male privlege vs abusive females: which is real?

[lepustimidus]

im assuming he is talking about that queensland rape case. If thats the truth you should realise that the proscuter was fired (i belive) and the judge was censored and put down VERY harshly by the apeals court

Nope.

I'm just pointing out to Bells that privilege need not be restricted to laws written on paper. Social factors and ENFORCEMENT of the laws also play a role.

 

[Asguard]

um native title is actually LESS protective than common law ownership.

For instance if you own a large farm and a group of families come to live on that land NO ONE can come onto that land without your concent. Not even the police unless they have a warrent from the courts.

Under the permit system goverment workers, pollies, police ect and now even JOURNILISTS can just walk onto the land

 

[lepustimidus]

Assuming that's true, it's still pretty good for something that you get for free.

 

[Asguard]

umm so if your parents have handed that farm down through the generations from invasion day you should have less protection from anoying pollies than if you buy the house yourself?

How many generations alow the police to just walk in?
how many for child protective services? (ok they do have alot more access than most organisations)
how many for the pollies?
how many for the army?
how many for the journilists?

 

[Tiassa]

In attempting to find the question to consider ....

You know exactly what I mean, Tiassa. I was referring to social attitudes, where a man hitting a woman is regarded as the lowliest scummiest act on the planet, while a woman hitting a man is merely 'asserting' herself to the cries of 'YOU GO GIRL!', or seen as a normal part of life. Even you yourself have admitted that such an attitude is prevalent in society, although you then placed the blame on men. Which is irrelevant.

Actually, even if we take your exaggeration with enough salt to make it realistic, the conduct of men is, in fact, relevant to the question of impunity.

im·pu·ni·ty

: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss <laws were flouted with impunity>​

Domestic violence is domestic violence. Barring evidence of any statute or court ruling granting women the right or privilege to assault men without fear of punishment, harm, or loss, we are left with social attitudes. And among those social attitudes is the question of whether or not one brings the issue before the law.

As such, that we as men should choose to not exercise our own rights under the law—e.g. report and prosecution of assaults by women—is nobody's fault but our own.

The interesting thing is that this topic examines a definition of male privilege attributed to feminists ("Since we all know that the feminists would never lie to us ..."), but is hard to find in feminist literature. What I find in feminist discussions of the issue is something entirely more subtle:

When first dealing with the concept it might be easier to approach it from a systematic, rather than personal, approach. Consider what Lucy says here:

[T]rue gender equality is actually perceived as inequality. A group that is made up of 50% women is perceived as being mostly women. A situation that is perfectly equal between men and women is perceived as being biased in favor of women.
And if you don’t believe me, you’ve never been a married woman who kept her family name. I have had students hold that up as proof of my "sexism." My own brother told me that he could never marry a woman who kept her name because "everyone would know who ruled that relationship." Perfect equality - my husband keeps his name and I keep mine – is held as a statement of superiority on my part.

[Lucy, When Worlds Collide: Fandom and Male Privilege.]​

In this case the inequality is perceived, in part, because taking one’s husband’s name is considered "normal" for a woman, whereas choosing to keep one’s own name deviates from that. Popular culture often labels this behavior as "emasculating" to a man, but never bothers to question how a woman might feel being asked to give up something that has been part of her since her birth. This is an example of a culture of male privilege — where a man’s position and feelings are placed above that of the woman’s in a way that is seen as normal, natural, and traditional.

Going back to Lucy’s article, this is what she said in the paragraph directly preceding the one quoted above:

Male privilege may be more obvious in other cultures, but in so-called Western culture it’s still ubiquitous. In fact, it’s so ubiquitous that it’s invisible. It is so pervasive as to be normalized, and so normalized as to be visible only in its absence. The vast, vast, vast majority of institutions, spaces, and subcultures privilege male interests, but because male is the default in this culture, such interests are very often considered ungendered. As a result, we only really notice when something privileges female interests.

