Andrea Dworkin – Woman Hating, Right and Left.

Other Dworkin statements of note:

“Men are sexually predatory in life; and women are sexually manipulative.” – Generalize much? Isn’t that a little, I don’t know, sexist?

“No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.” – No doubt this will be interesting news to my partner, who can’t keep her hands off me.

“Only when manhood is dead – and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it – only then will we know what it is to be free.” – Because the existence of people with Y chromosomes is the single biggest problem you have, right? Must be nice.

“A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.” – Last I checked, I am neither rich, a rapist, or a murderer. Does that mean I am not a man? I know I am not a woman, as I have never identified as such and have that pesky Y chromosome. Maybe she just means I’m not human

LikeLike

“Wait…what? Is a dead radical feminist’s quotation (we’ll be charitable, and give you the benefit of the doubt) making you feel uneasy about your sexual desirability?”

Ad hominem attacks (otherwise known as your “theory”) aside, what I was pointing out here is that there are in fact women who genuinely do feel the need for intercourse, and that Dworkin is wrong about her statement to the contrary

“It would seem that you lack some of the prerequisite knowledge to properly interpret the quotation, and in lieu of doing your homework have made the quote out to be a personal attack on you.”

I have the requisite knowledge to determine that I am among the males AD references. I also have the proper understanding of the English language to know that saying equality to males is equality to rapists and murderers is a slightly less direct manner of calling males rapists and murderers. I can only assume the statement applies to males in general, which includes me as a demographic group. Much like an individual woman has a right to feel attacked and justifiably offended if someone says, “Being equal to women is being equal to gold digging whores.”

And yes, your hypothesis is wrong. I came to your blog, to see if there was anything here that would further inform me as to what kind of person I was arguing with in my comments section. I wondered if perhaps we might have common ground on the subject of gender politics, unrelated to the issues at hand in my blog. In looking, I saw your post above (and here I have to admit that Andrea Dworkin’s work is, to me, very troubling), and pointed out some of the more troubling statements she’d made. As you stated in your response, many such things also don’t jive with you (so it seems we do have some common ground after all, limited though it may be). You might be (or might not care, I don’t know) interested to know that my disbelief in an modern American Patriarchy bent on assaulting womanhood does not make me an MRA (a term which, I note, you immediately assign to someone you intend to discount).

Just as you stated about Andrea Dworkin, and what Tod Kelly wrote about MRA’s, there are things I agree with, and things I don’t. I tend to find more in common with Germaine Greer, for instance, and tend to dislike Marilyn French. I certainly think W.F. Price has a more reasonable approach to real problems facing men than does Paul Elam, though I don’t always agree with Price, either.

LikeLike

” For an ad hom to take place I need state clearly that Will possesses negative quality “X” and thus you shouldn’t believe him”

So then, when you say that, because I am male, I therefore shouldn’t be believed when it comes to this subject, what is that? By your own definition, it is ad hominem.

Additionally, insults are not arguments, but are signifiers that you have in fact lost the argument, and must resort to petty name calling and shaming to try and get someone to back down. Why, it’s almost as if you’ve taken a page from your “oppressor’s” playbook, and used it with impunity. Almost as if, say, you are able to do what you say oppressors do, just because you feel like it.

“You are careless in attribution, tend to distort facts to suit your opinions, and generally full of shit.”

Really? Prove it. I have cited my sources, and represented what they said accurately. At no point have you offered anything up that disproves a single thing I have said, except for telling me that because I am male (and therefore, evidently a member of the “privileged” class), I couldn’t possibly “get it.” At no point have you provided documentation that I am incorrect on any facts, except for telling me that, because I am male, I can’t know what it’s like to be a woman, and arguing from the assumption that I am wrong about “Patriarchy” existing, assuming that your contention is the fact. I’m looking for objective proof. How you feel when you walk down a dark alley is not proof of anything but your feelings. Feelings are not facts.

“You do realize that when AD is saying “manhood” and “femininity” she is talking about the patriarchally approved gender binary and crappy things it does to both men and women, right?”

