privilege of the patriarchy

We also talked a lot about whether or not the first wave of feminism accidentally exalted male roles and privileges instead of investigating female ones -- there was a lot of argument on that front.

Fatal domestic violence most often happens to men. Perpetrated by women? Or by other men in the household?

Men work 4 hours more per week on average than women. Does that include housework? Because I'll bet it doesn't.

-The top 25 most dangerous jobs are predominantly or almost exclusively male.
-92% of fatal workplace accidents happen to men. I highly suspect that these two, taken together, represent career paths that men have done their level best, historically, to keep women out of, and probably still do to some degree.

Anyway, as I said. Window. Staring. Commence.

I guess the question isn't clear because I was just curious to see whether any of that is news to anyone. I was also reacting to a conversation I had elsewhere about male-bashing. We were talking about a teacher I know who may or may not have been sexually inappropriate, and I think that when it's her-word-against-his the woman often gets the benefit of the doubt, making that kind of accusation an easy way to fuck with guys... calling someone a molester is the easiest way there is to get someone in trouble or fired without having a shred of proof.

Courts tend to give the child to the person who has the closest bond with the child and has spent the most time with them, which due to assumptions and decisions taken by the couple themselves and not the courts, is usually the mother.

-Fatal domestic violence most often happens to men. Perpetrated by women? Or by other men in the household?

Among hetero couples women more often commit fatal or serious physical violence.

Among lesbian couples, the rate of violence is equal to hetero couples.

-The top 25 most dangerous jobs are predominantly or almost exclusively male.
-92% of fatal workplace accidents happen to men. I highly suspect that these two, taken together, represent career paths that men have done their level best, historically, to keep women out of, and probably still do to some degree.

AFAIK those are mainly dangerous manual labor jobs, hardly desirable careers. Miner, factory, etc. Yet one of the worst of all is volunteer fireman, a job open to women, with few obstacles because it's volunteer, and currently experiencing shortages in many areas, and requires no more than high school education, but they simply don't take part.

As for charges about sexual behavior, those are complicated no matter which direction they're pointed. And while we might socially be inclined to trust women on certain matters, I think you'll find that legally that's not the case: when it comes to rape, for instance, that "shadow of a doubt" clause gets men acquitted of some seriously unbelievable charges. And as much as men fear the social part, and fear women inventing charges against them, there doesn't seem to be much evidence in the world that many women actually do this. Men fearing it = welcome to the world of being afraid of bad things other people might do to you! Women (and lots of other sorts of people) have been there for a long long while.

Men and women tend to die from different things though, men are more susceptible to heart disease which kills them a few years before they get the chance to die of cancer instead, as women tend to do. This is all biological stuff, not down to anyone favouring women, and heart disease seems to get plenty of research and funding, though again, I'm speaking from a UK perspective.

xpost - maybe if anyone needs to be "acquainted with the actual stats", you could start posting links to them.

I have a cousin in MD who had a child with his girlfriend... who then left him for her lesbian girlfriend and had him pay child support, and it turns out she had been involved with this girl a long time before she met him. She used him to get a kid. Not very fair I think.

But yeah like you said, anyone who abandons a kid is an asshole.

Are you? I would like you to actually link us to some of these stats you're coming up with.

That fact may have quite an impact on life expectancy and males have only them selves to blame on that one.

superduper xpost

this is akin to saying that women don't take part in US Special Operations as if they somehow chose to not be able to do 20 pull-ups, 70 push-ups in 120 seconds, or in the case of firemen, run up 8 flights of stairs with 80 pounds of hose over their shoulder or whatever.

I have a female cousin who is a firefighter in a town in Florida, I think the only woman on the force there or maybe even in the state; the physical standards are exactly the same as they are for men, since it's not fitness they're looking to test (as they are w/ the vast majority of the military) but an actual level of raw capacity, mostly dealing with upper body strength, etc.

Ms Rofflesberger: I'm not trying to accuse anybody, i was just trying to make a polite question.

