve found 2 of 3 stats that report of male harm are correct, and only found that 1 stat *may* be dubious.
If you like very large surveys, then maybe you will like this one:
This 4 state 46,000 divorce study shows that women initiate divorce 70% of the time and do so largely because they know they will be awarded with child custody.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/146100-why-do-women-initiate-divorce/
In fact in the survey many women said they divorced *because* they knew they would get custody and have full access and control over the children.
” “Because I Will Win”(reasons women stated for divorcing)
Statistically, author Margaret Brinig says, women who filed for divorce most often felt confident they would receive advantageous custody agreements. “The question of custody absolutely swamps all the other variables,” Brinig said. “Our study found that children are the most important asset in a marriage and the partner who expects to get custody is by far the one most likely to file for divorce.” Brinig adds that not only are women certain they will get custody, they divorce specifically in order to “gain full control over the children.” ”
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/146100-why-do-women-initiate-divorce/#ixzz20vFThRHj
To me you’ve only proved that you’re doing more of the same: embracing the evidence that proves your theory, and ignoring evidence you don’t like.
Sherwin,
I’ve been banned from amptoons simply for talking about male disposability. I’m not sure I would trust any references you lifted from his sight.
This from the census:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf
On page 2 on the bottom left:
“Demographic Characteristics
Mothers accounted for the majority
of custodial parents (82.6 percent)
while 17.4 percent were fathers,
proportions statistically unchanged
from 1994.”
I have another link I’m trying to find that I posted in previous comments on tgmp, but can’t currently find which has an 8 state break-down of which gender wins primary custody. While it varies from state to state, it typically hovers in the 70-80% range for mothers and 5-10% range for fathers.
Sherwin,
The report you cited states that:
“Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.”
It however goes on to say: “Reports indicate, however, that in some cases *PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER BIAS* may *DISCOURAGE* fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.
Mothers win primary custody roughly 80% of the time to fathers 6% of the time. Can you direct me to the paragraph that says fathers win 51% of the time? Are you sure you’re not conflating legal custody with physical custody?
Quite often mothers and fathers have joint legal custody, but mothers are awarded physical custody.
I assure you that if you’re willing to dig deep enough, you will find that the statistic I have represented is totally honest.
In this study by Florida State University, it is stated that fathers often encounter a chilling affect against seeking custody.
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/254/mcnefram.html
Having your own lawyer advise you that it would be too costly to fight for custody and/or that you may even lose visitation if you fight too hard is still a gendered oppression (when the cost is lack of access to your own children).
I hope you agree since you seem to think that simply monopolizing conversations is oppression when men do it to women.
Being dissuaded to fight for custody is important when the net affect is that mothers win custody 13 times as often as fathers. Are mothers 13 times as often the better parent? Of course not.
Also, just because you find contradictory information does not mean I am making false claims.
Hey Sherwin,
Since you asked for it, I went out and searched for a noteworthy source.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/supp/mv43_09s.pdf
This is from the NCHS National Center of Health Statistics. A subdivision of the CDC.
This report is on divorce. If you scroll to page 24 Table 17, you will see that the total for 1989 for all 19 states reporting is 319,695 divorces. Of these custody was decided for some 128,507 children.
For the 19 states in 1989 it broke down like this:
Husband 11,186
Wife 92,330
Joint 20,183
Other 1704
Combination 3104 (I presume this means some combination of multiple custody solutions)
Excluding the last two (which seems to suggest both parents being deemed unfit in some way) the total is:
123,669.
The percentages break down to:
Husband 9.04%
Wife 74.64%
Joint 16.31%
If you have any other stats you have trouble with, I’d love to go over them.
@ Sherwin
“and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children.”
That’s not gender bias in custody cases, but men working longer hours isn’t a valid reason for them to be paid more?
“Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.”
So in some of these cases women get joint physical custody also, but this is supposed to favor fathers?
“Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes.”
Another point for dad?
If fathers are the primary care giver in 26% of the cases (100 – 74% as stated in the first quote) and not being the primary caregiver causes men not to seek custody, then it stands to reason that the majority of cases or at least a substantial number where men seek custody arises when men are the primary caretaker. It seems that women will more often disregard the welfare of the children for financial advantage.
@ Sherwin
I got off the bus and started walking home one night. I could see 4 guys loitering on the sidewalk in front of one of the trouble buildings in the neighborhood. My first thought was to cross to the other side of the street. Then I thought, why should I? A weird calmness came over me and I started walking towards them. As I got closer I could see 4 more guys on the front porch of the building. My eyes hit each one noting where they were and making calculations. How long do I have to take out the 4 in front before the others got there? What techniques should I use in sequence to put me in the optimal position to attack the next opponent and to counter? You don’t want people behind you so you take out the two on the street side of the sidewalk first. Then you take the two on the side by the buildings. Then you deal with the last 4.
It’s weird when your mind is in this state because you hear and you see everything. I could probably smell every scent too, but just didn’t realize it because I didn’t see it as relevant. I was so relaxed and moving at a calm pace. I guess one of them knew me. He called out to his friends to watch out because he knows karate. The guy he spoke to kept yelling at me do you know karate. I just kept my pace. When I got close enough for him to hear. In my normal voice I told him matter of fact. There’s a way to find out if you got the balls. After I said that, the 4 guys in front of me parted to the sides.
Sometimes it’s empowering to face your doubts and fears. I didn’t even cross the street when I was afraid. Why should I cross the street because someone else might be afraid? Besides if you cross the street, aren’t you saying that she should fear you?
It’s admirable that you faced your fears and found it empowering, but you also apparently had a realistic expectation of being able to defend yourself if the situation warranted it. I doubt you would feel the same sense of empowerment if you were 5’1, weighed 120 lbs and were 4 months pregnant. “Facing your fears” sounds good in print, but just as you were approaching the situation while making calculations of how you would dispatch the other men (should things turn violent) as a contingency, many women use crossing the street as their contingency plan- because of basic size/strength differentials, fighting back is rarely a viable option, and giving yourself a head start if the need to run away arises is the only way to prepare for the worst case scenario.
I’m not sure what to make of your assertion that a man who crosses the street when he finds himself walking behind a women is legitimizing her fear, because the action is so clearly indicating the exact opposite- it says “I have no interest in you.”
It’s obviously not expected- but much like stooping to help someone pick up dropped groceries, or helping a single parent carry their stroller up or down the steps, it’s an unexpected show of sensitivity towards a stranger.
Yeah, I bet John doesn’t have to worry about getting groped walking down a crowded stairway in a dress…
The way a large karate-trained man experiences the world is going to be different from how a 5’1″ 113lb. female will experience it….those 4 guys would have said something much different to me!
“Yeah, I bet John doesn’t have to worry about getting groped walking down a crowded stairway in a dress…”
I’ve never worn a dress (nobody can prove otherwise
), but I have been groped by women when I was younger mostly in the upper body, but once in the groin. One time I was practicing in a park and taekwondo is very areal. I’m usually grounded when fighting so didn’t do it much in the dojang or any fights I got into. Sometimes you just want to fly. I didn’t realize that 3 girls were watching me. When I stopped for a break, they came up from behind. Two grabbed an arm and started fondling them. One was tracing the tigers on my sleeves saying that she liked touching the tigers. One of them told me that I must have a strong lower body.
Knowing martial arts and having them witness it didn’t stop me from being groped. Those girls weren’t afraid. I was more in shock and creeped out. Could I have beat them in a fight. I don’t doubt it at all. I don’t think they did either, but that didn’t help me. I would have probably been the one imprisoned. I think we all knew that.
@ Leia
Nope he just has to worry about the possibility of being attacked, weather it’s for the items he’s carrying, a certain “look” he gave his attacker or just because the attacker/s wanted to.
It’s pretty fucked up to assume he won’t get groped because he is a man, when he has said before he’s been groped by women. A lil bit of sensitivity wouldn’t go astray Leia, I know you may want to believe are far more vulnerable in public but the reality is men are FAR more likely to be attacked randomly in public. And yes we do get groped, I’ve had female friends grope/sexually assault me, I’ve had men do it in a class room even. I’ve been punched at a club, had verbal abuse against me quite a bit, etc.
Leia, I bet you don’t have to worry about being beaten black n blue for walking down the street huh? Does that work? How does that feel to hear?
And people, STOP assuming bigger people feel more confident in defending themselves in violent situations. I’ve seen way too many big people get flogged up by lil guys to ever think size helps all that much.
Leia writes:
“Yeah, I bet John doesn’t have to worry about getting groped walking down a crowded stairway in a dress…”
Way to not get a point. If I remember correctly, John A is an athlete who was juicing. The simple fact is the overwhelming majority of men do not making being the top dog physically a priority in their life, but the overwhelming majority of men (from what I have seen) have faced instances of having to be “on guard” against being beaten or attacked.
Men are the targets of 80% of stranger violence. Even thugs seem to know that women are off-limits. Most men do not get out of these entanglements as easily or successfully as John A. Women are not the only ones who have to worry about their safety.
There are *no* streets in which women are unsafe to walk down, but men *are safe* to walk down.
Streets that are unsafe for women, are typically also unsafe for men. Many times even a bluff or valid show of power as John A describes will not always be successful and may even backfire and draw attention that just shutting up wouldn’t have drawn.
I guess I’m saying if you want empathy for your issues, then you have to give it for my issues too.
My instructor always said that if you go into a fight thinking you’ll lose, you’ve already lost. Once I started walking down the sidewalk, losing never entered into my mind. It doesn’t mean that I would have won. That just means it was no longer a consideration. Every person from the dojang is the same way. Sometimes people see it as arrogance. It’s not it’s just acceptance. Here’s the situation what should you do to overcome.
I understand what you mean. I’m only 5′ 7″ and couldn’t gain weight for much of my life (ladies, please don’t hate me) until I started taking “dietary supplements” when I started weight lifting. Basically I was juicing. Still I was between 140 – 150 pounds when I was late teens/early 20s. In my mid 20s, I finally got to 165 – 170. Unfortunately, I gain weight a whole lot easier in my 40s. I’m about 190 and a lot slower than I was back then, but I’d still approach the situation the same way if I decided not to cross the street.
I’ve fought multiple opponents before with friends and by myself. I fought 4 guys by myself once and won. I fought 8 guys by myself once and it took three days for me to recover from the beating. I fought guys who were much bigger where I gave up 8″ and about 100 pounds. I’ve fought guys more skilled. When you’re in a back stance, you weight is on your back foot. You transfer it to your front and you kick with the back foot. I’m right handed, but I learned to fight left handed for this. I would use a front leg sweep against a more skilled opponent. I bring my back leg forward to push his front leg forward a couple inches. It makes me a right handed fighter so I could use my power side and the slight shift in his stance prevents him from shifting his weight so he can’t attack.
When a woman is pregnant or someone is disabled or older, I can understand feeling vulnerable. I’m sure I’ll experience that, If I live that long, but this see food diet will probably be the death of me, I see food and I eat it. What you said gives me something to think about. Here’s something else to think about. If an 80 year old man were walking in front of you (I’m assuming you’d be able to brutalize him if that were your intention), would you cross the street to not walk behind him?
Actually, true story, I’m at a party with a group of people that I haven’t seen in a while. They’re all remarking about the weight I’ve lost (About 50#) and the muscle I’ve ‘swapped’ (About 15-20#) when a woman I know(not really that well) comes up and starts rubbing my chest saying how she likes it. I tell her her chest is quite nice and would she be all right with me rubbing it? After she steps back and says “excause me!”, I tell her “Hey! At least I asked permission first!”
I believe you. It’s happened to me and I’ve seen it happen to other guys. It doesn’t happen to me much now because I’ve been out of kick boxing for about 25 years. I’ve stopped weight lifting for at least 15 years and I’ve added about 20 pounds of fat. Women feel entitled to a feel.
I’ve had one woman poke me in the stomach and another pat me there (on two separate occasions) expecting to get that jelly bounce, but instead encountered something harder under the fat. I’m surprised I still have some of that impact resistance I developed when I was much younger. One woman remarked that it was like I had a new stomach. Then she invited me to spend a week at her vacation home on a beach.
I think those two instances were more an attempt at humiliating the fat guy that simply backfired, but it’s worth noting that just because you’re not in shape doesn’t mean a woman won’t grope you. It just happens less often. I don’t mean to put you off of working out. That was a huge accomplishment, congratulations.
I’ve had men n women grope my “manboobs”, the police actually said that’s sexual assault. No one bats n eyelid at it, I was very tempted to grab the women back n see if they liked it but…you know, a man doing that would no doubt cop a lot of shit over it. The fact it was so humiltiating meant I was fucked either way, if I complained about it I’d get shit for it, if I pressed charges, I’d get shit for it, if I grabbed her back, I’d be a molesting bastard n hate myself, and get shit for it. Then to have them pat you on the belly…I’m really surprised I didn’t throw a punch because that was my urge every-time, I wanted to be left alone but after the 20th time you tell people to stop it you realize many just don’t care about your personal space. Who knows, maybe the 21st or 22nd time I’ll throw my entire body weight into an elbow to the face and send a clear message. Why the fuck should I have to put up with being groped, it’s not like I could “cop a feel back” and even enjoy the damn situation. Hearing “wow they feel like my boobs” is fucking degrading as a man to hear, it makes you feel incredibly ugly.
@ Sherwin
“Hey Danny, I think you’re making sense. I do think motives are important. But we also need to get past looking at individuals and look at the systems and patterns in place. And, I think there are lots of different kinds of equality. And I think that’s why we need to have different standards.
I think when we live in a culture that is not gender equal, then we need to aspire to be wise. And fair. Most people agree that fairness, like balance, does not mean symmetry. By that I mean that sometimes an asymmetrical approach to a problem, is actually the most balanced.”
So when I point out that female sexual predation was not recognized until about 12 years ago, how does that factor into this balance and fairness that you speak of? It would seem that since men were historically invisibilized (I know it’s not a word) as victims that more emphasis should be placed on female sexual predation of men as it’s only fair. No one has ever looked (to my knowledge) at how or whether the sexual objectification of men by women had lend to female sexual predation, but we’re to assume that isn’t the case, why?
Look at it in those terms and see if you come out with the same thing. I suspect that the asymmetrical approach is only valid when women are the primary victims, but it shouldn’t be.
Ah, ye olde “patriarchy”, that facilitator of all things misandrist. Judge us, castigate us, silence us, we are all just patriarchs after all.
We live in a patriarchy. Do you disagree? That doesn’t mean we are each, individually, patriarchal – we can distinguish between the system and the individuals in the system.
Since patriarchy = father is head of household, then NO we don’t live in a patriarchy
Hi Sherwin,
Congratulations, you appear to be popular here on the GMP.
So you’ll have to define what you mean by patriarchy. HeatherN below prefers a narrow understanding of patriarchy as a culture that favors selecting men for positions of power where power requires masculinity but masculinity does not beget power. Conversely, Janet Dell below prefers the strictly literal definition of patriarchy as “father = head of household” reducing the concept to impotent semantics. I’d wager that others might prefer a far reaching understanding of patriarchy as a culture that subjugates its women to extract privileges for its men, yielding men power to maintain male privilege in an infinite, regressive misogynistic cycle.
I’m guessing by your posts that you subscribe to the third understanding of patriarchy above, but would you consider enlightening us with your understanding of the concept, less I be unfair?
Keep in mind, that “positions of power” include “head of household,” in my definition. The concept of men as actors and women as individuals to be acted upon, for example, is also part of patriarchy. The social narrative that the nuclear family is the best and that marriage is ideal to ensure paternity, is also part of patriarchy. However, they aren’t required for a patriarchy….they’re just part of the patriarchal systems in western culture.
yes thats also how I learn about patriarchy. The holyness of the marriage and the patriarchal structure of the family. I am catholic, at least from cultural background, and we have the holy father ‘the pope’ not a holy mother
. The word patriarchy its older than feminism, the application even older than the definition itself. So even if they have hijacked it for me at least, I cant see it as offensive.
Someone already pointed out most managers are women nowadays, so in your “patriarchy” most of the rulers are female. Now it’s time to point out that most families are headed by women, not men, in your “patriarchy”.