Says you. Way to rationalize and cover for someone who is so clearly a sexist ideologue.

I read your Schrödinger’s Rapist article, and I have to wonder about this…

“How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist?”

Same way I can know that women I meet are not grifters and frauds. Same way I know that they’re not going to call the police and falsely report me for being said rapist (yes, it does happen, it has happened to me, and no, I’m not a “rape apologist”). Same way I know I’m not going to be mugged or otherwise assaulted, even though I, as a man, am far more likely to be a victim of the wide range of violent crimes than you are. I can know these things because 99% of people, male or female, are not violent felons looking to attack anyone. Going outside involves risk. Get a helmet.

“Well it is the shitty system that men built. Dealing with that truth is discomforting, but imagine the discomfort of the people who are regularly victimized crumby system that is currently in place. I can’t really help you with that other than to continue to point out where you’re wrong and why.”

Well, you are right that it is a shitty system, and that those who built it were mostly men. The same goes for damn near everything good about the system, too. Just about all of modern civilization, good or bad, was built by people with penises. That over the centuries women were largely barred from taking an active role in this is not in dispute. I concede that completely. What I think you’re missing, though, is that almost all men were also barred from those roles, and that being barred from those roles, they also had no say in the matter. You ignore the fact that that system was not built for the benefit of that large majority of men and women, but for the benefit of a small minority of men and women at the top. This, again, is defined as Oligarchy. Just because you call it something else doesn’t change what it is, and I’m still waiting for you to point out where I am wrong about anything (as opposed to just moving the goalposts).

“You *should* feel offended as you were offered no choice but to participate in this system of domination.”

None of us were. Do you think it was my choice (or any man’s, or all men’s) that we cannot charge a woman who forces sex on us with rape? How many men cheered the legal system’s determination that, yes, a minor boy who is sexually assaulted by an adult woman still has to pay her child support if the rape results in a pregnancy? Surely men everywhere were thrilled to have the “privilege” of being forced into combat for the benefit of a few, very wealthy people. Or automatically receiving longer sentences for the same crimes, simply due to their sex. Or being arrested for reporting domestic abuse perpetrated against them, if the police chose to respond at all (in my case, they just said “hope you have a good lawyer” and hung up).

And yes, I do consider the man who runs The Spearhead to be more reasonable than the man who runs A Voice for Men. I consider him to be reasonable on a lot of subjects. And so does his wife, a very active and outspoken feminist.

LikeLike

“I highly doubt that I’ll convince you that Patriarchy exists, not because I cannot make a convincing argument, but rather your inability to deal with the implications of what it means to live in a patriarchal society.”

It would be easier to tell if this assertion were true, if you had some evidence beyond “a majority of those in power are male.” As yet, you’ve offered no evidence that our society is designed to benefit men in general at the expense of women in general. What laws create this alleged disparity? In what demonstrable ways are most women oppressed to support most men?

“It’s hard to oppress the ruling class. And really, noone is forcing you to take part in this conversation.”

And no more force is being applied to you in this regard. How demonstrably equal, que no? And “ruling class?” Can you demonstrate in what way I inherently have more power and authority than you do, based solely on our different sexes? You haven’t yet, so I was just wondering.

“Accurately citing facts that are wrong doesn’t win you a hero biscut.”

And claiming that a fact is wrong without being able to demonstrate how it’s wrong is meaningless. The numbers are the numbers. One is not two, an can never be anything but one. And it’s provable.

I’m not going to spend all day reading page after page of feminist theory to relieve you of the responsibility of making an argument. I made an assertion. You came along and claimed that assertion is incorrect. And then offered no analysis explaining why, beyond “read this Feminism 101 website.”

I’m not psychic. But, 99% of people are not violent criminals, so I feel comfortable saying “I know you’re not a violent criminal, with about 99% certainty.”