So Tom it seems that you're saying women are physically incapable of being firemen. I have heard that there are no obstacles yet women do not apply, I'm just repeating what I heard. Anyways, whatever the standards require, it's men who bear the burden so I think that should be part of discussions about sex roles.

If you're just trying to point out that everything's not always as simple as men always having a better lot than women, then sure -- I'm guessing everyone here would agree that it's not always that simple. If you're trying to argue that we'd do well to be aware of how complicated it is, instead of falling back on the idea that women are always losing out, then I'd agree with that, too.

But if you're trying to claim that you've done some sort of overall evaluation and decided that there's no such thing as male privilege -- or that men are, on balance, losing out -- then you're just wrong.

Well nabisco the part you picked to criticise is the bottom of the list... child custody etc. I don't have much else to add there. I think the top of the list would be life expectancy. Anyways, even if parenting roles are the bottom of the list, shouldn't we be calling out unfairness wherever it is?

It didn't seem like that to me, he obviously said that they were less likely to be capable, not incapable. I'm not sure what your point is, are you really suggesting that fire services should start hiring people on equal opportunities rather than capability for the job, just so that the death rates appear bit more equal, even risking a higher death rate because some of the better people for the job were turned down? Don't get me wrong, I don't think women are incapable of being firemen, but a physically strong woman is rarer than a physically strong man and it's one of the few jobs where that biological difference matters.

xpost - if we're calling out unfairness wherever it is, for all the stuff men have to put up with, we'd have to call out a hell of a lot of unfairness to women to balance this thread out.

If you're just looking to call out unfairness in a particular area -- like child custody cases -- you'd be better off posting a thread entitled "Do child custody cases unfairly favor mothers?" Then we could deal with that more specifically, and figure out how sex and gender play into a whole lot of other issues and standards.

Similarly, we could change the title of this thread to something like "Why do men die younger than women?" And then we could talk about all the reasons why that's the case, and what they have to do with gender roles. Because you're right that a lot of it does have to do with gender roles.

I believe "male privilege" is a diversion from class divisions. Perhaps there are economic privileges that benefit rich men, yet working class men have significant disadvantages that women don't have. Living 6 years less than women, having to die for your job, or in war, that's a big disadvantage, and if you don't mention it when talking about "male privilege" then it's not an overall evaluation.

Of course 70 year olds deserve to be treated when they're ill, but when you die you have to die from something, and when reading statistics for old people's deaths you need to remember that they're weighed heavily by most cancer at that age not being curable, whilst younger people can be treated and live a long time if doctors know how. That's why it has more funding, there's a higher chance of it saving people's lives.

One guy, who i went to high school with, was on the front page of the paper after he went into a house with his partner and they had no idea it had been burning for an hour already, and his partner fell through the floor. He lost his grip on the guys hand and he never came out. The guy's family totally blamed him and the fire department and from what the paper hinted at, maybe he had mental problems and had to leave town over it.

My other friend told me a so-awful-it's-funny story about going in with a team of 6 holding a hose... the lead man didn't hear the order to hit the floor because of a backdraft, and just then the hose pressure opened up, and it hit him in the balls and blew him through the wall of the house and left him hanging with his air pack punched through the drywall. It took him a while to heal and he never went in a burning house again.

Women's life expectancy in the UK (with NHS) - 80.7 years
Women's life expectancy in the US (land of health insurance) - 80.05 years

Men in UK - 76
Men in US - 75

So the difference in the US is 5.05 years, in the UK it's 4.7 years. If it turns out that the US and UK are, in fact, completely identical in almost every way and the only difference is having health insurance rather than a national health service, then men not having health insurance only accounts for just over 3 months of life lost on average. There are still 4.7 years that don't come down to access to healthcare.

Perhaps you're right, but you jumped to a conclusion. Of course higher funding gives better survival rates. Men are supposed to start getting prostate exams at age 40 and 15% of men will eventually have it, so I think it should be getting more funding than it is and I would need to see some comparisons that aren't apples & oranges to have a better picture.

xpost HOW are those comparisons apples and oranges? Besides that her (actual, not "I heard this from someone once") statistics don't back yours?