Do you have a third examples of “positions of power”? Perhaps being homeless is a position of power? Or maybe being in jail is a position of power? Or maybe dying years earlier shows how powerful people are? Or committing suicide? Or dying in a workplace accident? Or perhaps the fact that women account for over 80% of consumer spending really shows how powerful men are?
Managers are not quite in charge. Most CEOs are men; most politicians are men. Most people who have gained a lot of wealth are men. Whether most families are headed by women or men is culturally specific…and I do not know the current stats for how many people live in traditional homes versus more equity-based homes, versus women-headed households. I do know our cultural narrative is that it is “natural” and “normal” for men to be the head of the household.
Your second paragraph is indicative of the following misunderstanding: I’m saying most people in power are men. Most men are not in power.
Following a divorce, it’s considered “natural” and “normal” for the woman to get full custody in over 90% of cases (in Canada full custody is 90% for women vs 4% for men, and men have to prove the mother is unfit to even stand a chance at gaining custody – mothers only need to show up, regardless of pre-divorce arrangement, or how good the father is at parenting).
She gets to be head of household then, doesn’t she?
You know what, I absolutely love going to strip clubs with my buddies and objectifying women to the max. And I am not ashamed of it.
Thank You Magic Mike.
Sure, but your understanding of patriarchy can exist without the assumption of monotonic or universal male privilege. For example, a culture that expects men to act and assumes women to be acted upon will both selectively oblige men to sacrifice life, liberty and treasure on behalf of the culture and reserve selective judgement for the actions or inaction of men as the case maybe (as David deftly pointed out).
I don’t actually oppose your assertions, but I don’t recognize this as patriarchy, I recognize it as a mutual exploitative system of control called the gender binary. Rather in my mind, patriarchy is inseparable from universal and monotonic male privilege which is an idea I take definite umbrage with.
Great point stranger.
You make excellent points, but you miss the point entirely. Your theory fails to blame men for all the problems of society so it must be invalid.
lol. I literally laughed out loud when I read that. Thanks for the laugh.
Hey Random_stranger, I feel kinda obligated to keep posting and writing back, in part because I haven’t even seen the movie – which feels a little like cheating. I won’t post a one sentence definition of patriarchy. But I like this description:
Please note that this description leaves room for other forms of oppression. This description does not deny that men also face forms of oppresion.
Also, I really really like this short essay by bell hooks (pdf), which I also posted below.
“We live in a patriarchy. Do you disagree?”
Yes, there is – in places such as Afghanistan, under Taiblan rule.
But, there is no patriarchy in the United States of America. If there were, my boss, her boss, and her boss would not all be women.
That is a misunderstanding of the word “patriarchy.” The term does not mean that all people in power are men. On the very basic level it means that the majority of people in power are men. It means that the system is set up in such a way as to normalize the idea that the people in power will probably be men.
“That is a misunderstanding of the word “patriarchy.” The term does not mean that all people in power are men.”
That is how it’s being used here, and that’s generally the implication. The entire concept is consistent with Taliban rule but certainly not the reality of everyday life in the United States of America or any other western country.
How is the system “set up in such a way as to normalize the idea that the people in power will probably be men?”
Who “set up” the system? Does my 3rd level woman manager who is a millionaire by now know about this? How is she bucking the system that has been “setup?” Should I tell her about it?
Everyone set up the system…people…social systems are created and perpetuated by everyone (until people attempt to change them). And your one experience of of having many women bosses doesn’t negate the way the system is set up. The majority of federal and state-level politicians are men; the majority of Fortune 500 CEOs are men; the “nuclear family” is still very much the norm.
The entire concept of patriarchy is consistent U.S. and most European countries systems. It’s also consistent with more oppressive systems. It is not one-size-fits-all…just like the term capitalism is not one-size-fits-all.
“Everyone set up the system…people…social systems are created and perpetuated by everyone (until people attempt to change them).”
Wrong. I haven’t set-up any such “system.” I go to work, do my volunteer work, and take care of my family. I have no control over who has whatever you consider “power” to be.
“And your one experience of of having many women bosses doesn’t negate the way the system is set up.”
My “one experience” is shared by several hundred of my colleagues, since half of the senior management team, and the general manager are all female.
“The majority of federal and state-level politicians are men”
The majority of people who run for office are men. Women choose to not run. They have the same option to run that men do. Your issue is with women, not any “system” that blocks them from running for office.
“The majority of Fortune 500 CEOs are men.”
The majority of Fortune 500 CEO’s studied either business, STEM, and frequently both? When women CHOOSE to study business and STEM as often as men, and go into those fields as often as men, and when they want to make the other sacrifices required of Fortune 500 CEOs as often as men do, they will be half of Fortune 500 CEOs. If you want changes in the boardroom, you need to start in the classroom.
“The entire concept of patriarchy is consistent U.S. and most European countries systems.”
Not based on the points that you just made. They are choice-based, not “system” based.
“It’s also consistent with more oppressive systems. “
Who is oppressed and how?
I’m with HeatherN on this – not convinced by Eric’s counter arguments. The U.S. and Canada are patriarchies. Even ignoring the accumulation of wealth, or current average earnings, or representation on corporate boards or in political office, I still believe there is loads of evidence that the cultures we live in are patriarchal.
Take, for example, basic human conversations. It’s well established that speakers of higher social status will talk more than speakers of lower social status. And this maps directly onto gender in mixed gender groupings. All things being equal and across large numbers, men will talk more than women. I grew up believing that women talk more. But that’s false. Once I started to read about this, I started to notice this in my personal life and family. So knowing about this has helped my relationships. Which is cool.
By the by, I also believe that things are generally getting better, but I don’t have very good evidence for this. And just to echo an important point made earlier, I don’t think that anyone on this comment list is a patriarch.
Sounds like confirmation bias to me Sherwin: You read something, the started to see it in your life that you didn’t see before….Have you ever considered confirmation bias.
I’m not presenting my experience as the argument. It’s only a personal reflection following an argument.
“I grew up believing that women talk more. But that’s false. Once I started to read about this, I started to notice this in my personal life and family. So knowing about this has helped my relationships. Which is cool.”
This is what you said. You stated that MEN TALK MORE, because you stated that women talking more was false, because you read about it and started to notice it in your life. An almost perfect example of what janet called confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Hi AMD. I am a huge fan of thinking about confirmation bias. Big fan. But my argument about social status and gender precedes my personal reflection. You can ignore the personal reflection if you like. But you will still have to respond to the argument in the sentences before it.
Men talk more? As in words per day or what? In my experience women talk more than men, but they also talk differently on average. But I think what defines who talks more tends to be the groups dynamics, 10% men and 90% women favours more female speech that I’ve seen, 10% women and 90% men favours males. But then it also depends on the position of those women, a female CEO might have a large portion of the speech.
Maybe you experience a different life to me but I mostly see females talk more, men tend to use fewer words here where I live. Hell my phonecalls n talks to most men here are very brief, but hearing other women talk on the phone for hours (not as many men seem to do this) leads me to believe women communicate more often, and talk more. Maybe it varies a lot on culture and region?
Archy,
The research says that in mixed gender groupings, men tend to talk more. This correlates with status, since the speaker with the most status tends to talk the most. So that’s a pretty clear cut case of a power differential favouring men.
This finding was interesting because it was part of a meta study reviewing 56 studies on gender communication. Hyde and co-authors found that there is a striking amount of gender similarity in regard to communication. One exception was when it comes to the amount of talking, in part because this relates directly to social status. See Hyde 2005, journal: American Psychologist. Here’s a nice overview of some of the relevant issues by Dr. Deborah Cameron : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/01/gender.books
Where abouts? I live in Australia and see men n women talk in mixed gender groups fairly evenly in some areas, but others I see far more women who will speak much longer than men (eg phone). Anecdotal evidence of course so I was wondering if it was limited by culture, area, etc.
Interesting link, seems in certain areas women hold more power and others men have more power. Just for clarity and me being half asleep and thus can’t read for shit, did the studies show that men and women communicated very similarly and that the effective communication was similar? Basically wondering if one gender uses filler words more which may inflate their word per hour rate, but not the amount of information actually communicated? This includes the uh, and commonly where I live swear words are fillers, so a sentence may go like this “That car…fucking…..it’s pretty good ay”, the “fucking” has zero need to be there but usually is put in vs the umms n ahhs. I see this more with the guys, women here tend to be slightly better communicators though that could be influenced of course by the type of women I meet vs the men (more educated women vs rural/farm type men)
“studies have found that you can reverse the “men talk more” pattern, or at least reduce the gap, by instructing subjects to discuss a topic that both sexes consider a distinctively female area of expertise. Status, then, is not a completely fixed attribute, but can vary relative to the setting, subject and purpose of conversation.”
How do you know that men have more status and that it isn’t the case that in the public sphere things are simply considered to be distinctively masculine? If sports or politics (foreign policy and war being aspects) are viewed as distinctively masculine (whether they are or not), that would explain the difference in speech. It wouldn’t be status, but topic.
Archy,
I’ve provided links and citations to peer reviewed research and some summaries of it. So when one of the conclusions of this research is that men have more social status and tend to talk more in mixed gender groupings, then I think that you and I have warrant to believe that. That meta-analysis was based on something like 60 independent research projects.
And, regarding the quote you’ve provided from the research, I agree with the authors that status is not a fixed attribute, and that it varies based on the context. But that doesn’t contradict their other conclusion, that, all things being equal, men tend to have more social status and talk more.
What is it about this meta-analysis, of so many research projects, that you find so troubling that you are unwilling to accept it?
“What is it about this meta-analysis, of so many research projects, that you find so troubling that you are unwilling to accept it?”
I haven’t rejected it, I am just curious if it varies by culture, area, etc. I also wonder if one gender communicates more effectively in some areas, less usage of filler words etc.
I question everything, keeps my mind sharp. If that is what the researchers have found then that I guess is how it is. I’ve noticed differences which has made me question how fluid it is, but on the average as you say it can still leave men with more power.
Just because I question it, doesn’t mean I don’t believe it currently. I’ve linked to a study of domestic violence that had over 200 individual studies that tends to cop a lot of flack for it’s results, it concluded that “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. “. Would you accept it as the truth? I see many feminists claim it’s flawed (due to being the CTS). Is it possible what you linked is also flawed? It’s hard to argue with 200+ studies on DV so would you agree women are more aggressive than men in relationships?
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Just noticed that you have a link to a meta-analysis as well. I’ll take a read.
Wait, this isn’t a peer reviewed meta-analysis. It’s an annotated bibliography. And I’m just reading through and checking the sources and of the three sources I’ve checked I’ve already notice three errors in the annotations. I promise to keep looking through this, but I don’t promise to respond to it.
No problems. It’s a huge amount of data to read through. There are stats taht can prove men are more aggressive, others can prove women are more aggressive. My best guess is both genders can be aggressive with no clear view of which commits the most abuse in relationships, only that women tend to be injured more and that it’s far more acceptable for men to be abused in public.
The reason I keep these stats on hand to post is to remove the absolutely stupid gendered view of domestic violence. Currently the hyperfocus on female victimization and male perpetration leaves too many male victims and female perps without adequate support or help. I am honestly flabbergasted that so many resources were put towards helping women but not much is done for the men, anyone with a half-decent working brain can clearly see that men are being victimized as great rates and females are doing quite a lot of perpetration. Even if women did 1/4 the level of abuse men did, from what I see in how the campaigns are made to promote anti-domestic violence men are very under-represented.
I am on the lookout for non-gendered anti-abuse campaigns covering rape, domestic violence, etc. I haven’t found any substantial ones, mostly I find “violence against women” type campaigns but I will throw my support behind a non-gendered anti-abuse campaign as I feel they are the best way to handle it.
Sherwin writes:
“Take, for example, basic human conversations. It’s well established that speakers of higher social status will talk more than speakers of lower social status.”
That reminds me of a story Christina Hoff Sommers relays in her book “Who Stole Feminism”.
Sommers joined a debate on gender at a college with several other speakers. At the end the announcer/time keeper stated that the women speakers had been interrupted many more times by the male speakers than the reverse.
A student contacted Sommers and said he timed the debate. The female speakers had controlled about 70% of the speaking. In other words if you judged things by interruptions, it seemed the men were seizing control. But, if you looked deeper, it was actually the only way they could be heard as the women were controlling the floor.
And that’s what male privilege and patriarchy theory. It’s selective confirmation bias to prove the theory. If you’re *actively searching* for evidence you will find many dozens or hundreds of examples to back your theory. The sense I get from most feminists is that they selectively dig in exact spots to strike paydirt (to confirm their theory) rather than doing a wholesale excavation and dig broad and wide to look at all evidence from all sides.
As long as your theories are confirmed (to you) who cares what evidence is tossed aside?
John D,
Luckily we don’t have to rely on the anecdotal evidence that you have presented of a single debate. We have access to numerous studies and an important meta analysis about the way men and women talk in mixed gender groupings. The book you site, by Hoff Sommers, was published in 1992. It appears to have received reviews that were extremely critical of her over-reliance on anecdotal evidence. That’s ironic. But, for the record, Hoff Sommers is a feminist. Actually I’m somewhat interested to read her book despite the repeated criticism it has received.
But lets flash forward to 2005, when Dr. Laura Hyde published her meta-analysis of studies on conversations comparing the habits of men and women. What she found was that men do indeed talk more than women in mixed gender groupings.
Just want to draw out the last part of that quote:
Just from what I see in my grad class, which is mostly about 70% female, many of the conversations were started by me. It wasn’t like I jumped at the chance when an instructor asked what our impressions of the weeks readings were, I paused just like everyone else, but realized that if no one answered the teacher would realize that we didn’t actually read what we were supposed to and probably would get quizzed on it. I would skim the readings to pick out a main topic. It would spark a discussion that people would join in on. It also seems that women are more aggressive when the instructor puts more emphasis on class participation. In my experience, women are more aggressive when points are on the line. Otherwise, they seem to be as content as their male classmates to doze through class.
I’d like to see data concerning political debates or even speech in a court room. Are female attorneys less aggressive in objecting to prejudicial statements against their clients? I suspect that these feminist researchers would find no such disparity in public discourse because to find otherwise would indicate that clients would be better off with a male attorney. See how that works. If something favors women it should be interpreted one way, but the interpretation must change when instances arise were it disadvantages women.
Sherwin:
And this is where I think feminism doesn’t dig deep and broad into the evidence. In my experience a lot of feminist theorists only dig in evidence where they will find paydirt to confirm their theories.
What you are describing is a power dynamic. I have been to parties where the people with the most to say (and most interesting stories) are the elite. People who have taken vacations around the world in every major continent. This was overwhelmingly rich men.
This isn’t a gender dynamic, it’s a power dynamic. Also, at those parties those who speak 2nd most are typically those same men’s wives. This is just as much about elitism (or more) as it is about gender.
Besides, why are you so obsessed with proving oppression through how elites monopolize conversations? If you want to talk about the oppressed, shouldn’t you talk about the oppressed?
When we turn the metrics that prove wide-spread black disenfranchisement and marginalization to the genders a curious thing happens. It is overwhelmingly men who are the most left back and forgotten.
As I mentioned up thread, men are:
80% of all suicides, 90% of the destitute homeless, 80% the targets of violence, 90% of the incarcerated, 35% of college grads, 95% of on the job deaths, live 7 years shorter, fathers win primary custody 6% to 80% etc…
Where is this male privilege I hear so much about? My grandfather won two silver stars as a medic in WWII pulling guys out of heavy fire. You know what? He was abused by my grandmother. This was at a time when men supposedly had ALL the power.
My dad was drafted into vietnam, came back with severe ptsd and my mom was forced to divorce him as he wasn’t safe to be around. I never saw him again after 5 years old. I found out he died two years ago having been homeless for the previous 7 years. He and another man died when his shanty in a wildlife preserve caught fire.
These were straight white men.
Where is this male privilege for these (mostly) men who dominate the bottom of the power pyramid and society turns a blind eye to?
The fact is when you look *objectively* and stop using a lens that washes out all male pain sacrifice and demands upon mens bodies souls and minds, there is no such thing as male privilege or patriarchy (per the definition you laid out).