Finally, I said sentenced to more time for the same crime. You offered up evidence that two very different crimes receive different sentencing.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense, and the defendant must prove that the crime was committed in order to prevent immediate harm. Most states still have a duty to retreat (if possible) written into their legal codes. So, a woman who murders an abusive husband in his sleep, or at any point when he is not immediately threatening her, isn’t acting in self-defense. Instead, she has typically planned the crime, and engaged in it with prior thought. This is Murder, which indeed carries a long sentence. Those that provably act in self-defense don’t get any time at all, because they are not guilty of a crime.

The killing of a spouse in a fit of rage after walking in on them cheating falls under the elements of Manslaughter, which under the law comes with a shorter sentence. I read up on the case of Kenneth Peacock, and the elements of his crime are in fact manslaughter, and he was sentenced accordingly. Women charged with Manslaughter are subject to the same sentencing guidelines.

Demonstrating that different crimes get different sentences is fun and all, but it doesn’t make your case.

LikeLike

I am aware of the concept of intersectionality, thank you. But, as I mentioned, I have yet to be provided with any evidence that women, in general, are subjugated to the benefit of men, in general. So there’s that. I won’t argue it further unless evidence is provided. How you feel isn’t evidence, unless you consider my feeling that you’re wrong as equally valid and convincing evidence to the contrary.

“Arb” can get tired all she wants. I imagine finding evidence of things that don’t exist can be quite exhausting.

“Surely you’re aware that for centuries women weren’t allowed to vote or own property? And that in the good old USA, up until 1983 it was legal for a man to rape his wife?”

First, save for a little over 50 years, it was equally illegal for the vast majority of men to vote or own property. That 5% of women were denied a right also denied more than 99% of men isn’t evidence of Patriarchy, unless you can demonstrate to me why it is, with arguments I can’t easily refute. This hasn’t happened yet in this “debate.”

Secondly, it is STILL legal for wives to rape their husbands, so long as they don’t penetrate him. I cited and linked the proof of this (Federal Department of Justice, not an MRA site) to “Arb,” and you’re welcome to read that proven fact.

When it comes to the wage gap, the only fields in which which women are paid less for roughly equivalent work are those fields in which compensation is individually negotiated (a very tiny portion of the workforce, with a disproportionate share of the income). But almost all jobs have a specific pay schedule, and it it against the law to apply it unevenly due to sex.

I don’t know about a housework gap, but it seems odd to me that work “outside the home” excludes yard work and auto repair. I do know, though, that one of the biggest issues I have had in my failed relationships was that the women I was with refused to clean up their own messes.

“The idea that women are delicate flowers who would never be capable of violence, and that real men should be tough enough to withstand anything a woman can dish out? Another patriarchal notion.”

So, you at least agree with the stats included in the CDC study I quoted to “Arb” regarding the incidence of intimate partner violence, showing that women instigate violence at least as often as men? Why, then, do we have FEDERAL LAW entitled the Violence Against Women Act? If we’re all doing it at about the same rate, why should it not apply to us both equally? And how is this law, which clearly benefits women due to the automatic assumption of male aggression, benefit men at the expense of women, which is the literal definition of Patriarchy?

Look, Intransigent, I’m not trying to be a dick here, and I’m not trying to claim that men are oppressed by women (seriously, you should read what I write, nothing of the sort has ever happened). But arguments about Patriarchy affect me pretty deeply, having been the victim of false rape allegations, and female-on-male domestic abuse (both physical and emotional), and I am inclined to be fairly sensitive to these issues. The fact is that my experience and research show literally ZERO evidence of an actual Patriarchy, and that’s what this whole “debate” is about.