[Lucy, When Worlds Collide: Fandom and Male Privilege.]​

Most people do not think twice about a woman who shares the same name as her husband; they simply assume that the shared name is his family name. This is an illustration about how male privilege operates in stealth. When a wife does not share the same name as the husband, however, it often leads to confusion and even anger — as Lucy’s example illustrated. This is because the male-oriented option (wife taking husband’s name) is seen as default, and the neutral option (both parties keeping their original names) is a deviation from that norm and therefore comes across as privileging the woman because it doesn’t privilege the man.

(Tigtog)

This is a far cry from the whole "YOU GO GIRL!" histrionics you're presenting. But even in that case, we can consider certain relevant contexts. For some women, "fighting fire with fire" is a rule of thumb. When you stop identifying people according to narrow labels, a certain truth will emerge. The whole of this kind of violence is wrong. The whole of this kind of violence demands address. But attempting to isolate it as an argument to undermine an ongoing endeavor for equality and justice, in effect reasserting male supremacy, is not an effective approach.

One of the problems many people have with taking arguments such as yours or the Angrybellsprout's seriously is that they rely on colloquial exaggerations, the stuff of infamous, raucous daytime talk shows like Jerry Springer.

It is why some of us are asking for something substantial—a reference or specific example—that we might examine closely. And while no one case will represent the whole of the situation, that is part of the point. Too often, people seek solutions without defining the problem. With even one substantial issue, we might identify the applicable themes as well as note what the case lacks in terms of the broader question. It won't bring us directly to the answer, but it would, at least, be a place to start.
____________________

Notes:

Tigtog. "What is male privilege?" Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog. March 11, 2007. http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com

 

[Asguard]

tiassa thats not QUITE fair, ABS is just a sexist moron. lepustimidus at least came up with one good thread with some evidence that domestic vilonce is being incorectly treated

 

[lepustimidus]

Tiassa:

And among those social attitudes

So you admit that the social attitudes I describe exist?

How can you accept that such social attitudes exist, while championing the notion of 'male privilege'? Why would a privileged class allow themselves to be hit, and be demonised if they hit back or retaliated?

Oh, and I notice you're putting the blame back on the male collective. Sexist.

 

[lepustimidus]

tiassa thats not QUITE fair, ABS is just a sexist moron. lepustimidus at least came up with one good thread with some evidence that domestic vilonce is being incorectly treated

Thanks asguard.

ABS isn't sexist though. I fail to see how the following is sexist, as he's merely pointing out the absurdity of the 'male privilege' ideology that feminists love to champion.

Obviously you can only have one or the other of the aforementioned concepts, but which one of them really exists?

One of the key points of proving the existance of male privlege is that women know that even if they do consider questioning the male that there is nothing they can do against his will because the male will simply batter the woman into submission.

So how exactly can an abusive female exist if we all know and understand that for a female to even consider questioning the demands of a male means for her to take a trip to the hospital?

Since we all know that the feminists would never lie to us, we know that male privlege is the truth, thus these so called abusive females must simply only exist in a fantasy realm alongside unicorns.

 

[Asguard]

would you like to answer my question or was i to quick to defend you?
How many generations before Kevin Rudd (john howard, brendon neslon ect) can use your property as an election stunt background with all the media gathered around, defaiming you WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION without you having legal recorse to the courts for defimiation and tresspassing?

 

[lepustimidus]

would you like to answer my question or was i to quick to defend you?
How many generations before Kevin Rudd (john howard, brendon neslon ect) can use your property as an election stunt background with all the media gathered around, defaiming you WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION without you having legal recorse to the courts for defimiation and tresspassing?

Are you sure that they can go on without permission? Do you have the relevant piece of native title?

 

[Asguard]

of course they can go on without permission. The permits alow police, and ALL goverment officals to enter WITHOUT a permit. As for the media as the native title act (and it IS an act of parliment) has been changed to include journilists they could do it any time they see fit

Also how would YOU react to your farm being used as a free camping ground for anyone who wanted to stop there? This is what the libs want to do. They effectivly want to remove ALL trespassing charges from anywhere owned by aborigionals

 

[Asguard]

NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 The comonwealth act

NATIVE TITLE (QUEENSLAND) ACT 1993

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) ACT 1976 -the permit system

I dont know if WA, victoria and SA have seprate acts dealing with native title. If they do im having more trouble finding them

 

[Bells]

Aboriginals are equal to non-Aboriginals in the eyes of the law. In fact, they get extra benefits, as well as native title.