No heather, it means father = head of household that is what the word means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriarchy?s=t&ld=1031
Look it up
Some words have multiple definitions depending on context. For instance, in the context of anarchism I gather “chauvanist” is used to describe a war-monger, whereas in the context of feminism it’s used to describe a man who is sexist to women. I do agree that the word and concept of “patriarchy” is problematic, but insisting on a particular definition when it doesn’t hold that meaning for many people is putting the horse before the cart a little.
“But, there is no patriarchy in the United States of America. If there were, my boss, her boss, and her boss would not all be women.”
I would say that the USA is transitioning from a patriarchy to a matriarchy, at least for the white populace. The majority of the black community, in the US, is already operating under a full blown matriarchy,with all the poverty and family issues that brings.
Google – The Garbage Generation – for an exploration of how important it is to have household’s headed by fathers. It’s better for the children, society and ultimately civilization.
@sherwin: really , seriously…Did you actually mean to write that. You are trying to claim that because violence is mostly done by men, that excuses any behaviour by women. BTW, you do realize that most of the violence commited by men is against other men right?, what would your so called theory say about that.
Hi Janet. No, I didn’t say that women’s behaviour is absolutely excusable. I *am* asserting that we need to have different standards for assessment. I do realize that the vast majority of the violence that men experience is perpetrated by other men. This fact contributes to the claim that we need to have a gender analysis to best understand our culture, and that we need to have different models by which to understand the behaviour of men and women.
So, who gets to define those “different standards?” Who should these different standards favor?
Moderator Note: Edited to remove personal insult.
Good questions. Also, what do we hope to achieve by having different standards? Big questions. I want a fairer society with less violence and more room for gender variation, for a few. I think that’s why I am so appreciating this conversation about gender roles. The more we talk about gender and wake up to gender patterns, the more able we are to explore gender roles and shift them. I find it exciting, and I find it an exciting opportunity in feminism. We can remake masculinity. Hah, that sounds like a tagline: “Making masculinity better, since 1910.”
I don’t understand your position. Assuming we live in a patriarchal society, in a society which is ruled (mainly) by men, is male centric and is set up to accommodate men. If we have different (based on gender) standards in this society, shouldn’t we expect that those different standards will be made (mostly) by men, will be focused on the male perspective and will accommodate men?
Hi Alberich. Cool question. Let me cautiously reframe your question in my reply. Assuming we live in a society that has a power gradient that favours men, then we can’t fix it by flattening this context and simply ignoring the power structures. We can’t pretend, in this case, that we can start from scratch and try to make genders equal. We work towards gender equality and gender freedom, not by being gender-blind, but by trying to see gender as much as possible. Is that a fair response?
Sherwin,
thanks for the response, this topic is a pretty crucial and interesting question, which seems at the basis of many rifts between gender egalitarian men and feminists, thank you for bringing this up at the beginning of this thread.
You didn’t really answer my question though. You are saying, that if we want to reach gender equality, we can not treat the genders as equal, this might be true or not, but even if treating the genders equally does not lead to the desired result (gender equality), it does not follow that an alternative (like having a “good” double standard) will yield better results (judged by how far we come towards our goal of gender equality), which was kind of my question.
People are fallible and biased, hence society is fallible and biased. The assumption that our society is patriarchal, implies that we (the society) have a patriarchal bias. When we create different standards for men and women, I would expect our biases to be reflected in those standards. If these our (our societies) standards were not patriarchal, wouldn’t this be an evidence for our society not being patriarchal?
The approach to act and judge gender blind, is a common try to fight injustice, like people who try to be racially blind. It is the admission that we are fallible and biased, so being blind in this regard is as just as we can be.
I think you might have answered your own question. No single social institution constitutes the net affect of our society. And no single individual constitutes the net affect of our society. So, yes, we are fallible. But with diligence and caution we can do better than the culture we find ourselves in.
Does that answer your question better?
Sherwin:
“But with diligence and caution we can do better than the culture we find ourselves in.”
The question is not so much if we can do better by employing a double standard, but if we are likely to do better with a gendered double standard.
You seem to distinguish between us and our culture, but what is our culture if not the sum of our views and customs.
Now back to the main question:
“Should we employ a gendered double standard, if we want to achieve gender equality (all presuming we live in a patriarchal society).”
You didn’t provide evidence for your position, neither did I, I just explained what seems plausible to me.
First let me tell, how I see our patriarchy is supposed to work.
There are gender stereotypes which assign men and women with certain qualities, like: men are strong, stoic, self reliant, aggressive, forceful and dangerous; women are empathetic, emotional, comforting, frail, vulnerable and weak (not complete lists). The people in powerful positions are mostly men, because
a.)society assumes that men (and not women) have stereotypical gender qualities and
b.)these qualities are seen as good qualities for people in power.
Experience can tell you how true b.) is, you can not prescribe which qualities work best in positions of power.
So to combat patriarchy you have to challenge a.), the gender stereotypes. From what I have seen gendered double standards in online feminism do little to combat gender stereotypes and significantly more to support them. Here are some examples:
-”Schrödinger’s rapist”: women are frail, vulnerable creatures, men are dangerous, forceful beasts.
-”mansplaining”: it actually combats the idea “that good girls are seen, not heard”, but it supports the idea that women are emotional, cannot deal with patronising behaviour, are not forceful.
-the feminist double standard on genital cutting: boys are indestructable and stoic, girls are vulnerable and frail.
@ Alberich: I think we agree on some issues.
Obviously I’m not going to speak on behalf of all feminists, lol, but I do believe that challenging gender stereotypes is generally a feminist mandate. And I’m not sure about the other examples you gave but I think mansplaining is a very effective concept at challenging gender roles. It’s something I mentioned below that “who talks most?” is a question of gender and social status, and it’s evidence of male privilege, and yes, gender stereotypes, in our cultures. So I like the concept of mansplaining as a way of identifying and deconstructing gender roles.
By way of a personal reflection, I wouuld say that it can feel awkward and difficult, because, unfortunately, I mansplain sometimes! And I can feel like a moron when I do it. But also, I can be very competitive in conversation with other men, and I think that’s related. So this is a real issue that I’m happy to be exploring.
The assumption that our society is patriarchal, implies that we (the society) have a patriarchal bias. When we create different standards for men and women, I would expect our biases to be reflected in those standards. If these our (our societies) standards were not patriarchal, wouldn’t this be an evidence for our society not being patriarchal?
I suppose if you mean feminist patriarchy then you’d have adequately disproven it with that line of reasoning. However, in reality when and to the extent that men are in charge they don’t have compassion and sympathy for other men, but instead exhibit discrimination that favours women. Call it the White Knight syndrome. In any case this is just what you’d expect from a socio-biological angle because men are sexual competitors of other men but want to attract women, so obviously they treat men worse.
Women also treat men worse but not as badly as men do.
Anyway as a result of this the fact that men are treated worse than women by our society is not evidence that this is some sort of matriarchy. It’s just that feminist notions of the relationship between men and women are ridiculous aggressive. They basically say that men are all on one side and are attacking women on the other side of the “war”. In reality men and women love each other although both tend to treat strange men with a lot of suspicion.
David Byron:
“I suppose if you mean feminist patriarchy…”
Yes, I meant patriarchy, as in my understanding of the feminist usage.
“…then you’d have adequately disproven it with that line of reasoning.”
I don’t think so, but it seems to pose some questions about the nature of patriarchy, that I haven’t seen sufficiently answered yet.
“It’s just that feminist notions of the relationship between men and women are ridiculous aggressive.”
This is true only some feminists, I think. What I see as very common among feminists, is a view of genders which seems “patriarchal” (using their own definition), and that seems to repulse a lot of gender egalitarian men.
A “fairer society” cannot be achieved by promoting discrimination. That’s been tried before and it has never worked. You haven’t explained how this (so-called) “power gradient” favors men.
Just as it is entirely possible to recognize race without being racist, it is entirely possible to recognized the sexes (not be gender-blind, if that’s how you are using it) without being sexist by discriminating against one sex or the other.
Disagree. It is possible, and possibly essential, to recognize how we’re racialized in order to be effectively anti-racist.
[can of worms]
It’s not racist to notice how people are racialized. On my view, the best anti-racist strategies are to notice racialized power gradients and talk about them. All of the contemporary research is telling us that the majority of people’s behaviour is subtly and not so subtly, often unconsciously, racist. Try as we might to not be, we usually are – it’s usually a question of how much not if. That means we have to try harder, obviously. But it also means that we shouldn’t pretend to “not see race” – that’s bogus. Let’s try to liberate ourselves, and become anti-racist, by trying to understand, and speak about, race and racialization.
I’m a white dude. That comes with privilege. If I ignored how I’m racialized, that would contribute to a power gradient that I benefit from. Different but similar issue.
“Power gradients.”
More mumbo jumbo. But, feel free to talk about it all you want. You havent’t offered any evidence to support discrimination. I’m anti-discrimination. Period. End of sentence.
“I’m a white dude. That comes with privilege.”
So does being a white chick.
Yes. We both agree that it’s important to oppose discrimination on the basis of gender or racialization. But we disagree on what the criteria for that it. Can you agree with that?
I’ve stated my criteria to oppose discrimination which is simply to oppose it always, with an exception for affirmative action under narrow circumstances.
You’ve not stated your criteria. You’ve just said that sometimes you think it’s a good idea to discriminate (other than affirmative action) and haven’t said much about why, except presumably this example of condemning male sexuality but not condemning similar examples of female sexuality, that kicked the conversation off.
What troubles me is that your justification for that was so broad and vague that I think you might be willing to apply it almost everywhere. I mean you basically said men are sort of violent and powerful so it’s OK to have a double standard about watching porn / sexy movies. But you don’t seem to think that it’s violence or power per se that makes viewing porn bad. You didn’t want to say “men who are not violent or powerful can watch it”. It’s as if you are saying because of “patriarchy” women can do anything they like.
If that is the case I would question that you oppose discrimination on the basis of gender. Maybe it would help if you could give examples where you would oppose discrimination that favours women over men?
I think race gives you a real problem because where it intersects with gender your “it’s OK if you are not a white male” thing gets out of whack. I mean would you say it’s OK for black men to view porn or go see a sexy movie in a way that white men can’t?
To take another example of sex discrimination you almost certainly support, which is gender segregation in domestic violence shelters, most people who support that discrimination against men say it is because women might be afraid of men, and in general they support many forms of “safe spaces” for women that discriminate.
But many white people are also afraid of blacks. You would not support racial segregation on that basis I bet. You would not support domestic violence shelters that excluded blacks or “safe spaces” which were white-only.
You probably wouldn’t demand that black people should cross the road when the see a white person coming in case that white person is afraid of blacks either.
So I imagine your opposition to racism is not exactly on the same track with your feelings about sexism.
@ David Byron,
Our argument began when I claimed, and still claim, that you cannot rely on the Revers-the-Gender Test without also being attentive to context, which includes gender and power and other forms of oppression.
If I am right then the reason and thrust behind Bobbt’s comment is misguided. Do you understand this? You don’t have to agree to understand it.
I’m defending a principle – it’s not vague, but it is broad. That’s why it’s a principle. I’m happy to restate it in another form: genders are constructed differently in our cultures, and that means that the impact of behaviours by different genders, are going to be different, which will change the way we judge the behaviours.
No, I don’t just care about gender or think it’s the only form of oppression. Your racialized example makes me worry that you don’t actually read the comments that I take the time to write. I think that intersecting power dynamics are super important to understanding context.
Regarding safer spaces, and women only spaces, I do think it’s important to respect and support them. Regarding support workers and counsellors in the anti-violence sector and women’s shelters, I think it’s an important question, and I’ll respect the decision of the experts in those fields. And I also think there is interesting new research being done on this that might lead to new policy changes in the anti-violence sector. To put it in other words, we might see men serving women in the anti-violence sector and in women’s shelters in the next couple of decades. But I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other except to generally respect and support those organizations in the ways they want to be supported.
Discrminating on the basis of either is what we worked to defeat. I am against both. It’s not a complex issue whatsoever.
Sherwin writes:
“I *am* asserting that we need to have different standards for assessment.”
It seems to me it’s this kind of thinking that ultimately leads down the road to the huge disparity in sentencing we see when troubled mothers or fathers kill their children.
When mothers do it they’re: A) troubled/sick B) one of the victims and C) need help not punishment.
When fathers do it they’re A) evil and B) need to be put to death/locked away for life.
No, I disagree. We need one standard, not multiple standards. The personal is political and this mode of thought is what leads to systemic discrimination.
What if I used different words. What if I said, when we apply a better standard of assessment, we get different judgements when we are assessing different contexts?
Here is a really concrete example. Have you heard of the Bechdel Test? Lots of films fail the Bechdel Test. That is crappy for the gender portrayal of women. Because so many films fail the Bechdel test, the accumulative affect is huge. Frequency does matter, because frequency changes the real world impact.
So let’s imagine the male gendered counterpart to the Bechdel Test. We could call it the Bechdel-M Test. If a movie failed the Bechdel-M Test, that would have a different and smaller impact. So we would have less judgement for a movie that failed the Bechdel-M test.
Does this make sense?
It’s not hard to come up with a pro-male test like the Bechdel Test that actually has a more universal rate than the Bechdel Test does. These days most films fail her test.
In fact Warren Farrel came up with such a test himself in the 70s ten years prior to the Bechdel Test being formulated. He stated (in “The Myth of Male Power“) that because women are valued so much higher than men in our society you never see a movie where a woman is killed if she has appeared in at least three scenes. You might see scores of men slaughtered but not women. The exceptions also go to show the value of a woman over a man. Exception 1: the entire movie is dedicated to subject of avenging this woman’s death. Exception 2: it is a horror movie and to be deliberately horrific a woman needs to die because killing of a man is just “meh”.
Now that test has some failures for example the last Sherlock Holmes movie killed off Irene Adler after seeing her in several scenes. But these days most movie’s fail Bechdel. Also a little fiddling and you can easily come up with a modified male test that rarely if ever would fail I think. But still I’d say the older test suggested by Farrel still beats Bechdel easily.
great point. I also remember in that book Farrel pointing to the commercial in which a couple have been shipwrecked on an island. The woman wishes she had coke (or pepsi forget which).
I actually remember this commercial.
The man sees floating on some wreckage the beverage in shark infested waters. The man bravely jumps from wreckage to wreckage narrowly missing a buss-saw shark fin which cuts the wreckage in half to secure the beverage and bring it to the woman.
Farrel pointed out that this commercial works because apparently a man’s life is worth less than………………..a coke.
perhaps is exactly the double standart in the society that create so much violence? I mean if people get treated like human beins and not old rusty stereotypes (men and women) in my opinion, that will solve great deal. Because society and culture dont have anymore excuses to shut you down (you are not a lady, be a man ect) so you can freely be what you like, and freely state how you feel. Withouth people trying to silence you, because you are not conforming to your cultural role.
Im a big fan of equal threatment, thats the ONLY way forward. I know at institutional level there are some work to be done, for both genders, but that doesent mean that at juridically one of the genders should get a free pass or a extra spanking. That is counterproductive because it create imbalance between the genders and therefore in the society.
Part of that has to do with female sexual predation not being recognized prior to about 12 years or so ago. Females sexually exploiting males were not recognized as exploitation (Mrs. Robinson). Should this recognition impact the way the sexual double standard is currently viewed?
Yeah, that’s wrong. It was recognized…just viewed differently. Women being sexual predators was viewed through the lens of women trying to corrupt an innocence.
I think some of it was recognized and viewed differently. The older woman/boy was viewed as corrupting the youth, but more favorably like initiating a boy into manhood. Female adult predation against adult males and female minor predation against male minors was not recognized at all until about 12 years ago.
I remember a discussion on a feminist site that said something along the lines of men are now being raped by women as if that didn’t happen in the past. It would be terrible if that was one of the gender barriers that feminism broke down, but I think it was happening, but just not being recognized.
“I remember a discussion on a feminist site that said something along the lines of men are now being raped by women as if that didn’t happen in the past.”
I remember a discussion on a feminist website saying that trans-women are really men infiltrating womyn-only spaces. My point being you can’t take what is said on a feminist website and then extract that onto other feminists or onto mainstream society.
Anyway, on to the main point, which is the assumption that an older woman corrupting a younger man was actually more like “initiating a boy into manhood.” That’s also not really quite true. A man initiating and going to a prostitute is seen as bringing a boy into manhood. A woman initiating and pursuing a young man is seen as a corruption of the norm.