LikeLike

We both agree with Bell Hooks’ definition of Patriarchy as

“a political-social system that
insists that males are inherently dominating,
superior to everything and everyone deemed
weak, especially females, and endowed with the
right to dominate and rule over the weak and to
maintain that dominance through various forms
of psychological terrorism and violence”

Where we appear to be at an impasse is whether this is the case in the United States today. The items listed in the “Essential Concepts: How Patriarchy and Rape Culture Hurt Men” all claim that these disadvantages are “patriarchal ideals,” but I have yet to see examples of how modern society (outside of a minority consisting of right wing ideologues) combines these facets of mens’ lives with a belief that men are inherently superior to (and therefore have the right to rule over) women.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of assumptions made in this list that seem to be (but shouldn’t be) taken as self-evident truths. The first being that…

“Patriarchy and rape culture are clearly more harmful to women, but they also cause men great harm”

How are these things (assuming they are as prevalent as the author would seem to believe) more harmful to women? If it’s up to women (those who are feminists, anyway) to determine whether they should fight the alleged Patriarchy, shouldn’t it be up to men to decide how severely various societal disadvantages affect them? Ya know, goose, gander, all that jazz?

That the following is a “patriarchal ideal…”

“Men are more likely to attempt to “prove” their toughness with risky acts that sometimes lead to injury and death.”

Heightened testosterone leads to a greater propensity for risk-taking in all humans, male or female. So, Patriarchy, or biology? I’m going with the latter.

“Due to the fact that it is men who commit most violence, men also constitute most of the prison population.”

Wow. Just… wow. Am I then to assume that because a disproportionate number of convicts are black, it is evidence that black people are more prone to violent criminal behavior? Replace “men” in that statement with literally any other demographic designator in the English language, and you’d be rightly run out of town for bigotry.

“Many men find their romantic partners unsatisfied with their inability to relate emotionally or show affection, leading to relationship strain and decreased intimacy.”

Wrong again. While there are emotionally stunted members of both sexes, it is not a “male” trait, and women are not “better” at expressing themselves. That men express their emotions differently than women does not mean that they do not have or express them. And to call mens’ expressions of emotion, done in their own way, an inability, is degrading and sexist on its face.

“Because women do not have equal earning potential and face various barriers to successful careers… many men can never know if their partners genuinely want to be with them, or if those women have chosen to remain with them for financial reasons.”

It could be that, or it could be just because the woman in their life doesn’t want to work as hard at earning a living, and expects him to do it instead. There’s equal evidence for both assertions.

“The tendency to ignore the female market extends into a variety of business ventures—everything from the design of cars to the marketing of soda—and into sexist advertising that drives female consumers away.”

This is a classic. 80% of household spending is determined by women, but for some reason advertisers and media campaigns ignore them? Those people must really suck at their jobs. Or, maybe the above statement assumes they just don’t want to make any money.

“Most men do not have adequate paternity/family leave or parental benefits at work, and the working world often demands excessive hours while offering inadequate vacation time with the assumption that “good workers” (i.e. good men) will not be invested in their families.”

And this fits the definition of Patriarchy how again? In what way do men at large benefit from any of this, or are even simply less mistreated?

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Moving on.

“Oh Will, you’re a bullshitter and are using falsehoods copy pasted from A href=”http://imgur.com/r/MensRights/wd4XiOd”>MRA sites to support your assertions… The CDC report in no way posits that 40% of women rape, nor the male victimization you erroneously extrapolate from the numbers. The stats you quoted and conclusions you have drawn have no relation to reality. ”

I never said that 40% of women were rapists, or implied the CDC made any such claim.

I had also never seen the site you copy/pasted, until I copy/pasted it in my browser window.

Moreover, sections A-D of the refutation you so cleverly copy/pasted have nothing to do with my statement that women and men force sex on others at similar (though, as I mentioned previously, not identical) rates. Section E explains that the numbers are not perfect and shouldn’t be considered so, because some categories had too few reports to be counted.

Let me be the first to admit that I mixed up the columns when reading this report, and that the 1.1% statement resulting from that was in error. That said, the study still shows that women and men force sex on one another at a very similar rate.

Let’s look at pages 18 and 19 of the actual CDC report, shall we?

Click to access NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

On page 18, we see that, in the 12 months prior to the study, an estimated 3,190,000 women had been raped or had a rape attempted. This translates to 2.7% of women. We then move to the second category, that of “Other Sexual Violence.” 6,646,000 (12.8%) of women had experiences in this group. This would total, then, to 15.5%

Page 19, of course, covers these same categories for men. An allegedly marginal-enough-to-not-count number of men had been raped in the last 12 months. But, an estimated 6,027,000 of them (12.9%) had suffered “Other Sexual Violence.”