That's how you started this thread, -rainbow bum-. So why is your critique based on gender?

One last shot, Rainbow, before you sink into endless, detailed argument with everyone else: did you have any kind of point or thesis here? You're listing and claiming a bunch of inequalities here having to do with gender, class, and race. What everyone's wondering is ... what's your point? Each one of the things you've mentioned is actually really complicated -- there are lots of different factors going into them. Instead of just pointing them out, as if they mean something very important about men, could you talk a little bit about what you think those factors are, or what you think should or could be done about them?

in a nutshell, socialism

Yes, this is true: the word "patriarchy" does not adequately describe the entire universe. It leaves things out. It doesn't claim otherwise. Like most other words -- words like "red," "building," or "fast" -- it describes a particular thing, and does not mention other things.

You should be aware that most people who use the term "patriarchy" are not trying to imply that every particular relationship between and among men and women is always an example of male privilege and female victimhood. They're just describing one dynamic that exists very frequently in those interactions. You're welcome to describe the things that leaves out -- other interactions that work in other ways. But don't imagine that they diminish or wash away the stuff that "patriarchy" describes.

A relationship in which men die fighting fires and fighting wars in an effort to protect women, who enjoy extensive health care -- this is totally compatible with the notion of patriarchy! And part of our history of patriarchy has had to do with exactly this sort of protectiveness. Which you can call a perk, so long as you recognize its downsides (ownership, marginalization, infantilization) ... and then we're back to the beginning.

Ha, okay, Rainbow -- now you're claiming that what you're trying to do is lure people from feminist and gender-based critiques of the world to Marxist and materialist ones. Which I suppose is fine as a project, though I can't say I see the point in having to decide which super-limited critique describes the world best. We do better to look at the world from as many angles as possible, really.

sounds like some battle of the grad students thing

xpost - actually, capital could also explain the health insurance thing. People like money and don't spend it on what they don't need. There would probably be more men buying health insurance if they had pregnancies, the menopause and a smear test every 3 years to pay for.

In 1962.

Bob, there are already dozens of these dipshit cunts.

Now i must leave work, so no more postings and take care!

here's a tasty looking cake slice.

http://marshallbrain.com/gif/cake-slice.jpg

i guess your next question is going to be "why is it ok to have black empowerment programs, but not white empowerment programs?"

It must be hard for you to have to live out your life as a man in such a world that is always discriminating against men. It must suck to never be able to go out by yourself at night, to always be expected to be skinny and beautiful, to get sexually harassed at your job, to get beaten up by your wife, to be expected to clean the house and take care of the children for free, to be kept down in the corprate world...

poor you. women are always making such a big deal out of nothing. not when men have to put up with so much.

Well sarah, like i mentioned I would rather have socialism than affirmative action. I don't begrudge advantages for the disadvantaged, i just don't like male-bashing.

Discrimination does suck. Take homelessness for example. Not to say poor women don't have it bad, yet they seem to have forms of support, be it family or otherwise, that men don't get. Consider how the homeless population is predominantly male, and it ties into the hugely male prison population as well, what with it being so hard to get a job with any kind of criminal record. I experienced a bit of that, along with some harassment by cops. Female cops put extra venom into it. A few examples: getting kicked out of a country after 4 years there, for having 1 single teenage shoplifting misdemeanor. Pulled over on a mountain bike, tossed around, given 3 traffic tickets and told to walk the bike home and get out of town. Getting mocked and harassed for sleeping in a van. All female cops, all when I had no money and poor looking clothes while i was looking for jobs. Yes, men are told where to go and what to do sometimes. Maybe they aren't expected to be skinny and beautiful, but they're expected to work harder with less health care and be more disposable for their jobs. They might not get sexually harassed as much but they are far more often victims of violence (please don't blame the victim for that.) They do get beaten by their wives, not as often, but violence that injures or kills is much more likely to be female-on-male. They may make more money but they also die for their jobs, and women do get to choose to be provided for at home by a working father, while the reverse isn't a choice men often have.