I’ll grant you it is not framed in the same way as the reverse, certainly. The concept of men as victims of sexual abuse/assault is relatively new in mainstream society. And the cultural narrative is that women are less likely to be sexually predatory. But it does acknowledge it happens and frames it as corruption of innocence.
Really, if somethings not reported to authorities, does that mean it didn’t happen? Because that’s what happened for years in the case of female sexual predetors. Even today when ones caught, charges are usually downgraded to mistameanors. Case in point, a New York City highschool teacher was caught having sex with HER student in a motel in New Jersey (this makes it a Federal case) Since she was Videotaping it and police seized the tape, She pleaded guilty. her sentance , 4 MONTHS PROBATION! Imean, I’d get real jail time if I bought a 6 pack of beer for that kid!
I disagree women predators were and imho still are viewed thru the lens of “women never do anything wrong”.
Why am I supposed to care about this? Why do folks like you think that the ‘why’ matters more than the ‘is’. I don’t care WHY things are the way they are – that doesn’t make and difference when it comes to how they affect me. Only the way things are, the ‘is’ of it, actually affects me.
As a result, this kind of statement comes off a bit like an apologia. As if we aren’t supposed to care about the double standard because of ‘patriarchy’. As if women aren’t perpetuating that double standard, because… patriarchy?.
At some point, I’m left with the impress that some people sling about the word ‘patriarchy’ the way priests swing crosses – like it’s supposed to protect them from all harm, from all criticism, from all opposing or even alternative views.
All it does it make it seem like you don’t actually care.
I don’t know about this one. Aren’t movies where women are stripping/naked/performing for men just about every movie ever? Sure, perhaps the focus isn’t necessarily the female strippers perse (and at least this movie allows these men to be legitimate people) but it is taken for granted that men wouldn’t see a movie about women, plus there’s so much objectified women in movies already that it would probably be boring. Go to a movie store and take a look at the covers – always some naked woman (usually with her head out of frame) placed strategically as the ambiance to the important people (the male characters, and maybe a female love interest)! Nobody freaks out that men are the target audiences and in fact they’re tailored with (het/cis, mostly white) male audiences in mind.
Exactly. Just about every rated R movie or television show I’ve seen always features a strip club with scantily clad women, but you never really see men in all of this–except maybe True Blood, but supernatural creatures tend to be more open about their sexuality in this television show anyway.
What movies might that be? I don’t get to the movies as much as I used to so maybe I missed the ones you’re talkind about. It just seens that every movie lately (especially the Rom-coms like ‘The Vow’) include a gratioustious ‘Sausage Shot’. The movie ‘Wild Things’, although it was provacative and somewhat disturbing ( since the sex was supposly with underage girls) it wasn’t at least graphicly shown. The ONLY graphic scean was Kevin Bacon’s gratiously shown ‘half boner’ in the shower scene( although I still can’t imagine another guy coming up to me in the shower to discuss something)
There are a several, Beverly Hills Cop, From Dusk Till Dawn comes to mind pretty quick. Wasn’t Porky’s a strip club? I can’t remember. A lot of it has to do with the idea that strip clubs are seedy so you’ll see a lot of them in cop type films. Castle actually had a male strip club scene in season 3, kind of a different twist. Maybe I know a bit more about these things than I should.
Bachelor Party had Nick “The Dick” because it was a foot long “and then some” when the bachelorettes went out not that it happens often in rated R films, but it does.
I dont know about that. I see lot of movies, but I admit I rarely see a naked woman in it, or at covers. So I cant say I agree with you. Maybe old 80′s or 70′s movies but right now, nude women they are kinda rare. Unless you are referring to porn movies.
The Blurpo,
Let’s set aside the gender comparison of “how much skin” is showing, for a moment. Do you think women are more regularly sexualized in movies, than men? If so, do you think the amount matters? Does frequency matter?
That depends on how you define sexualized. In 300, the actors had to go through a boot camp to give them the ripped look. You would think that if I went to war I’d want to cover as much as possible with armor. Was this sexualizing the male characters? Stripper is a job just like any other. Do movies that portray female strippers even in the background sexualize women?
Women complain that female super heroines display more of themselves needlessly, but then acknowledge that women have a need in society to look good so the costumes could theoretically be seen as a reflection of reality. Should reflecting reality be seen as sexualizing women?
Colette Wedding:
“I don’t know about this one. Aren’t movies where women are stripping/naked/performing for men just about every movie ever?”
“Go to a movie store and take a look at the covers – always some naked woman (usually with her head out of frame) placed strategically as the ambiance to the important people (the male characters, and maybe a female love interest)!”
OK let us test these hypotheses. Let us go to the internet movie data base site and check their list of the top 250 movies. I propose to start at the top and proceed checking the movies till we get tired of this game. For which percentage of movies your hypotheses will be right?
I love this idea. I would love to see more data on media representations of women in movies or on movie posters or covers, etc. I’ve dabbled in this a little and part of the challenge is setting out clear criteria to start so that another observer would make the same calls. But it would be totally interesting research. This kind of movie review could totally form the basis for quantitative research. Testable hypotheses for the win!
@ Colette Wedding,
“men wouldn’t see a movie about women,”
Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Ultra Violet, Underworld. I’m fairly certain guys saw Erin Brockovitch, A League of Their Own (which I saw), etc.
It depends on the movie.
“but it is taken for granted that men wouldn’t see a movie about women”
I’ve seen PLENTY of movies with women as the lead roles, with their clothes on too. The Help was good, a huge amount of drama movies I can’t remember the name of (I find it hard to remember names of most movies). Please don’t generalize about what men will and won’t watch, especially when discussing a topic of double standards…it’s a bit silly.
Colette writes:
“Aren’t movies where women are stripping/naked/performing for men just about every movie ever?”
I would hypothesize that fuel used to keep men oversexualized is actually beneficial to women and damaging to men.
Men constantly needing approval from women, puts women in the place of power in terms of doling out what men need (or are lead to believe we need).
Look at the post on genderratic “how a flaccid penis can save the world” for more information about how men are prodded to always simply be defined down to an ever-ready to be erect penis (and how it is damaging to men).
In addition, I would counter-point the many images in movies of violence done to me seen as funny. Look at movies like Road Trip in which a woman beats a guy with an aluminum baseball bat for cheating as comedy. The funny part? It was a case of mistaken identity, and he didn’t really cheat. Look at Sharon Osbourne mocking a man on The Talk. His crime? Having been sexually mutilated by his wife.
For every 2 images of female body as titillation (no pun intended) there is 1 image of violence upon men as comedy. Even men being raped is shown as comedy in a good deal of movies.
Men are the targets of 80% of all stranger violence.
So, which would you rather be? A person desired and lusted after and (occasionally) having to deal with crass comments, or the individual who has to have a very real (sometimes) daily worry about getting beat-down by other men?
There is just as much poor crass harmful stereotypes floating around against men. Just because they do not involve objectification of mens bodies does not mean they do not have dramatic drastic affect upon men.
Interesting points. I think I agree with you. Definitely I agree that the portrayal of violent masculinity is too common. That kinda reminds me of Schroeder’s concern for the portrayal of masculinity in her review (even though it wasn’t particularly about men enacting violence).
In other words (in movies at least), it’s not a matter of necessarily reinforcing violent men, but rather all violence against men (by whoever) is funny.
I remember on glenn sacks webpage there was an article which detailed a commercial. It was for the Nevada Water Authority and it wont TBS’s 2006 funniest commercial of the year. An old woman walks up to a house in which 5 or 6 sprinklers are watering the lawn (which is revealed to be a water conservation day). The man answers the door, and the old lady kicks him in the balls. Then the tagline appears: Nevada Water Authority………we’re watching you.
Over and over in movies violence directed against men (by men and women) is shown to be funny up to and including rape. How can this exist in a world of male privilege?
Look, I have no problem with ,as Joanna put it, “110 minute sausage fest”. Go see it, enjoy it, hey, bring you’re vibrators along if you want. Just do me a favor and can the ‘Outrage’ over women being objectified. I’m older than probably all of you so I remember ‘Feminist’ setting up picket lines to protest stores that sold Playboy or Penthouse. Claiming that it was pornography that objectified women. When asked about Playgirl magazine, they had no comment!
How cool is this! I’m about to be ‘Moderated out’ of my own article!
As has been explained, comments can get held for moderation automatically. Just please be patient as us moderators aren’t working 24/7.
Very cool!
What article is that , bobbt?
O.K. , so article isn’t the right word. What is it Blog, Bleep, Tweet, Twirp? Maybe someone more internet ‘savy’ can tell me.
So I tried counting how many men and women are saying this is a double standard (favouring women) vs how many are saying this is just something men have had for a long time.
MenWomen
Double Standard61
Not210
With 12 commentators I couldn’t place for a total of 31 commentators (wow, a lot).
Let me try that again.
Double Standard : 7 of which only one woman.
Not a Double Standard: 12 of which two men.
Whoops, I just noticed that there is some concern about the term ‘patriarchy’. I’m not sure what to say about this. I use it to describe the culture we live in. It’s a well established term in academic circles. I guess I’m interested to hear from folks why they might think it’s offensive?
Here are some links to resources on patriarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy and http://londonfeministnetwork.org.uk/home/patriarchy and bell hooks! http://imaginenoborders.org/pdf/zines/UnderstandingPatriarchy.pdf (PDF)
Well there’s two different words or meanings. If this was a discussion about anthropology I wouldn’t object. So the academic meaning I don’t mind.
But 99% of the time (as here) it is used as part of a discussion on gender. The word is usually used as a prejudicial attack on men. It refers to a conspiracy theory that society is secretly run by men and that men are to blame for the evil in the world. The concept is used to justify sexism against men in a “men have it coming to them anyway so who cares if they get shafted, they deserve it” sort of way. It’s generally a word associated with anti-male sexism and the effect of using it is to cause aggravation and stop people listening to you.
If you didn’t mean that sense of the word then what I would suggest is just to use different words to describe what you mean. That’s a good way to avoid confusion and avoiding jargon is always a good idea anyway. Your reply to Danny was much better, not offensive and clearer too.
Thanks for listening.
Hey David, I’m appreciating this exchange. Thank you for listening too! I think you’re right to say that it’s good to avoid jargon. Sometimes I can get in the habit of using jargon to sound authoritative – which is so bad. The result is that I can sound like a pompous douchebag!
But. And this is a big but. I think it’s important to speak openly about the direction of privilege and power in our culture. And in the context of gender, this has a name…
If talking about that stuff is important then that is all the more reason to avoid words that will cause people to be offended and just switch off. Frankly I would love to have a proper discussion on some of the feminist buzzwords but it is hard because there’s so much anti-male sexist baggage associated with the buzz words and also because there’s often a lot of dogmatism along the lines of “accept everything I say or you hate women”.
It’s impossible to tell if there is any real substance underneath all that.
David, no one’s saying that you hate women if you don’t accept everything. That’s an unrealistic extrapolation. That may be how it FEELS to you, but that is NOT happening on GMP. So leave that argument for the places that people are actually doing that to you.
Kyriarchy tends to be a less volatile term I think. It’s the closest I’ve seen to what society is, I feel patriarchy places way too much emphasis on gender and not enough on class/wealth but I am no expert.
Archy,
Thank you for introducing this term – I’m liking it. I didn’t know what kyriarchy is but the more I read the more I think it’s a cool concept. It appears that it doesn’t contradict or eliminate the term patriarchy. Instead, kyriarchy is an extension of patriarchy, or gender oppressions, with other forms of oppression.
I will definitely start using it more often – I think you’re right to say that it might have some tactical advantages; it seems less likely to draw fire from insecure men or anti-feminist folks. Although if it’s just causing an audience to overlook or ignore one’s analysis of gender oppression, then I don’t know if would help. So, for example, if I start saying kyriarchy but not everyone knows that I think men are generally more privileged than women (holding other forms of oppression equal), than the term might just be obfuscating my beliefs. But in so far as it makes it impossible to be accused of overlooking other forms of oppression, it’s definitely better.
I think it’s good because it allows for more emphasis on class/wealth vs just straight up men have the power. I feel it allows for the seperation between being an average man, and being a wealthy man, the latter having a tonne more power than most men. It’s one thing I see that people dislike about patriarchy, is the male name of it + the lack of emphasis on how much wealth gives privilege. I feel patriarchy is too simple a description for a highly complex system.
You forgot to mention “internalized misogyny”, which is just like regular misogyny, except the “perp” is a woman. With the implication that only men are “really” misogynist, and a woman who expresses misogynist attitudes merely got them from a man or the patriarchy, and is therefore not responsible.
I wish I were making that up.
“Whoops, I just noticed that there is some concern about the term ‘patriarchy’. I’m not sure what to say about this. I use it to describe the culture we live in. It’s a well established term in academic circles. I guess I’m interested to hear from folks why they might think it’s offensive?
Here are some links to resources on patriarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy and http://londonfeministnetwork.org.uk/home/patriarchy and bell hooks! http://imaginenoborders.org/pdf/zines/UnderstandingPatriarchy.pdf (PDF)”
Thanks for the unbiased and credible links. I’ll be sure to check them out to learn more about the patriarchy.
Are you kidding me? You’re saying that it’s OK to say that the word “patriarchy” is offensive but adding “so please don’t use that word” is somehow against the rules? Isn’t that inherent within the concept of what the word “offensive” means?
And why on earth is saying “please don’t use that word” a bad thing anyway? Can you point out what rule that breaks please? I really have no idea whatsoever how that is in breach of the rules.
Right let’s see if I can explain what I think she means. You can talk about why something offends you personally. You can talk about your own, personal perspective and why you think a word is a problem. However, asking someone to not say a specific word is imposing your opinion on someone else. Patriarchy is not commonly understood to be offensive…it is not a slur against an individual or a group of people.
Can you explain to me why you seem to want to use words which you’ve been told are offensive to the people you are talking to? I just don’t understand that. An appropriate response by you would be to say something like,
“OK I didn’t know that some people find that word offensive. I haven’t heard that before. I’ll try to just use a different word or phrase to describe what I mean.”
Which was almost word for word what Sherwin said.
Instead it’s like you WANT to keep saying that word. Why? I honestly would like to know what your motivation is here. I don’t know if here is the best place to talk about it (you can email me if you like) but I would like to know.
We’re trying to communicate and it makes sense to not make each other anxious or upset over something as simple as a word choice don’t you agree?
Right let me try to explain with an analogy. I’m from the U.S. and I live in the U.K. People use the word “fag” as slang for cigarette. Do I freak out? Do I even care? No, because they are not using that word offensively or at all related to the way it can be used offensively.
The word patriarchy was not created as and is not commonly used as a way to demean and/or oppress individuals or a group. Objectively speaking it is not an offensive word. If you (anyone) has had personal experiences with that word being used as a way to attack you, that sucks. If you want to talk about that personal experience, I totally get it.
However, that still doesn’t change the fact that the word is not objectively offensive. Which means that when people are using that word in a way that isn’t an attack (which is frankly, most of the time), it’s important for you (anyone) to recognize that.
I disagree that the word “patriarchy” isn’t often used in a way which demonises men. I know you don’t, but I’ve seen others do it often enough. As to whether it’s “objectively offensive,” I’m not sure exactly how you define that, but I think it’s been mired in enough dirt to become unusable in the way you probably intend it.
This is completely godwinning it but what the heck, it’s a useful (if extreme) comparison: The swastika wasn’t born as a symbol of hatred, the majority of it’s use (clockwise or counterclockwise) has been as a symbol of peace and holiness by various religions across the globe for millenia. But that didn’t stop a decade of extremist use 70 years ago from ruining it for the forseeable future.
“Patriarchy” is similar*. It’s not that it was born as a symbol of anti-male hatred. It’s that a good portion of the “internet feminists” have taken it up as their banner and given it a completely different meaning.
*caveat: Clearly I don’t think internet misandry is in any way comparable to the holocaust, it’s just a particularly good example of the meaning of a symbol being completely changed by the actions of a minority.