So, we’re talking about a 2.7% disparity in the overall number of men and women reporting unwelcome sexual behaviors perpetrated upon them.

Most telling, though, is that there is an almost identical number of men being “made to penetrate” (1,267,000) as women were forcefully penetrated (1,270,000) over the course of the year. Almost exactly the same number of women forced men into intercourse as men did women. Huh. Weird… It’s almost as though men and women are equally human, and therefore equally prone to harmful and dangerous behaviors.

“The fuck Will? Are you tired of your confirmation bias yet (hint: The Spearhead and the Mensrights Subreddit are not good sources of information.)? I imagine you’ll attempt to handwave away these inconvenient truths, and that you won’t walk your error back – see the last time you quoted erroneously – it speaks volumes to your commitment to honest debate and intellectual integrity.

Did you want to continue this argument without making stuff up?

Your move, dude.”

Confirmation from the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are the kind of “bias” I could never get tired of. It’s the kind of “bias” where provable facts are used to demonstrate reality.

What’s so funny to me is that you will preemptively accuse me of handwaving away inconvenient “truths,” while at the same time continuing with the claim that my informational sources (ABC News, UPENN Law Review, CDC, DOJ, etc.) are untrustworthy. So let me set the record straight.

I do sometimes read The Spearhead. When it comes to issues revolving around fatherhood, W.F. Price has a lot of good things to say, and he’s pretty well dead on when it comes to the family courts system. I disagree vehemently with a lot of his other politics, but so what? I have yet to quote him or his site in any way during this entire exchange.

I have never been to the Mensrights Subreddit. Your assumption, like so many of your other assumptions, is incorrect.

You ask if I want to continue the argument without making things up, but have yet to show where I have done anything of the sort. Instead, you continually move the goalposts, attempt to discredit through name calling (MRA! MRA! MRA!), and in fact make stuff up to misrepresent what I have said to make your argument easier (40% of women rapists? Who would say that?).

So now I propose your question to you. Do you want to continue this, without trying to make me into a straw man?

As this is not a Patriarchal society, I make no assumptions as to my authority to give you permission to take your move… Toots.

LikeLike

“You have the gall to assert there’s equal evidence that women just don’t want to work as hard as men.”

No. Read what I said. What I said was that there is equal evidence that

“…many men can never know if their partners genuinely want to be with them, or if those women have chosen to remain with them for financial reasons…”

because of a supposed wage gap, as there is for the idea that their partners expect their financial support. There is no survey data for either assertion as to why a man might feel this way in a relationship. Therefore, both claims have zero evidence behind them. Zero equals zero.

LikeLike

“Did you notice that when I cited something, I gave a source so you could check it out?”

As did I. So what are you yammering on about here? The authors of the CDC report do not dispute that approximately the same number of men were estimated to have been “made to penetrate” as women were forcefully penetrated in 2010, the year of the study. Except, or course, to say that the numbers are not a 100% perfect representation, due to some categories having so few reports as to not be included.

As far as your desire “to see your historical evidence that proves that Patriarchy is not a historical feature – that claim is yours to substantiate now.”

You misrepresent me. Again. At no point did I say there were no patriarchal western societies in history. What I said is that the modern United States is not a Patriarchy, defined as broadly accepted male dominance and rule over women, to the benefit of men and the detriment of women. I’m saying there is an absence of evidence that any of the problems faced by men and women in our culture are due to society being structured in this way, because there is an absence of evidence that society is in fact structured in this way. As yet, I have still not seen evidence that American society is built around the concept that men should dominate women to benefit men at the expense of women. You are familiar with the difference between evidence of absence and absence of evidence, right?

“In this particular argument, you have been shown to misquote, misattribute, and confabulate to ‘strengthen’ your argument.”