Yep. You really should have stopped before making an even bigger fool of yourself. Shame for you that you did not.

What extra benefits do they get MH? Is it a benefit to have a life expectancy that is around 15 years less than white Australians? Is it a benefit to not have access to proper health care or education? Is it a benefit to be over-represented in the criminal justice system?

As for native title. Careful MH, you're beginning to sound a lot like Pauline Hanson. Native Title only reaffirms the right of others to the land (eg pastoral leases). It is meant to give way to the rights held by other people over the land. For some, their claim to native title can be the right to visit a piece of land that is culturally significant to a certain tribe. And that's it. What? Do you think Aboriginals with Native Title claims are allowed to kick off lease holders (as one example) and claim the land as their own? Native Title is a recognition of Indigenous ties to the land.

How can you accept that such social attitudes exist, while championing the notion of 'male privilege'? Why would a privileged class allow themselves to be hit, and be demonised if they hit back or retaliated?

As Tiassa pointed out, and has been pointed out a million times, domestic abuse is domestic abuse. It is illegal. A disparity exists in conviction rates because women are now coming forward to report their abuse while men do not. Why do you think that is MH? Is it the women or the "feminazis" keeping the men down? Or is it simply because there is an inherent beliefs amongst many men in society that men who allow themselves to be abused are wimps?

Oh, and I notice you're putting the blame back on the male collective. Sexist.

Because the blame does lie somewhat with the "male collective". The so called "male collective" need to face up to the fact that domestic abuse is against the law and that some men are also victims of domestic abuse. The "male collective" needs to encourage male victims to come forward instead of belittling them. The sexism exists within the male collective against males.

 

[Asguard]

just a note to bells: i agree with you on all those issues. I just thought i would crush the idea that the permit system is some how MORE restrictive than common law ownership

 

[Tiassa]

Matters of perspective

ABS is just a sexist moron

Damn it, man ....

tiassa thats not QUITE fair ... lepustimidus at least came up with one good thread with some evidence that domestic vilonce is being incorectly treated

I don't think you're being fair inasmuch as it is other people lending merit to his thread. One of the problems that discussion faces is that it only demands relief, and proposes no real solutions:

Are we going to institute any social programs to change this attitude amongst women? How should we convey to women that hitting men when they are angry or displeased is NOT appropriate? Advertising campaigns? Educational programs in public schools? Women's responsibility groups, where they are taught to deal with their anger, instead of lashing out at men?

(#1897321/24)

Comparatively, propositions that aren't riddled with question marks are being condescendingly dismissed, asked for again, and when reminded, are ignored.

Admittedly, the conduct of Lepus' fellow masculinists discourages the proposition that he should try suggesting a manner of addressing his questions, but that's part of the problem with such an approach.

Another problem Lepus' topic faces is that it was opened as part of a personal grudge, with his one meritorious post coming in on the second page. If we are to take these issues seriously, why shouldn't he? And the answer is clear. He should. Making a mockery of such issues, while it might serve his personal sentiments in an interpersonal dispute, only makes legitimate consideration of the subject harder.

 

[Asguard]

*blush*
think i will crawl back into my hole now

Your right of course

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

So you admit that the social attitudes I describe exist?

The question itself does not follow from the quoted text.

Nonetheless, I have no doubt that either you or I could find someone in our vicinity who would express an attitude sufficient to fulfill your Springeresque exaggeration.

How can you accept that such social attitudes exist, while championing the notion of 'male privilege'?

In the first place, your exaggerations do not accurately represent prevailing attitudes, at least in the culture I live amid. Additionally, there is a difference between acknowledging something exists and championing it.

Furthermore, the notion of male privilege I acknowledge would appear to have little in common with what you're describing.

Why would a privileged class allow themselves to be hit, and be demonised if they hit back or retaliated?

To each their own. We would have to ask the victims. I had my reason, when it came up.

Oh, and I notice you're putting the blame back on the male collective. Sexist.

Yes, holding women accountable for their behavior is so oppressive of helpless men like yourself.