Eh…and yet you say it’s more comparable to the swastika, and I say it’s more comparable to the British use of the word fag. I don’t think the hate-driven use of the word is widespread enough to make it comparable to the swastika. Right like…the Nazi’s might have been a minority, but the reason it’s changed the meaning so much is because their use of the symbol has permeated the majority of mainstream culture (precisely because their actions were so horrendous). That doesn’t apply to words like privilege and patriarchy.
Also, for the record, I am not saying that anyone’s personal reactions or feelings about a word are invalid. Everyone feels what they feel, and I am not trying to regulate that in any way. If you want to discuss why you feel a certain way about a word, by all means go for it. But your feelings about a word do not necessarily translate into the real meaning of a word. And by real, I don’t just mean dictionary definition…but also how it is used by wider society.
(That last bit wasn’t directed at you specifically, Peter, just at everyone in this conversation).
I did say it was an extreme comparison, and I was a bit hesitant to use it. :/ The point I was trying to make is that when you use the word “patriarchy” alot of your audiance are going to hear “men are the root of all evil,” which I’m guessing isn’t what you’re trying to get across. Maybe we need new words for this stuff?
The problem with something like kyrarchy, is that it’s not widespread enough for people to understand what is meant. And the thing about the word patriarchy is that it is accurate. I mean, any other word we come up with that becomes widespread to explain the social and political system we have is going to end up being used as an attack. Any word we come up with to explain how some groups in our society benefit and avoid disadvantage just by being in that group (privilege) is going to be used as an attack by some people. Ya know?
I don’t think we need either. There is no conspiracy of powerful rulers keeping one gender in place. Other than institutional discrimination like quota or conscription, there is no need to think of it as a class issue.
Most if not all gender imbalances are down to circumstances, biology and just plain habit coupled with unawareness. Even institutional discrimination is usually a consequence of those habitual residues. The women and children first policy, for example, is not some feminist conspiracy trying to raise women’s value over men. It’s a leftover from times when individual women’s lives were indeed more valuable to the whole society than individual men’s lives.
tl;dr
Describing society as a patriarchy is just as flawed as describing it as a matriarchy.
So you are denying my experience and the experience of other men here. I’ve told you that you are being offensive and you respond by demanding that the word isn’t offensive. Insisting on continuing to offend me.
This is part of what I mean when I ask if you believe men have the right to hold a different view of the world than yours.
You are on a men’s board, about getting men to tell their experience of the world, and men are telling you about their experience, and this word is offensive and you are denying their experience. You are telling men they have no right to have an independent view of the world.
Do you think we’re all LYING when we say that that word is used to attack men? I’m saying the word offends me and you’re telling me I’m wrong? How can I be wrong? I’m telling you what the word means to ME and you’re saying I don’t know my own mind?
I am man. I am not you. I have my own view of the world. It’s not your view. I have a right to have my own view and it isn’t yours. Do you accept this? Do you really understand and accept it?
Okay, let’s see if I can explain this. I am NOT denying your personal feelings or experience. I am saying that your personal experience doesn’t create a mainstream interpretation of words like privilege and patriarchy. I tried to explain with the analogy to the British use of “fag,” that the CONTEXT of a word is important.
You feel the word patriarchy is offensive…personally. That’s valid. I acknowledge that is valid. But that is a PERSONAL feeling that is not based on the common understanding of what the word patriarchy means.
I agree, at personal level, I dont see any problem in recon the negatives that word imposes you. But you should also be aware that not everybody shares the feelings as you, and for the most people its actually harmless. But I do agree with you on the political use by some feminist faction. Thats immoral!
I don’t think I agree with the fag / cigarette analogy or the swastika. They are both too far removed from comparable.
In the first example Heather, you are walking into a foreign culture and (if you voiced resentment) would be imposing your view on a totally normal and harmless word. Crossing cultures makes you an island of decent against normal behavior. That’s not a far analogy to the P word. Many many feminists have tainted the word patriarchy and turned it into a (possible) smear against men.
In the other example, the swastika has been too widely marked as negative for there to be anybody who would argue otherwise. So a person who tried to argue their use of the swastika was neutral would again be trying to impart his/her world view on others.
I think a much better example would be this. Imagine you were talking to a mother who had retired or taken a long leave of absence from work to raise children.
Let’s suppose that you asked her how the “mommy track” was going. That word is much closer to patriarchy as it has very real loaded connotations in which it could readily be seen as negative or neutral.
What if she asked you not to use that word? Would you then forcibly continue to use it in the conversation while affirming your right to do so because the dictionary definition of that term is not negative?
Or would you acquiesce? In my opinion this is a much closer analogy, because mommy track REALLY DOES carry possibly loaded connotations that are negative (I would say about the same or similar odds as patriarchy).
And claiming it would be for you to decide (rather than the listener) well, that just seems kinda rude.
Actually, I never said I wouldn’t use the term ‘patriarchy’. I actually think I have a duty to.
Sherwin: Carole Pateman is a feminist scholar who wrote extensively on the concept of patriarchy from a feminist point of view.
One of her notable quotes on the subject is from her book: The Sexual Contract
“The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection.”
The above is the standard feminist meaning of the word patriarchy. Under this meaning, the construction is erected by class men and its intent and impact is to subjugate women.
Carole Pateman focuses in on the philosophy of Locke and Hobbes (British white philosophers) and their concept of the social contract, and then goes on to rebuke contract theory as being created by men at the exclusion of women and hence invalid.
Given this backdrop from a notable feminist theorist on the concept of patriarchy, does this mesh with your current beliefs as well?
Does the powerhouse of China fall into the same feminist patriarchy understanding? I note it is usually marked as benefit to the white man.
Sherwin: Carole Pateman is a feminist scholar who wrote extensively on the concept of patriarchy from a feminist point of view.
One of her notable quotes on the subject is from her book: The Sexual Contract
“The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection.”
The above is the standard feminist meaning of the word patriarchy. Under this meaning, the construction is erected by class men and its intent and impact is to subjugate women.
Carole Pateman focuses in on the philosophy of Locke and Hobbes (British white philosophers) and their concept of the social contract, and then goes on to rebuke contract theory as being created by men at the exclusion of women and hence invalid.
Given this backdrop from a notable feminist theorist on the concept of patriarchy, does this mesh with your current beliefs as well?
Does the powerhouse of China fall into the same feminist patriarchy understanding? I note it is usually marked as benefit to the white man.
No, I haven’t read Carole Patemen, so I want to be cautious about how I respond. My first reaction is that at least that brief definition (I’m not willing to concede that it’s the standard feminist meaning) seems better than the dictionary definition that was posted earlier. Nor have I read very much of Locke and Hobbes.
“The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection.”
Good then Sherwin – we now agree on a working feminist definition of the word.
What remains perplexing is that this system of oppression and subjugation seems to be managed by an incompetent class of oppressors – possibly ex- Enron management.
When you objectively review the “impacts” (as you like to do) of the patriarchal system, you cannot help but honor the amazing benefits bestowed on society over the last several thousand years: patriarchal medicine, agriculture, science, technology, freedoms, human rights etc. No other movement has done more to liberate women and children than the patriarchy!
Under the hospices of patriarchy – the world is more peaceful than ever before, its population is healthier and lives longer than ever before, diseases are being continuously attacked on every front, education and literacy (young boys still not being fully served by the patriarchy) is increasing across every sphere, religious tendencies are waning across the board – our biggest problem is that under patriarchy we’ve become too successful as a species. Is the patriarchy perfect? Not by a long shot. It continuously bangs its head against human greed and selfishness, but there is no question, to anyone that reviews history objectively, that patriarchy has been a positive life force for the human species – it even gave birth to the feminist movement!
Hah, Patriarchy is often used as a slur against men. The original definition is fine but that doesn’t mean it’s not used as a weapon, a slur, a silencer, etc. It’s also a trigger word or close to it, you can see that plain as day anytime it’s used on this site and the reaction to it.
“Right let’s see if I can explain what I think she means. You can talk about why something offends you personally. You can talk about your own, personal perspective and why you think a word is a problem. However, asking someone to not say a specific word is imposing your opinion on someone else. Patriarchy is not commonly understood to be offensive…it is not a slur against an individual or a group of people.”
FAIL. The standard for offensiveness is not the intent of the speaker but the way the listener takes it. do you somehow think there is any non-offensive way to use “nigger” depending on what the speaker says she means? And it certainly not a woman’s call whether or not “patriarchy” is “commonly understood to be offensive”. I as a man often wonder why women get so het up about the word “bitch”, when it so objectively describes a range of related behaviors.
Second, it signifies nothing if some straight woman does not “freak out” at the use of the word fag. In fact it is quite to be expected, given how often straight women use gay-bashing to control men and indulge in other forms of homophobia.
Here’s a test for you, since you live in the UK. Are you similarly indifferent when someone calls somoene, you for instance, a “cunt” to mean a stupid person? Because that is British usage. Do you also find that “cunt” is not “objectively offensive”?
“The word patriarchy was not created as and is not commonly used as a way to demean and/or oppress individuals or a group. Objectively speaking it is not an offensive word.”
If you don’t see how a word denoting fatherhood but sed to name a system of oppression is offensive, there is not much pint in explaining it to you. The word is objectively misandrist. It’s telling that you do not find that offensive.
Patriarchy does not denote fatherhood.
Nah, you’re right, it only denotes male leadership of a family with children…yep no father there. /sarcasm
That’s not what it denotes either.
I understand and I agree that one should not control language. However, using words like the patriarchy makes it very difficult to reach common ground and discuss anything. It gives women the moral high ground while implicitly accusing men. It’s like a universal trump card.
I’m not surprised many people are so comfortable hanging on to the word given how much leverage it gives them.
By all means go on using it, but you cannot reconcile that with the goal to find mutual empathy and open discussion.
In a comment above you say:
“It also has the effect of clearing women from any chance of being held responsible for anything that happens.”
But here you say:
“It gives women the moral high ground…”
If the first sentence is true, women aren’t treated as adults, not being seen as responsible for anything, but then the moral high ground in the second sentence is quite useless, as it is the moral high ground of a toddler.
my comment above was directed at Diesirae..
O.K., here’s my final word on this (hopefully it doesn’t get ‘moderated out’). Joanna describes this movie as “A 110 minute sausage fest” . It’s poorly written plot wise, the acting isn’t all that great, but it does have lots of ‘Beefcake’ (Which is the reason youall went to see it anyway). And to that I say, enjoy yourself, have a great tiime! But PLEASE, lose the double standard! If you want to ‘gaze’ at the pecs, abs, and yes , the ‘bannana hammocks’, go for it! Actually, I read that this movie cost something like 7 million to make. It did something like almost 37 million in it’s first weekend! Since the ‘Money People’ in hollywood LOVE this kind of profit margine, expect lots of sequels! Each one pushing the envelope further( Who knows, by ‘Magic Mike IV, the ‘hammocks might dissappear altogeather!)
For the record, I also think that “gyno-centric press” is wrong.
Where is this gyno-centric press? http://www.4thestate.net/female-voices-in-media-infographic/
I’m reading between the lines, but I’m guessing “gynocentric” in this instance was referring more to the media’s portrayal of men and women than whether the media consists of men and women.
Hey Peter. That’s a plausible reading. Do you think the media puts women in the centre in their portrayal of men and women? Do you think the media is “gynocentric?”
On social issues, a million times yes. War on women, the worry over women’s rights etc far far outweighs the worry over men.
I think though this was meaning the parts of media that were gyno-centric vs all press is gyno-centric?
So let me get this straight. You think that the mainstream media, which is mostly made by men, and is mostly men talking, writing and editorializing, is women-centered. Interesting. I don’t buy it.
Not all media, I said social issues such as domestic violence, hell any “rights” based media. There is plenty of male-centric media however the rights or issues of men are rarely discussed. I see at least 10-100x more said on women then men in media for anythign to do with major social issues. Hell take a look at afghanistan n how much is said about how terrible it is for women, yet the lack of discussion around the men who have to toe the line or face serious reprisal. Take a look at the discussion of rape n abuse, the CDC stats recently showed a massive increase in female perpetration yet there was nearly 100% silence on that. Not a single major news website or news program said in a 12 month period that men n women were raped at similar rates and that most sexual abuse of men was by females.
“You think that the mainstream media, which is mostly made by men, and is mostly men talking, writing and editorializing, is women-centered. Interesting. I don’t buy it.”
Part of it is. Just because men have power doesn’t mean everything is about the men, this is the most common thing I see many feminists fail to understand. It’s simple, not all men help men. The CONTENT matters. What are those men talkign about, discussing when it comes to social issues? Sure as hell isn’t men in most cases. On my local media in Australia I’ve never ever seen male victims of sexual abuse mentioned of female perpetrators, mostly if anything it’s child sexual abuse by priests/teachers/etc mentioned. We have the white ribbon campaign here in Aus that got quite a bit of media yet the oneinthree.com.au campaign I haven’t even seen a single thing in news papers, tv, etc here.
So let me get this straight, you think the mainstream media for social issues isn’t gynocentric? When the majority of topics on social issues revolve around women? Interesting. Maybe we should merge our worlds to bring in an equal media presence for both genders?
Now if you mean ALL media, yeah I see men in the majority of positions, tv shows, movies etc. I’d say the gender gap in ALL media is reducing though, I’m noticing more n more female characters in movies for example who are more than just eyecandy.
Yep, in some areas (one of which is victimhood) female is very much the default.
Huh. Maybe I’m still misunderstanding you. Is the fact that victimhood is a “female” media issue a good thing for women, on your view? Like, when I hear you say that the media is women-centered, I think that you mean it’s too much about women and overlooks mens interests. That seems to be the implication in bobbt’s comment.
That’s part of what I’m saying. TOO MUCH of one and not enough of the other will create a bias in peoples minds and often it’s a bias of man = perpetrator, woman = victim. This is ultra extremely toxic to the fight against abuse because it allows a large portion, up to 1/2 of abuse to go without much notice. There is often a justification of ignoring the issues men face because “men have power” “women’s issues were overlooked for 1000′s of years”, etc, and quite frankly I am surprised even by major anti-violence campaigns that turn a non-gendered problem into a gendered problem. Hence why people talk about females and victimhood, it’s really as if some want women to own victim status and men aren’t allowed to.
Without looking at the issues boys and men face we simply allow shit to go on unnoticed, uncared for and those issues grow to become a huge problem yet we focus sooo much of our time n resources on helping women that our society see’s women as worse off to the point that it acts like men have no issues to deal with. For example, the rate of sexual abuse from stats I’ve seen has gone from men being abused very little (that we know of), to men being abused near equal amount that women are, yet where is the outrage? Imagine that, the rate of abuse of one gender goes from fuck all to extremely high whilst the other remained high, during a time of campaigning against rape n sexual abuse. How the fuck did our society let that happen? Especially if media is run by men as you say. Maybe that goes to show men don’t always act in men’s best interests?
Sherwin: Actually that link you posted is a PERFECT example of gynocentric media. They are only discussing womens issues.
False. By that twisted reasoning, any analysis that demonstrates a male bias in media will be gynocentric on your view.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
IMHO a really good explanation of privilege except the author left out the single most important factor when determining how ‘easy’ life is and within his analogy of World of Warcraft. How much money you have OR in the game of real life, what CLASS you belong to. Because IMHO a POOR straight white male is going to have a much harder time in real life than a rich anything. That is the biggest problem I have with the concept of so-called male privilege, if you throw race/class into the mix it pretty much wipes out everything else so for example imho, a black male is MUCH MUCH MUCH less privledged than a white female and IMHO this negates the MALE priv because if male priv actually existed changing race/class wouldn’t negate it because it is a priv for being male.
Not to mention that privilege isn’t really a numeric value. For instance a rich-straight-white-male with cerebral palsy might have little difficulty obtaining food or shelter but significant difficulty socialising or interacting with society in other ways. The “difficulty setting” allegory is ridiculously simplistic.
AMD, and Peter Houlihan,
So we all agree that there are many intersecting dimensions of privilege and oppression, and that it can be very complicated and contextual. But can’t we hold variables constant in our comparisons? And if we do, won’t we find that men, by and large and in the long run, have a systemic advantage, albeit sometimes subtle, over women?
Sherwin:
I’m not convinced by your argument that men have edged women out. As has been shown you are so ill versed in the ways that men are harmed that I don’t know why I should trust your conclusions.