Where and when? Because I’ve been over it all and seen nothing of the sort, save for accusations that my sources are MRA sites, when a simple click on a link would show that they are clearly not. Like the existence of Patriarchy, just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

“Tu Quoque. Address the substance of the the claim being made, whinging on about hypocrisy is not helping your arguments.”

Seriously? I guess it’s my turn to LOL forever. Pointing out that you are guilty of what you accuse me of, while also pointing out that your accusations are incorrect, isn’t a “you do it too” logical fallacy. It’s “you’re creating a straw man, moving the goal posts, and misrepresenting my statements because you can’t argue the point, and are deflecting criticism of your arguments by projecting your argumentative flaws on me.”

As to the substance of the claims being made.

My claim is that there is an absence of evidence for modern American society being inherently patriarchal. Are there patriarchal features? Sure. There are also matriarchal features (which I have pointed out more than once, with citation and links to credible sources like the DOJ), and I think we can both agree that we do not live in a Matriarchy.

You, on the other hand, are insisting that without evidence of total absence of patriarchal features, it is necessarily true that we do in fact live in a Patriarchy. Speaking of logical fallacies…

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

LikeLike

“because historians, sociologists, and psychologists have nothing to say about Patriarchy.”

And the ones I disagree with, I disagree with. A lot of people used to also have a lot to say about why the earth was flat.

“Women are the subordinate class, thus any negative effects of a patriarchal society would be worse for them.”

Assuming that women are the subordinate class, and that we live in a Patriarchy, you would be correct in this statement. It’s easy to be right when you frame your arguments from a starting point that assumes you’re already right. I’m saying your premise is incorrect.

“Hello, gender roles, socialization is different for men and women. This is stuff you find in 101 level psych/sociology texts.”

And? So men and women have different life experiences in some general ways. This is somehow proof that men cannot express their emotions?

“If there was a realization that childcare and child socialization was a worthy and necessary feature of society then men would be accommodated when they wanted to interact and take care of their families, but due to the patriarchal gender binary most men are not lauded or supported when they make this choice (if they can).”

Again, arguing from the starting point of assuming your premise is correct. Are you suggesting that childcare and child socialization are somehow not considered important in our society? And in what way would that prove Patriarchy?

“Over a 12 month period. The rates diverge once the window is expanded to life time.”

So, what is it then? Was 2010 a wildly anomalous year, which saw a 75% increase in men’s sexual victimization? Or a 75% decrease in womens’? There has to be some reason 2010 isn’t representative of the other years leading up to it, so what happened?

“Your interpretation of their facts has been unreliable and bias.”

How?

“Anywhere were it has been shown that you’re lying I quote you, blockquote and cite the relevant sources.”

No, you’ve shown where my statements don’t fall in line with Patriarchy theory. Disagreeing with you isn’t lying. What statement did I make that was false? I have reread the entire exchange, and haven’t seen a single example.

“MRA activists, who have said that. [40% of women rape]”

All well and good. I didn’t say that, though, did I? So why are you trying to attribute someone else’s statements to me? Moreover, I looked at the site you linked, and the math for 2010 actually works out to approximately 40% of those forcing sex on someone else were female, according to the statistics in the report (a little higher than 40%, actually, due to the different sample sizes of men and women, and the small number of rapes committed by women on women). Not 40% of women are rapists, but about 40% of rapes reported in this study for 2010 were perpetrated by women, according to the people reporting the rape (assuming we can agree that “made to penetrate” should be considered rape).

“I’m happy to leave things as they are. Do you really think we’ll make any progress with the positions stated?”

It’s unlikely any progress one way or another will take place, I think we can definitely agree on that point. Mr. Toots.

LikeLike

@Intransigent

That a majority of people with official power are male proves only that the majority of people with official power are male. In a Patriarchy, those in power would wield it to the benefit of men at the expense of women. While there are facets of modern American culture that are indeed sexist against women, and may benefit some men, there are also facets of the same society that are sexist against men, and benefit women. My assertion, this entire time, has always been that our civilization is far more accurately described as an Oligarchy, and that the patriarchal and matriarchal features of our social landscape, as well as the gender bickering that comes with them, are part of a “divide and conquer” tactic to keep the vast majority of us focused on fighting each other, instead of those at the top. I’m not going to rehash everything I have already stated in this exchange, but if you have some hard evidence showing any of the assertions I have made to be incorrect, I’d be happy to see them.

LikeLike

There is bigotry of every kind in our society. I’ve yet to dispute that. But bigotry and Patriarchy are not terms with identical meanings. What is irrefutably true, however, is that almost all of the men and women in America are exploited for the benefit of the relative few men and women at the top of the social structure. One need not have official authority to be the primary beneficiary of this exploitation. Paris Hilton, for example, has no official authority or power, yet reaps a ridiculous amount of unearned benefit from the system in place. 50% of the top 1% are female, and all benefit far from our social structure more than 99% of all men (and also of all women). Cui Bono is the central question here.

LikeLike

Warren Buffett is indeed very wealthy, and the majority of the very wealthy are men. Warren Buffett’s wife is legally entitled to a significant portion of his wealth (depending on what kind of pre-nup is in place, if they have one at all). She benefits from his wealth as much as he does. This is why I am talking about the top 1% of families. The spouse of a very wealthy man has a legal claim to that wealth, and derives similar benefits from it. This is why the central question is “who benefits?’ and not “who provides?”

I do not agree that Paris Hilton is inherently worse of than male members of her social class due to her sex. She has access to literally billions of dollars and the ability to do whatever she wants, all the time, and did nothing whatsoever to earn it. In what way is she worse off, that isn’t caused by her own individual behavior?

I grant that there is a sex-based disparity in the very small minority of very high-income jobs, and that is unequal, discriminatory, and potentially reflects culturally ingrained sexism. There is also a sex-based disparity, in favor of women, when it comes to protection under the law. For instance:

See the CDC’s NIPSVS, pages 44 and 45.

Click to access NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

These tables show that in the year of the study, 3.6% of women and 4.5% of men reported having been “Slapped, pushed or shoved” by an intimate partner. 2.7% of women, and 2.0% of men, reported having been the victim of more severe forms of domestic violence. The overall comparison shows that in that year, 6.3% of women and 6.5% of men were victims of domestic violence. Additionally, the study reflects that nearly half of women, as well as nearly half of men (there’s a whole 0.4% difference) had experienced psychological aggression from their partner. Once again, pointing to the fact that women are not only as good, but also as bad, as men.

Now that we’ve seen approximately equal prevalence in the commission of acts of domestic violence, shall we look at arrest records? I point you to the following study from the National Institute of Justice.

Click to access dv-dual-arrest.pdf

See exhibit 8 on page 18.

The biggest factor determining whether a reported offender is arrested is prior record (614% more likely to be arrested), which makes sense. What is troubling, though, is that the second biggest determining factor is the sex of the offender, with men being 99% more likely to be arrested than women, for committing the same crime.

Is having fewer protections under the law a privilege?

Look, there are areas in our society where women are at a noticeable disadvantage due to myriad social and political reasons. All I’m saying, all I have ever said, is that the same applies to men. That the difficulties faced by the sexes are in different areas, and the argument always boils down to who has it “worse.” But Oppression Olympics is pointless, because determining who “has it worse” is impossible when the comparisons cannot be anything closer than apples to oranges.

Who are you to say that women having a less porous glass ceiling over their head is “worse” than men being denied the right to file rape charges against a female rapist? Who are you to say that being viewed as inherently weaker is “worse” than being twice as likely to be arrested for the same crime, because you are viewed as inherently stronger? Why is having a high income due to “privilege” (if you’re male), but being legally entitled to half that income (if you’re female) is some form of “oppression?” Why is “deadbeat dad” a common term when moms are statistically more likely to refuse to pay child support than dads are? Is that male privilege too?

You say women have it worse than men, and make your case by arguing that problems facing men aren’t as important because Patriarchy. I acknowledge womens’ disadvantages, and demonstrate that men and women have different, yet equally vexing problems. Who’s arguing the case for equality here?