You seem to be operating on a belief system basis more than evidence.
Sherwin: Carole Pateman is a feminist scholar who wrote extensively on the concept of patriarchy from a feminist point of view.
One of her notable quotes on the subject is from her book: The Sexual Contract
“The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection.”
The above is the standard feminist meaning of the word patriarchy. Under this meaning, the construction is erected by class men and its intent and impact is to subjugate women.
Carole Pateman focuses in on the philosophy of Locke and Hobbes (British white philosophers) and their concept of the social contract, and then goes on to rebuke contract theory as being created by men at the exclusion of women and hence invalid.
Given this backdrop from a notable feminist theorist on the concept of patriarchy, does this mesh with your current beliefs as well?
Also, is this primarily a “white man” benefit thing and if so, where does China fit into this model?
Wow, I’ve been reading through the comments and I’m really getting that “patriarchy” is inflammatory for folks. That’s interesting to me. I appreciate that lots of people have been trying in different ways to say why. And it’s definitely helping me to understand some of the range of public sentiment around the word.
One concern I have is that some folks are underestimating it’s value in academic research – not just anthropology. For example, if you do a google scholar search for “patriarchy in America, economic theory” you get thousands of hits. Same, if you do a google scholar search for “patriarchy in America, sociology.”
As for dictionary definitions, check out Wiktionary and Cambridge. Not that I would back away from an argument on the basis of a dictionary.
But also, check out some bell hooks quotes with “patriarchy” in them. She is so awesome.
I guess another concern I have is that there is a kind of “nasty feminist” trope that is floating about. It’s used as a kind of bogeyman to scare us away from using, on my view, important ideas that have their root in feminism. I’m an aspiring feminist, but am I so mean? I say “patriarchy”, but is that so demonizing? I want to acknowledge power gradients in the context of gender. I guess I’ll reflect further on why giving up on the term seems so hard for me.
The reason I do not give up the term is because of all the work you cited in which the term was used descriptively and usefully. RadFemHub types have hijacked it and use it (and other terms like privilege) as a way to attack people. That doesn’t indicate a problem with the term itself, but with the way some people are using it.
Um, I just went and checked out RadFemHub and I should disclose that, from the little I read and scanned, I think I’m kinda sympathetic to their messaging. That might put me at odds somewhat with what goes on here. But I like this Good Men Project and I’ve very much enjoyed this vigorous discussion. These are such hard issues to talk about and compared to other online venues the discussion here has been admirably earnest and heartfelt. So awesome to meet you all.
Alright well that’s something of a problem. First, and foremost, RadFemHub is transphobic…I mean really transphobic. They don’t even recognize that trans-women are actually women. That’s bad.
For this discussion what’s relevant is that a lot of their opinions are pretty damn man-hating. They do use words like “privilege” and “patriarchy” as a source of attack and hatred against men. One of the women there has a site in which one of the graphics talks about how “consent culture” is actually part of the patriarchy. The routinely suggest that trans* individuals are part of the patriarchy. It’s not good. It’s also quite extreme.
By all means you can have your opinions…but I would suggest before voicing support for RadFemHub you thoroughly read through their site.
Oh. You called it. I went back and read more and there are definitely some problematic claims being made. So interesting! I had no idea that particular strain of transphobia existed. Although they do seem to be making some advances around this issue. There is a video on their lead article where Julie Bindel speaks at length about trans issues and reflects on her mistakes, apologies and new thoughts about trans issues.
The problem with the ‘social’ definition (as I have heard some call it) of patriarchy is that they are essentially making up the definition as they go along and instead of creating a new word, they found a “nice old bad word’ and attached it to that and in essence attached the historical context to it as well. That is bad faith imho.
And if a gay man went to see the movie, would that be “sleazy” because he’s male or would it be “good clean fun” because he’s looking at men?
One lame part of such gendered double standards is that they break down quickly when you expose them to sunlight. Or logic.
@Heather: I take your point about kyriarchy being relatively unknown. But that’s a strength, there’s an opportunity to define the word in such a way that it excludes notions of absolute culpability of any one group. I can’t see the word “patriarchy” being redeemed or cleaned up.
@Peter. Even “kyriarchy” is tainted by it’s association with feminism. It’s just not a very useful concept anyway. I mean if you want to know who runs a country it’s not rocket science. It’s the rich. It’s not “white men” and it’s not “the abled” or heterosexuals. It’s the rich. And the rich come in equal numbers of men and women, because rich men marry young and leave money to their widows. And rich people have equal numbers of sons and daughters.
Kyriarchy even minus the taint of feminism would be a silly theory that stands opposed to class warfare. In that respect it’s a conservative idea that tends to divide the workers against each other in a sort of Oppression Olympics way.
David, even if you’re right, rich folks are more likely to be able bodied, heterosexual, upper class, white men. That’s not rocket science either.
And where can I read about kyriarchy being opposed to class consciousness? It seems to me that workers will be better organizers if they have an understanding of different kinds of power and oppression.
Again this is negatively stereotyping minority groups and then using that stereotype to attack them. Let’s take the gender example which was the one you got wrong of course. Most of the rich are women, not men (not much difference but women are the majority of society as a whole and women tend to live longer and inherit their husbands wealth especially as wives tend to be younger, sometimes a lot younger).
Btw whenever someone goes on about how many congressmen are male ask how many of the spouses of congressmen are female.
Your logic here says that because most rich people are women, therefore women must be rich. That’s faulty logic brought about by stereotyping. You might just as well argue that because most rich people are right-handed that shows that right-handed people are rich.
I could be wrong about this, but most of the rich are not women. Show me some evidence.
I think there was a source in The Myth of Male Power. You ought to read a copy. How about you show some evidence btw? Since it is your claim that men have the money.
I just absolutely reject that anyone on this thread, who is actually espousing the use of the concept of patriarchy, myself included, thinks that patriarchy is absolute or total or the only social just issue. It’s a little frustrating, for me, to read these four recurring unsound arguments over and over again:
failed argument number one (strawman)
premise: patriarchy = x
premise: x is not real
conclusion: therefore patriarchy is not real
failed argument number two
premise: patriarchy is not the only issue
premise: if patriarchy was real, it would be the only issue
conclusion: therefore patriarchy is not real
failed argument number three
premise: if patriarchy was real, nothing good could ever have happened
premise: some good things have happened
conclusion: therefore patriarchy can’t be real
failed argument number four
premise: if male privilege was real, I would not experience other forms of oppresion
premise: I experience other forms of oppression
conclusion: therefore male privilege is not real
Sherwin,
You start your statement that people are using strawmen arguments by attributing to you a definition of patriarchy you never stated, then arguing against that for the “win”.
There is no conjecture necessary. You stated up thread:
“I think it makes sense because of the direction that power and privilege flow in terms how folks are racialized. So men generally have a responsibility for the impacts that men have on women, because of the directionality of power.”
You state that power flows from women to men. You seem to be specifically stating that if one were able to weight in a totally objective way the aggregate privilege of men and women it would be men who are indeed the winners.
In my experience people can only come to this view by either being deceived into or brazenly dismissing millions of mens tales of disposability, marginalization, and disenfranchisement.
I believe the truth to be that it comes out much closer to a wash for the two genders. What you call patriarchy (i.e. “So men generally have a responsibility for the impacts that men have on women, because of the directionality of power.” Because power flows from women to men) I would call gender norms.
I don’t know anything about you, but it seems to me that those who adopt this worldivew don’t really know much about the day to day lives of blue-collar or black men and base their view upon the tiny percentage of 1% of the men who make up the elite.
http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/men-died-for-something-as-ephemeral-as-speeding-up-world-trade/
The simple truth is that men have been shackled to their gender role in just as real ways as women. You just have to be willing to look.
Okay I’ve been popping in and out of this conversation, and I’ve mostly been out for the last couple of days…but I’d like to add a quote about patriarchy and feminism by bell hooks from the article Sherwin linked to:
So keeping in mind I haven’t been keeping up with what Sherwin has been saying…here’s my thought…patriarchy is descriptive of a system (well, set of systems) which normalize the idea that the people in power are men, whether that’s in a household or running a country. It normalizes the idea that men’s roles are more highly valued than women’s roles (by being monetized and by the fact that women are denied access to those roles). So via a lot of hard work patriarchy has become less normalized in modern western society…but it’s still here.
It’s not quite “all comes out in a wash,” though.
How would you test if a society is patriarchal and what would be minimal requirements for the hypothesis “this society is patriarchal” to be considered falsified?
Good question! I do think it’s falsifiable, although I’m not sure I would know where to start laying out the criteria. It would be a huge project – I wonder if anyone has taken this up?
Sherwin,
it shouldn’t be a good question, but one with an easy answer. If you don’t know the criteria, then you don’t know what the sentence “This society is patriarchal” means.
If there are no known criteria the discussions about patriarchy become unproductive;
people are just stating the facts, that support their position and claim, that those facts, that support the other position, are not important.
Because of all this ignorance, I think one should abstain from vague terms like patriarchy.
It kind of reminds me when Thaddeus actually asked for a definition from Hugo Shwyzer when he used a term Hegemonic Masclulinity.
Hugo never did answer the question.
http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2011/03/14/monday-link-love/
If you can’t prove that we’ve egalitated past patriarchy and male privilege, then how do you know you’re not falsely advocating warring against something that has been put to bed? (Sherwin and Heather)
I would suppose the first answer to pop into most people’s minds would be: Because I can still see the evidence of it. And that’s where things get tricky.
Because here we see that not only is patriarchy and male privilege not able to be proved falsifiable, but that the actual tools to measure it are probably broken because those who say it is still here are most likely going to bring their own biases to the table.
Look at discussion of the wage gap. Most feminist groups like NOW and AAUW stated that women made 76cents on the dollar to what men do (and alluded to it was discrimination).
This was arrived at by creating an average wage for men and comparing it to the average wage of women from census data. But this tactic doesn’t even take into account hours worked or any personal decisions.
Studies now show that the vast majority of the pay gap isn’t due to discrimination, but men and women’s different work/life balance choices. Even now, many feminists will say that this is still a subtle form of discrimination because women are socialized into being with their children.
But, how is this only discrimination against women? Aren’t men also socialized into providing material wealth to women, so that she can have the same access to the money he earns, while filling her life with many more leisure hours, and much more control over her life?
Using this definition, roman slaves were the oppressors in Roman society!
Men are 95% of on-the-job deaths. Men die 7 years earlier, and of non-gendered body systems get cancer 50% more often. The go-to theory is that this is due to stress of the provider role.
When you stop measuring work/life balance oppression in *only* dollars, it can be shown that men are the big time losers in this equation and they do so *happily* to give their families a better shot at success.
Not only are the terms male privilege and patriarchy harmful smears and silencing techniques, not only are the definitions unprovable theories, but people who defend them are using a huge dose of confirmation bias to only select the anecdotal societal evidence they want and exclude mountains of anecdotal societal evidence they don’t want.
You can only believe men are privileged when you wash out reams of evidence and stories of male disposability, self-sacrifice, and disenfranchisement.
John D,
Why are you repeating statistics that I’ve already shown to be false? You need to defend your claims, or accept the links to the evidence that I provided.
Seriously frustrating.
You’re right Sherwin. Arguing against opinions is *very frustrating*. I feel your pain, as I feel that is what I have been doing this entire time. I must have missed your link.
I’m assuming you are referring to the wage gap? If you were not referring to the wage gap, I’m guessing you will still find this information interesting.
In the spirit of good faith, here is some of the evidence I have collected on wage gap studies.
ht tp://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.ht ml
women outearning men
ht tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6622521/Harriet-Harmans-costly-Equality-Bill-wont-do-anything-for-women.ht ml
UK wage gap also caused by women’s choices
ht tp://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pd f
The largest ever analysis of the wage gaps shows that the
actual gap due to not attributable to women’s choices is at most a few
percentage points. The analysis also shows that, if a more detailed report were
done analyzing whether women more often took non-pay compensation (like health
care or daycare) the portion of the gender gap that cannot be explained by
women’s choices might well be zero.
ht tp://www.freakonomics.com/2008/05/01/robert-reich-answers-your-labor-questions/
Even former sec of labor (under Clinton) Robert Reich states
that the pay gap attributable to direct gender discrimination is at most 5%.
ht tp://www.abajournal.com/weekly/many_women_lawyers_with_kids_do_as_well_as_the_men_researcher_says
This study by the American Bar on University of Michigan law
school grads find it’s not gender, but an attorney’s willingness to put their
job first which determines pay.
ht tp://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/ec483/katz.pdf
This study was done on the MBA graduates at the University
of Chicago. It shows gender does not hold women back. Only the choices of
individuals does. Women tend to take more career interruptions and work shorter
hours.
ht tp://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.ht ml
Here is a Time article which quotes a 2004 Women’s Policy
Research 15year study of college grads. It shows 52% of women go through at
least one full calendar year with no earnings compared with 16% of men. Fewer
than half of women had earnings in all 15 years compared with 84% of men. One
third of women had no earnings in 4 years compared with 5% of men.
ht tp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031702941.ht ml
Here is an article in which the author nails it in terms of
describing the way we have ignored men’s issues in the constant call to better
women’s standing (without any regard to see if men were doing bad too).
ht tp://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/07/us-boardroom-women-idUSN0752118220071107?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Here is a Reuters story regarding a study of 25,000
corporate bosses stating female CEO’s out-earn male CEO’s despite being an 8 to
1 minority. This article was not picked up in any U.S. news organizations.
ht tp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101026111731.ht m
Here is an article which reports on several studies on girls
and women in STEM fields. These studies show there is no gender discrimination
of any kind. (Links to the study to the right of the article)
ht tp://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/05/us-work-couples-productivity-idUSTRE6744A620100805
New study blasts theory women do more work for the household.
ht tp://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/mothers-hanker-for-husbands-of-wealth/story-fn6t2xlc-1225985339082
This article on twin studies of mothers in UK and Australia
state that “if finances permitted, most would choose to be full-time mothers”. In other words, what many feminists determine to be a
forced oppression, many women think being a SAHM to be a treasure.
Jeremy Adam Smith states in his book “Daddy Shift”””Studies consistently show that 80 percent to 90 percent of
mothers still expect fathers to serve as primary breadwinners (and very few
will consider supporting a stay-at-home dad). At work, only 7 percent of
American men have access to paid parental leave, among other structural
limitations.”
ht tp://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7088747&page=1#.TxRL328S0SI
IN this story, a mom who becomes breadwinner, feels
disrespect for her husband taking on the mother’s role. If the caring role is the LARGER sacrifice in families, then why did she lose respect for her husband? Shouldn’t she be PROUD of him?
ht tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3318366/Wealth-is-key-for-marriage-study-claims.ht ml
According to this study, women place a premium on men’s
wealth.
ht tp://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/atus_09202005.pd f
Here is the 2004 Bureau of Labor Statistics American Time
Use Survey. When all domestic work and paid work is compared men and women work
equal hours.
Broken links at start and end to evade spam blocker. It really is about women’s choices, not about managers hating women.
This comment is a follow-up to a much longer comment I made to you Sherwin displaying proof that the wage gap is mostly an anti-male bogeyman and not about anti-female discrimination.
I didn’t want to reply to myself, because when I do that the comment gets disconnected and ends up at the bottom of the page.
My point is this. If feminist theorists can take men and women’s life/balance choices and so horribly distort who is being oppressed, then why should I have any faith in your “evidence” which amounts to little more than your own subjectivism?
In my above wage gap point and my point about the inability to express the exploitation of male workers as gender oppression (in lieu of class and race oppression), then those who state they have the answers and seem to have all the knowledge about gender and power dynamics are simply selling us more misinformation and more oppression (because if you have the information wrong, then your solutions will also be wrong–and will end up harming those who’s oppression you ignore).
If I were to write a headline regarding the work/life balance choices men and women make it would be: “Men work in worse conditions, longer hours, away from home, and die on-the-job 95% of the time and sacrifice control over their own lives, to offer women more leisure hours and greater control over their own lives”.
But instead the pundits who claim to know it all state: “Wage gap unfairly impacts women.”
If those who have doctorates in gender studies can soooooo mischaracterize a loving sacrifice of men for women, then they are selling us a false bill of good. In addition, I would definitely fear any of their “solutions” to societal ills as they can’t even get identification of oppression right, despite spending lots of time, money and energy on it.
Men are not women’s oppressors, we are women’s emancipators.
Agree and disagree. If you require me to lay out the criteria for falsification for any term I use, I would probably balk. I’m not sure that’s a fair standard for online conversation. I haven’t demanded that you provide criteria of falsification for “falsifiable”, for example.
I do think that falsifiability is important. And I do think it’s possible to do this for “patriarchy.” Just because I don’t want to do this, doesn’t mean it can’t be done, or that I don’t know what it means. I reject that.
I do get that you think that “patriarchy” is vague, which is why I’ve linked to multiple sources that both give descriptions and definitions and that make use of the idea in their peer reviewed publications, in, for example, economics and psychology. Do you want me to provide them again? I would be happy to do that for you.
I also have expressed gratitude and an interest in your preferred term, kyriarchy, which is a term, invented by a feminist, to elaborate on, not replace, “patriarchy”.
But I also take the criteria that you have demanded seriously. so I’m happy to brainstorm a partial and overlapping list of measurable criteria. You could add to it if you want. Just to be clear, this is not total or final. It’s a brainstorm, offered in good faith, because I don’t want you to think I’m not interested in evidence or research.
- health indicators
- quality of life indicators
- access to wealth and wage data
- rates of sexualized violence
- rates of partner violence
- other rates of violence
- life expectency
- interpersonal power dynamics i.e. conversational data
- receiver/giver rates of threats
- financial abuse rates
- access to education
- access to meaningful work
- literacy rates
- membership in leadership positions
- gender analysis of public office
- household spending and financial decision making rates
- work that goes unpaid
- suicide rates
- diversity of gender role representations in media
A lot of that list was just overlapping. I didn’t see anything on the list where women had less power and most things women had more.
Women definitely do better on health (including longevity), education (including literacy but that’s basically the same) and money which together are the usual calculation for quality of life used by the UN. Women do way better on violence (there’s no point listing separate crimes separately, but as it happens they’re raped less than men too), and although I’ve never seen any data on “threats” I assume its in the same proportion to actual attacks. Suicide really ought to come under health since it is NOT a reliable indicator of quality of life (but obviously women are ahead there too). Men do less unpaid work as women (but men’s is ignored) and average slightly more work than women do in total, and the work men do is not only less balanced than women between paid and unpaid, but generally more likely to be shitty work, dangerous work or immoral work, and less likely to be self-fulfilling or creative.
That leaves only the vague rather unimportant stuff you presumably threw in there to try and get something on your side of things.
“interpersonal power dynamics i.e. conversational data” there’s nothing to suggest that when women decide to talk less that means they have less power. A lot of times it could mean the reverse.
“financial abuse rates” – what does that mean? Do you mean things like the way men have to pay CS while women often get on government programs that men cannot get on?
“membership in leadership positions” It may be that women can get into leadership positions more easily than men can but since they rarely try because it’s not a good job, why is this considered a position of power? Regardless 99.9% of both men and women are not leaders so I find the question irrelevant to a comparison of regular men and women.
“gender analysis of public office” – sounds like the one above except add in that men are often banned from voting in the USA leading to 2 million more female voters.
“diversity of gender role representations in media” – another “who cares” issue really and far too subjective to measure but certainly men are treated a lot worse than women I’d say. Well for example the movie we’re discussing.
If you think that some of this is vague and unimportant then I understand why you don’t understand male privilege.
Like what? What’s the worst thing you think I called unimportant? Most of it was so vague I couldn’t really tell what you meant. What can you possibly come up with that even remotely compares with the major issues facing men today in the USA?
Man: my kids are being taken from me
Woman: well so what? I think women are being shown in an unfavorable light on TV. That’s far more important.
Get serious.
Sherwin,
David didn’t express a sentiment that he found the things unimportant, he rebutted your points and showed how many of the things on your list actually hurts men in very real very measurable ways equal or more than women.
Rather than just dismissing his rebuttal as expressing an opinion, I think things would progress a lot more if you were to debate his ideas, rather than dismissing his idea as a complaint or sentiment.
If you really believe those societal issues affect women more, and believe evidence is on your side, then displaying it in a convincing way should be a walk in the park.
If you don’t see anything on this list where women are systemically disadvantaged, that’s a problem. Here’s a link the US census bureau: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html
Some of the data you will find here will substantiate some of the claims that have been made about, for example, the number of men in jail in the US. I find this appalling, by the way.
But some of the data here will make it obvious that women are worse off in some obvious contexts, like for example, rape and intimate partner violence.
But those figures are not based on surveys they are crime stats. That means they don’t even try to measure the actual rates of the incidents but only those reported. They actual measure discrimination against men by proving that crimes are taken far more seriously when they happen to a woman. Your stats only show discrimination against men.
Look at the survey data and you will see men are raped more often than women and are victims of DV at about the same rates. Despite this as you point out ironically, the huge amount of discrimination means male victims are virtually ignored.
Besides which all this is completely irrelevant (but always raised by feminists anyway) because we know that men are victims of crime as a whole far more than women are. There is simply no reason to break out specific violent crime as a subset. No reason of course except ideology. I already made that point in the comment you replied to and yet you did not address it.
Sherwin,
In the 60′s women who were beaten by a loved one were too ashamed to come forward. Feminists fought for these women, by convincing those in government to execute anonymous phone surveys to get at the truth.
And that truth was shocking. To me, it seems a step backwards for those who profess to know all about gender dynamics to want to go back to crime stats.
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
This 2010 IPV survey from the CDC is very interesting. On page 42 and 43 the following “last 12 months” incidence for sexual violence are:
(title, female, %, est number of victims, male, %, est victims):
Rape: (F): .6%; 686,000 (M): .5%, 586,000
Sexual coercion: (F): 1.7%; 1,978,000 (M): 1.0%; 1,143,000
Unwanted sexual contact: (F): .5%; 645,000 (M): .9%; 1,031,000
non-contact unwanted sexual exp: (F): .7%; 836,000 (M): .8%, 882,000
As you can see the rates are very similar. The only free license is that I have taken the CDC’s “made to penetrate” and included it as rape for men. When we use that definition (which as a noble society concerned about unwanted sexual contact we should) men being raped by forced envelopment are 46% of all rapes.
The following pages on violence turn out to be fairly identical between the sexes.
If you look at page 46 on psychological aggression almost 50% more men report psychological aggression in the past 12 months over women (18.1% over 13.9%).
You also skipped what MRAs would probably list as the three most important men’s issues which would be the fact that it’s so easy for a father to have have his kids taken from him, the fact that men have no reproductive rights and the fact that men are thrown in prison more than ten times more than women are because of the vast amount of prejudice against men in law courts.
I think it’s good to add more criteria to this list. I would probably disagree with you about the evidence regarding these issues, but at least we agree that these criteria could be added to the list.
If your thesis is that “society x privileges men and opresses women” those are probably the wrong criteria to back it up with. In the few countries that have even come close to examining all of those criteria equally for men and women, women have better luck in almost all of those areas.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t areas which women do worse in, or regions where it’s highly diadvantageous to be a woman, but it’s far from a simple case of men having it good and women having it bad.
The folks that do that Gender Equality Report every year could learn from this. That report that looks at various areas of development in different countries (several dozen) and how they measure up in terms of gender. The focus is on these areas to see if men or women are doing better in them.
This report lists areas in which men are doing better than women and counts them as a minus against that country but then doesn’t count areas where women are doing better than men.
How can you work towards gender equality when you’re actively ignoring one side of the equation? And bear in mind that this report isn’t billed as a way to see how women are doing compared to men (in which this scorning system would make sense) but a measurement of gender equality.
Luckily that’s not my thesis.
“Male privilege” is pretty integral to the concept of patriarchy. Or was that not what you were defending?
Yes, I’m happy to talk about male privilege and patriarchy. I think they are meaningful terms that contribute to fruitful research.
But “society x privileges men and opresses women” is not a fair characterization of what I’ve been getting at, nor would it be my thesis if you asked me to state one. But you would know that if you had been reading the comments.
For the U.S.A, the UK, and Australia (most common stats I read). This list to me seems like some favour men, some favour women, neither really being above or below the other. Leadership positions favour men, health favours women. Wealth favours men although the flipside of that is homelessness also favours men from what I’ve seen. Men are more often the victims of violence, women are more often the victims of sexual n domestic violence however that gap is closing rapidly and in some studies it’s 50:50ish. Literacy rates I believe men fail on, college education men fail again so women favour here. Diversity of gender roles in media, neither win. Access to education, both seem to have access though both also have certain biases against them, women in STEM fields, men in nursing, etc, there’s also potentially a major problem with female teachers being biased in their marking of boys exams as a UK study found and thus that issue could have huge implications on the results boys have. Household spending from what I hear favours women though I think it’s swinging back to parity in Australia at least. Work that goes unpaid, recent census data for the US I believe showed men do an extra hour at their work, women do an extra hour at home with housework HOWEVER there is a huge amount of overtime that is underpaid or isn’t paid so that may actually equalize it if men are working more hours but I don’t believe there has been a study on paid vs unpaid employment hours including gender (would love to see these results).
Suicide rates favour women attemping as a cry for help, men as a final solution so men are 4x more likely to successfully attempt however I believe women are more likely to unsuccessfully attempt (the number of attempted may be higher than successful, though both are shocking). Life expectancy favours women, partly genetics (Estrogen apparently has more of a protective effect on the body, especially the heart if I remember correct) but also influenced by a lack of men seeking treatment, a lack of society giving a damn (men suffering in silence), far more awareness for female issues vs males, etc.
One aspect of power with voting is that there are 6-8million more female voters in the U.S I believe from last look, so overall women have more voting power. Males dominate the political positions however that doesn’t mean male ISSUES dominate, often men are ignored n sent to the slaughter by mostly male politicians which is an important thing to remember.
That’s a quick nasty look into my brain from what I remember, I could be wrong in some areas. I’ll try find stats/info on individual issues if requested.
Who gets it worse? There are too many issues to flat out say women or men get it worse, and number of issues doesn’t matter as much as the power of each issue. Currently I believe everyone gets shit on in some way, and those with wealth generally have the most power in our society. From what I see wealth, education does more to give power than gender although it seems to play a part harming both in different areas. This is strictly for those 3 countries, Afghanistan, etc are wildly different I presume and shouldn’t be compared. I consider these 3 countries a kyriarchy if anything, or at least the intersectional issues have a huge importance such as wealth and education (the elite). The average man n woman I’d say are pretty damn close in the level of shit they get and how much power they have, I can’t say who has more though and I am not sure it’s possible to define as the system is too complex.
I’m a man. Please explain to me how “leadership positions” favour me.
Please explain to me how my being forced to earn money while a woman spends it favours me too.
And you’re wrong about sexual vioence. It isn’t increasing for men. The rate of it being reported or people being aware of it is getting better. That means that the issue of sexual violence has always favoured women over men. Always. But explain to me why sexual violence is worse than being murdered or being beat up please.
I don’t believe there has been a study on paid vs unpaid employment hours including gender
Warren Farrel quoted one in Myth of Male power I believe and it had men working more by about 4 hours a week. But the main issue is that unpaid work tend to be elastic in terms of how long it takes because you can watch TV while you are doing it and just goof off. It’s not real work a lot of the time. There’s no boss, no quality control, you do it when you want, if you want. That’s not real work.
Suicide rates favour women attemping as a cry for help
What you mean is that people listen to a woman crying for help when they wont listen to a mman and in fact a man asking for help is a pussy. That’s a sign of women’s greater power.
Life expectancy favours women, partly genetics
A century ago when men were living longer was that genetics too? Did genetics change?
Let’s also add to the list:
- parental gender preferences of infants
This thought provoking economics paper published in the Journal, Review of Economic Studies, found that fathers show a statistically significant preference for male infants: http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~moretti/sons.pdf
Since men have no say in abortion or any post-conception rights, I really don’t know what the point of that is. You have to be able to exercise a preference in order for it to affect others in some way.
If there needs to be an addendum to Archy’s list, I would say it’s the lack of reproductive rights and parental rights for men.
Many studies show loving fit fathers are the greatest indicator to child well being. A recent study even showed that father disapproval / support actually has more of an impact than mothers.
And yet our country is stuck in the primary/secondary custody paradigm. If we wanted to give children the best outcome possible, then we as a society would enact the shared custody model post-divorce.
However, since female positive stereotypes are allowed to persist for 50 years (mothers make better parents) where our society can’t tolerate male positive stereotypes for 5 minutes (men make better engineers/soldiers/cops) we have a lopsided system in which the powers-that-be fight an ever expanding war to expedite women entering the workforce, but the overwhelming majority of fathers can’t get access to their own children without spending dozens of thousands of dollars.
The good for society of actually infusing justice into family courts rather than female privilege would be wide-spread and remarkable. It would be a simple cost-effective manuever that would wipe out dozen’s of thousands of societal issues in the men and women who grow up in fatherless homes.
Study after study show that having loving fit fathers involved in childrens lives reduce violence, early drinking, drug use, create more responsible and sensible views on sexuality, reduce depression and suicide, reduce teen pregnancy, entering gangs. The list goes on and on.
Well heck…John D somewhere here you made a comment about an incident with Hoff Summers and a discussion about gender and how it was originally stated that the men interrupted more, so they must have dominated…..but it turns out the women were talking like 70% of the time, so then you came to the conclusion that really the women dominated the discussion. (I can’t find that comment, but I’d like to reply to it).
Here’s the thing…but assuming that because women were speaking 70% of the time that somehow disproves the concept that men were enacting male privilege by interrupting, is also taking too simple a view. Really with just that information to hand, no one can draw a real conclusion about the dynamics involved in that panel. Maybe gender wasn’t even the biggest factor…..what if every single person who spoke and interrupted was white, even if there was great ethnic diversity on the panel? Then that’d suggest ethnicity was a bigger factor than gender in the dynamics of the panel…thus intersectionality.
Or maybe women dominated 70% of the conversation….but what if it was the same couple of women? And yet the other women wouldn’t interrupt, but the men did. Then that’d point to multiple aspects of gender that are at play. Women perhaps feeling like it isn’t their place to interrupt someone, while men had no problem with it. But other women feeling like they had every right to talk about gender issues because they were women.
Maybe education level played into it. Did those more educated talk more and interrupt more? How about what everyone’s speciality was in? Did people who study gender (versus other topics) feel more comfortable speaking and interrupting?
Anyway…that’s all hypothetical because we just don’t know any other information about the demographics of the panel. My point is that people from all political/social/whatever camps have a tendency to actively search for proof of their own ideas, which is why it’s important to become educated about these topics so that when you read about “this study” or “that experiment” or whatever, you can do so critically. Actual, sound academic research into gender dynamics does exist.
John D,
I get that you might disagree with me that men have a systemic advantage, or what I have called male privilege. That’s your opinion, although I think it’s an empirical question. You have overstated my case somewhat – which is understandable. What I have been referring to as a direction of the flow of power, or the power gradient, can be sometimes very subtle. Sure, sometimes it’s very obvious and conspicuous. But even a subtle effect over a lifetime, or over hundreds of millions of lives, can be super important, which is why I bring it up on the topic of gender.
I agree that men have been shackled to their gender roles – nothing I have said denies this. And I think it’s important to express concern for this. It’s what makes me so excited about this online discussion. We’re actually discussing gender patterns, and there is a huge opportunity for men and women to lose our shackles.
But I don’t understand your claim that I am ignoring the experiences of suffering or lack of privilege of working class men. Show me how.
Sherwin,
You acknowledge male oppression, and that’s great. Considering that we are delving into an area in which we are both talking about our world view, things are necessarily going to be centered around our personal world views of gender and society.
You seem to think that in aggregate men have greater privilege than women. I don’t. From what I see things are closer to a wash. Women have historically had their choices stolen and roles removed. I agree.
I don’t know about you personally, but many people have never thought about the following addendums to that narrative.
A) that women had a sizable (if not quite equal) role in reducing women’s roles and voices. In other words men and women created the culture and the culture policed behaviors for both genders.