LikeLike

“Why would I go there, that would be extending a courtesy that you won’t extend when it comes to understanding what is being argued.”

A link placed for easy verification of what I quoted from the study directly below it the link. This is not something you have had the courtesy to extend.

“It would seem that you think that by someone picking out instances where men purportedly have it worse that this somehow(?) negates argumentation for Patriarchy and its causes.”

I pointed out federal laws, and government statistics. Laws and crime statistics are not isolated instances. When you attempted to make the case that women were oppressed by receiving longer sentences for killing their spouses (ignoring the fact that the examples you gave fit the elements of different crimes, which would carry different sentences), was that also an isolated incidence, and therefore not worthy of acknowledgement?

“Rather than broadening your experience you continue to whinge on about the men.”

And rather than acknowledge that women and men are equally human, and equally prone to both good and bad behaviors, you continue to whine that “men have problems, but it’s worse for teh wimminz” without explaining why that’s the case. How is having additional obstacles in your path to the highest incomes inherently worse than having fewer legal protections against violent crimes?

“We need to address the pressing problems first, we live in a rape culture in which 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted and harassed. 9 out 10 rape victims are women.”

If the sexes of the perpetrator and their victim are different, only women CAN be rape victims, because federal law says that if a woman forces a man into sex, it isn’t rape. More Patriarchy, right? We live in a culture where 2.7% more women than men report having been the victim of any kind of sexual aggression, and an almost identical number of men and women report having been forced into penetrative sex with a member of the opposite sex. Where female perpetrators of child molestation are allowed to collect child support from their victims if they get pregnant in the commission of their crime. Where women have a 0.7% higher likelihood of being the victim of severe domestic violence, and men have a 0.2% higher likelihood of being victims of domestic violence, but men are 99% more likely to go to jail for committing these acts if reported to the police.

These are not my “very important opinion,” but quoted, linked, and verifiable facts from the US Government and other widely accepted sources (universities and ABC News reports). These are the numbers. They are not an opinion at all. They are the facts.

“Men are hurt by the patriarchy, and women are oppressed by it. The difference is enormous and attempting to minimize the discrepancy speaks directly to a lack of understanding…”

You keep making this claim, but have yet to offer any proof. I have asked you, countless times throughout this exchange, to explain why the above statement is correct, and all you’ve said is “These peoples’ very important opinions are like mine, so I’m right.”

I’m familiar with Kimmel, and the numbers disagree with him, just like they disagree with you. His very important opinion, and yours, notwithstanding.

LikeLike

“There you go again missing the point.”

Riiiiiiiiiight. You say Patriarchy creates a culture where men rape women 9 times as much as women rape men, and that the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by men. I say men and women force sex on one another at similar rates, and then cite the data to prove it, pointing out that the only difference here is that one is called rape and the other is not, strictly based on the sexes of the offender and the victim. You then repeat your first statement, claiming that the rationalizations of those who agree with you refutes the data, and if I would only ignore the data in favor of those rationalizations, I would understand.

You say one group’s problems are inherently worse than another group’s problems, based solely on the sex of those experiencing those problems, and I say there’s no way to quantify “worse,” since it’s a completely subjective term and it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.

I say that having fewer legal protections, being legally forced to pay money to one’s rapist for decades (based solely on the sex of the offender and the victim), being arrested at twice the rate of others for committing the same crime with the same frequency (based solely on sex), being denied the right to charge rapists of one sex with rape (if the victim is of the “wrong” sex), having one’s sexuality criminalized, and being considered nothing more than a means to and end, is at least as bad as being discouraged from entering into more competitive and higher-paying jobs, being considered inherently weaker, being underrepresented in executive offices, and being considered a sex object.

You say “Nuh-uh, because some people wrote books that I say agree with me.”

So, fine. I give up. The numbers, the raw data, the facts, the law, all disagree with you. But you’re right because Patriarchy.

LikeLike