B) that men also had their choices and roles stolen, and this was hugely detrimental for them as well (I would claim equally harmful in different ways). Remember when the suffragettes were fighting for the right to vote, men too young to vote were socialized to fight in a war in a foreign land
C)both men and women were objectified in different ways. Women were treated like children to be protected and controlled. Men were treated like blunt objects (like hammers) to be used until broken. 32,000 men died building the panama canal just so ships could save seven days going around the tip of South America. Look to any big dam, highway/railway going through mountains, suspension bridge or skyscraper and you will see men’s blood being the grease of industrial engine.
Look in any high school text book and look up any oppression of men. As an example, look at how (male) workers were exploited building the trans-continental railroad. These workers were so unimportant their deaths weren’t even counted. It’s estimated up to a dozen thousand died (mostly from exposure).
What would you find in a high school textbook. Are you more likely to find A) that these workers (will the term male/men *even* be used???) were mostly lower class and disproportionately minorities as a signal of racial and class oppression? Or are you more likely to find B) that since 100% were male that this was gender oppression?
Biases matter. What I have found is that those arguing patriarchy and male privilege bring *A LOT* of their own baggage. They’ve never bothered to do the work to really dig deep and look at *all* of the evidence. Even those who profess that they are doing this and earnestly believe that they have all the answers bring an awful lot of bias (that obliterates stories of male self-sacrifice and disposability).
John,
I think you are making two separate points here, and I’d really like to separate them out for discussion because I find one to be much more convincing than the other.
Your first point is a brilliant insight that just doesn’t get used enough: women have played a large role (possibly the dominant role) in shaping their own place in society.
One of the great insights of behavioral economics is that power relationships are often not clear-cut. When someone hears “landlord-tenant” it is often assumed that the landlord has power and the tenant does not. Yet we see myriad instances where the tenant can actual wield power over the landlord in order to exact concessions: the power relationship actually goes both ways.
There is similar insight to be seen in societal relations between men and women. It is folly to claim that no women enjoyed the “men earn money and spend it on women” societal model. Of course there were large numbers of women that liked that model of society, and they continue to exist today. It is ridiculous to make pretend that these women were not active participants in creating a spreading the dominant culture.
Overall, this is a great argument and really needs to be spread more.
Where I get concerned is when this suddenly is twisted into your second point, which sounds something like “men are really the oppressed group.”
This second point may or may not be true. But it would be subjected to the exact same argument listed above: there are inherently large numbers of men complicit in the oppression, meaning that it is difficult to paint this simply as “men have been oppressed.”
The reality is probably that both groups have participated in society as near-equals while looking after their self interests. There is only oppression insofar as members of both groups find themselves in undesirable positions.
Moreover, this second issue is dangerous because it destroys the discussion. Both sides will simply back up against their respective walls yelling “No! My gender is the REAL oppressed gender!”
The first point you make has the potential to move us past this. Neither men nor women are oppressed. Both men and women have participated in modeling a society that serves the self interest of the dominant among them. If we can all see this, then we can all move forward; but if we keep bickering about which gender is “really the oppressed gender” then we’re not going to get anywhere.
Finally, I just want to point out, this isn’t really compromise. The average feminist adherent to the theories of patriarchy and privilege is unwilling to acknowledge the role that women have played in creating our society. They must change their minds if they are ever to be part of the solution.
Mike,
First, thanks for your comment and the props on the 1st point.
Your takeaway on the 2nd part of my post wasn’t even close. I’ve never stated that men were more oppressed (that’s the role of the other camp, those who want to state women are more oppressed than men).
Honestly, I think it was about equal in terms of being damaging, but in hugely different ways. Men were socialized to self-sacrifce and to risk their lives, women were socialized to have fewer choices and be treated like children. I think both were equally oppressed in different ways.
My point is this:
There has been a lot of bruehaha lately about making textbooks sensitive to all. Detailing suffering of different races, and sensitive to women’s accomplishments etc..
Even with all this scrutiny, and people from the top levels of the hallowed halls of academia having put much research into identifying oppression, the wide-spread oppression of (almost entirely) male workers from the 1850′s to the 1950′s will be horribly biased.
If these books even identify the gender as men of these workers, the story will be told in terms of *only* sub-groups of men were oppressed because of their disproportionate risk of dying on the job. The story won’t be told in terms of *gender oppression* against men even though 99.99% of the deaths would have been men. It will be told in terms of racial and class oppression only.
And *these* are the people who profess to keep their bias in check well enough to tell us what an egalitarian society should look like?
I’ve argued with Heather N before about male disposability. She has said that the issue of male lives not having worth, but of elites grinding all to dust under them. In some ways she is right, but whenever a societal issue affects 99% of exclusively women, you can bet that issue is *gendered* (not about elite women oppressing blue collar women).
But, suddenly this distinction drops away like the floor on a tilt a whirl when we get to how women are oppressed–like men controlling conversations. The issue that one or a few elite man is “oppressing” (for lack of a better word) both sexes and 48% of men also are subjected to this activity from elitists *doesn’t matter*. The issue is gendered because they declare it so. But the fact that even today 95% of on-the-job deaths *is not* gendered.
So, when men are 99% suffering from a societal harm it’s not gendered, but whenever women are 2%, 20%, 51%, 80% of a societal harm it can and (most likely) will be gendered.
Not only is there any way to prove false patriarchy in any society, or to measure it except in broad terms to say afghanistant has more of it than us, but there are no tools for measuring it with the lone exception of advocates that patriarchy is real to use their human fallible subjectivism, evidence digging (and ignoring contradictory evidence), and outright biases.
It’s time for the male privilege and patriarchy to go in the trashbin of history with other theories like global cooling, and the plague of snuff-film deaths from the 70′s.
I’m sorry, but this is total horse crap.
I just wanted to chime in on the oppression bit here.
There is no shortage of people that will list out all the ways in which men are harmed and then argue to the final breath that men cannot be oppressed as men. They will lay the oppression at the feet of everything ranging from race, to size, to class, to religion, to sexuality. But they will be cursed before saying it’s because they are men.
Honestly, I think it was about equal in terms of being damaging, but in hugely different ways. Men were socialized to self-sacrifce and to risk their lives, women were socialized to have fewer choices and be treated like children. I think both were equally oppressed in different ways.
To me it’s not even about being oppressed equally or one being oppressed more than the other. It’s a matter of like I said keeping the language one sided. Just like sexism supposedly being only possible in the male against female direction but impossible in the female against male direction.
John D,
There is no “other camp” here that denies that men are sometimes oppressed, or who claims that men are always the oppressor. Who is this bogeyman that you keep referring to?
Sherwin, it’s people who subscribe to sites like RadFemHub, a website you admitted visiting (and agreeing with!) up thread.
In what sense is the term “Patriarchy” accurate? It’s a gynocentric term which focuses solely on the ways in which society has advantaged men in the past and disadvantages women while completely ignoring any disadvantages for men or advantages for women. Yes, the society of the past dealt with women in a paternalistic way, but it was far from oppressive. Even women’s suffrage is superior to men’s suffrage. Men’s right to vote was given based on conscription whereas Women’s Suffrage came at no cost (and at the very moment more women wanted it than didn’t). This makes me a conditional citizen and my wife a full citizen.
The only definition of “Patriarchy” that I’ve heard that was accurate is this: “Patriarchy is the means by which men exchange society’s protection and support for greater status.” Of course we’re still trying to get women up to equal rates as CEOs and we’e already got more of them graduating from University, but we still expect men to not need help and we still think we need to give more help to women.
I’m not offended by the term, “Patriarchy” but I am offended by statements like, “Patriarchy is accurate” You might as well say, “Racism is accurate”
Given the track record, the probability of this comment showing up is about 0.2
I find the word patriarchy offensive and even oppressive. It puts you on the defensive and in the position of responsibility before the discussion even starts. It also has the effect of clearing women from any chance of being held responsible for anything that happens. With such an imbalance there’s no way you can talk openly and hope for mutual empathy.
It’s also logically incoherent as it assumes that the ruling class would set up a system under which it has a higher mortality/illness rate.
Life expectancy is not a contra-indication of patriarchy. Even in Afghanistan, which I believe every one here would agree is patriarchal, women have a longer life expectancy (see for example the CIA fact book on death rates in Afghanistan).
You are conflating two different meanings of that word. The academic anthropological term which is defined in terms of fatherhood is the non-offensive meaning. Afghanistan might be a patriarchy in such a sense — I don’t know. You don’t mean that meaning (in fact you just told us that patriarchy has nothing to do with fatherhood). You mean the offensive meaning of the word that has anti-male associations. For some reason you insist on saying you have a “duty” to keep using that offensive word despite knowing that it makes you look sexist.
Since that meaning of “patriarchy” is basically just a word made up by feminists to mean something nasty attacking men, it’s hard to say what it means exactly. On the one hand ideologically feminists say that all societies are patriarchal. Without any exception. It has nothing to do with the qualities of the society itself. (If you disagree then please tell me the name of a society that feminists do NOT consider patriarchal).
On the other hand if you want to pretend that “patriarchy” means men get better quality of life than women then, yes, the fact that men live years shorter lives is very obviously relevant to the question of quality of life, as are many other criteria which strongly favour women over men in our society.
Sherwin,
I would take your point seriously if social justice organizations didn’t try to use health disparities as evidence of power structures in other situations.
There are widespread assertions throughout the social justice community that argue the lower life expectancies of African Americans are evidence of a power structure that works against them. See, for example, this campaign: http://unfaircampaign.org/health-disparities/
This is the hypocrisy of social justice: the evidence only “counts” when it helps your argument. It’s not actually about doing research to find the “truth” it’s about finding evidence that matches your preconceptions.
Either life expectancy is an acceptable indicator of power structures (in which case we should be concerned about health disparities between blacks and whites in America AND we see that men hold less power than we thought) or it is not an acceptable indicator of power structures (in which case men may still hold all the power, but whites hold less power than we thought). You cannot just take evidence that you like and throw out the rest because it is inconvenient.
Excellent point Mike.
It’s also interesting that the much greater likelihood of blacks over whites to be victims of violence or incarcerated are allowed to be metrics to show racial oppression, but not when men are much more likely to be victims of violence or incarcerated over women.
Most studies show that the male disadvantage in criminal sentencing is about equal to the black disadvantage in criminal sentencing. How does that gel with the theory of male privilege?
Hi Mike L,
I’m not saying we shouldn’t care about health indicators. I actually do think we should care about health indicators. But I’m saying that a single health indicator can’t, by itself, demonstrate whether a culture is patriarchal or not.
I agree that we can’t cherry pick evidence. That’s why I claimed, and still claim, that gendered death rates, by themselves, do not contradict or confirm that a particular culture is patriarchal.
I think we should look at a wide range of indicators. And I think it’s super valuable to rely on good data by experts in their field, which is why I prefer to cite and link to sources, instead of just throwing numbers around.
If you have a problem with social justice, we probably don’t agree on very much. Which is fine. But don’t claim that folks that do care about social justice, never care about data. That’s bogus.
Sherwin,
I’ve worked in the field of economics for years. I’ve spent those years watching great studies by great economists get dismissed by social justice adherents when they don’t go the way that the social justice adherents prefer.
One great example is the Harlem Children’s Zone. The school system literally put into practice everything that economists had been saying for years: no teacher’s union was allowed and teachers could be fired at a moment’s notice, teacher compensation was merit-based, the focus on instruction was breaking the toxic culture children learned at home, parental behavior was modified (example: parents were required to read books to their children), etc.
The results, as reported by Roland Fryer (a Harvard economist) were astounding: entrants who were scoring at the 39th percentile on standardized tests (6th grade, New York) were scoring at the 74th percentile just two years later (8th grade, New York). Nothing like this had ever been witnessed before. Corey Booker even took notice and began working on bringing the program to Newark (he wrote a piece discussing its success in Slate a few years back).
Yet despite this obvious evidence, little has changed. Social justice advocates support strong teacher’s unions, and refuse to acknowledge the damage done by inner city culture. They refuse to hold parents accountable and for parents to change their behavior. They oppose merit based pay for teachers and support the tenure system.
I have seen this exact scenario play out across dozens of programs. The moment an idea involves “break the union” or “hold group X accountable” where X is any group except for rich white men, then the success of the program is ignored. Over time it’s become impossible for me to believe that most social justice campaigners are really in favor of social justice. Rather, they seem to support an ideology that they claim (without proof) will make us better off, and are happy to ignore evidence to the contrary.
That’s funny. You are holding me to a standard of evidence that I am meeting. But you are not subscribing to the same standard of evidence.
Given your tragic life experience, and your choice of anecdotal examples, you’ll forgive me for being unconvinced by your point of view.
Sherwin, I’ve provided at least two concrete examples (life expectancy and the Harlem Children’s Zone), complete with references, citations, and a link.
You have provided nothing but snark. It’s pretty clear what’s going on here.
“Life expectancy is not a contra-indication of patriarchy. Even in Afghanistan, which I believe every one here would agree is patriarchal, women have a longer life expectancy”
That’s exactly his point. And yet “patriarchy hurts men too” is considered by many feminists to be a derailment technique, rather than an integral part of the discussion. Heck, even if it were an integral part of the discussion it’s often accompanied with the qualifier that such hurt is rendered irrelevant by male power.
@ Sherwin Arnott
Unlike Eric I don’t think there’s any real difference between equality of outcome or equality of opportunity. What you are calling the “Reverse-the-Gender” test is simply a statement that people should be treated equally in circumstances where they are similarly situated. Nothing to do with gender actually. That’s also the legal standard because this stuff has been through the courts many times. Now you talk about impact as if that is not a part of what we are saying but of course it is. That’s why a law to restrain people who have a deadly contagious disease might be lawful when one that restrains let’s say left-handed people would not. But a law that restrains all men because some>/i> men are sick, or even most men are sick, but does not restrains any women who are sick would be unconstitutional. That law takes gender as a proxy for being ill and therefore discriminates. There’s no reason for it because it would be easy to just figure out who was sick, male and female, and only detain them.
the impact of behaviours by different genders, are going to be different, which will change the way we judge the behaviours
That’s fine but that is not what you appear to be doing. What you appear to be doing is creating a stereotype of gender behaviour and then using that as a pretext to punish all men regardless of whether that stereotype is accurate of them as an individual, and for women you seem to use a positive stereotype to avoid punishing any women who do fit the criteria of the stereotype. That’s discrimination.
And since your stereotype is the offensive “patriarchy” concept of power and violence you are treating all men as if they were violent and powerful when hardly any men fit that criteria. That’s a textbook example of the sort of sexist law that the Supreme Court has been overturning for maybe 50 years now on the basis of the 14th amendment guarantee of equal rights (I mean if it was a law; we’re just discussing a moral judgment about people going to see a sexy movie in the original). It’s the same as an old law saying that men but not women should get a grant to go to college for example, because men are bread winners for their families and women aren’t.
Now talking about support for sex segregation in domestic violence shelters you said,
Regarding safer spaces, and women only spaces, I do think it’s important to respect and support them. Regarding support workers and counsellors in the anti-violence sector and women’s shelters, I think it’s an important question, and I’ll respect the decision of the experts in those fields
That’s a cop out. Firstly the experts are not in agreement, secondly I really doubt you’d support a whites-only DV shelter or a whites-only safe space at a university if one was started by some group, regardless of the qualifications of the staff. That’s fine though; I didn’t imagine you could answer this sort of comparison. That was my point. You are inconsistent on this matter between gender and race and that should tell you something but I won’t push it further for now. However it is a useful comparison. Call it the “Transform-it-to-race” test.
“Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.”
Two questions.
1. This says it’s a reflection of agreement. How much of that “agreement” is actual agreement that that is the best arrangement and how much of that is “I better not fight too hard” or “This is the best that I can get” and so forth?
2. How well are these custody agreements being enforced? A lot of money goes into enforcing child support and the common image of the parent (usually dad) that doesn’t pay their child support is either the six figure high roller that spends more money on vacations that child support or the overly macho guy that thinks he shouldn’t have to pay support. On the other hand the Hague Convention seems to be one of the most worthless efforts ever conceived (like E.T. for Atari worthless) considering that parents (usually moms) are able to pretty much kidnap children at their leisure, and have the backing of a foreign nation’s government while they do it.