Male Privilege Checklist (S/O)

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Saying it's a choice to have kids and if you don't want the career impact then don't have them is absolute fucking bullshit.

You going to support that statement, or just rest on cursing?

Anonymous wrote:as someone who takes advantage of daycare at my husband's worksite, which couldn't be more high quality or convenient, as well as taking advantage of my husband's very flexible schedule (he works a lot but he can shape his hours a lot of the time), and as someone who worked four days a week when I had young kids, I can say companies do have choices.

No one said companies don't have choices.

Anonymous wrote:Saying it's just a family's problem sucks, especially since so many families require two incomes these days, if for nothing else than health insurance.

I didn't say that either. I said that it's not sexist to decline to support a choice.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying we should have extreme maternity leaves or anything, but things like supportive breastfeeding policies, more flexiblity when reasonable (and a lot of times it is reasonable, etc.) goes along way. Successful companies have realized this, it's just time more got on board.

If the company thinks it's a good idea for business - or if they simply think it's a good thing period - they can knock themselves out supporting families. I'm just saying that it's not sexist if they choose not to.

Anonymous wrote:And the fact that a man's career benefits from his being a dad and the mom's plummets, yeah that is sexist.

I'm not sure to what you're referring. I might agree with you if you explained it more.

You quoted me, but you're arguing against completely different points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they will likely ask me for help because men may not be "safe". Need I go on? It sucks that men are always looked at with a skeptical eye. I don't think that's fair do you?

I can choose to SAH with my children and that is normal. DH chooses to do this and somehow that is weird.



I'm tired of people who say men and women should be treated equally, and then pick and choose where they want the equality. . Examples are: I call my DH an asshole. He calls me a bitch back. I can't whine and complain that he called me a bitch. I get pissed off at DH and push him away. He gets mad and pushes me. I call him an abuser.

People who go on and on about how women are treated unfairly always seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that men are also treated unfairly.

As for the people talking about poor women, there are actually more government programs and help available to women than men.

Of course there are. There are more poor women than men, and a hell of a lot more single moms taking care of children than men. It stands to reason there would be more help.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't get the point. Women have it worse than men? Duh.

I think I would have started with physical weakness, bleeding genitals, hormonal fluctuations, and the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

This is perhaps one of the most misogynist things I've ever read on the internet. And that's saying something.

So we are gross dirty hysterical harpies who can't lift heavy things.

That was a strange way to interpret that. Maybe you should reread it when you're less hysterical.

Anonymous wrote:Maniwth a Username, are you at all able to multitask? Do you call off sick when you have the sniffles? Do you realize not all women have PMS or have tough pregnancies or breastfeed?

OK...so it's NOT more difficult to be pregnant than to have a pregnant spouse. It's NOT more difficult to breastfeed than to have a breastfeeding spouse (if you decide to breastfeed). It's NOT in the least annoying to have your period, regardless of whether you have PMS. Apparently, I've been way to sympathetic; I'll be sure to tell my wife that ASAP.

Oh - and you didn't mention it, but I guess it's NOT any kind of limitation to be physically weaker. That has nothing to do with, say, rape, or the entire history of global sexism going back to the dawn of the species.

[Anonymous]

Man with the username, I did support the statement. Quit being obtuse.

Bottom line is you say there is no sexism going on, and I don't agree. No real point in arguing further cause I doubt we will change each other's minds. I do think you are sticking you head in the sand. Take a Women's Study class, or read an article. Saying the work life policies in this country aren't sexist is not a valid argument. Not caring about it, or saying it's not your problem, that is valid.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying it's a choice to have kids and if you don't want the career impact then don't have them is absolute fucking bullshit.

You going to support that statement, or just rest on cursing?

Anonymous wrote:as someone who takes advantage of daycare at my husband's worksite, which couldn't be more high quality or convenient, as well as taking advantage of my husband's very flexible schedule (he works a lot but he can shape his hours a lot of the time), and as someone who worked four days a week when I had young kids, I can say companies do have choices.

No one said companies don't have choices.

Anonymous wrote:Saying it's just a family's problem sucks, especially since so many families require two incomes these days, if for nothing else than health insurance.

I didn't say that either. I said that it's not sexist to decline to support a choice.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying we should have extreme maternity leaves or anything, but things like supportive breastfeeding policies, more flexiblity when reasonable (and a lot of times it is reasonable, etc.) goes along way. Successful companies have realized this, it's just time more got on board.

If the company thinks it's a good idea for business - or if they simply think it's a good thing period - they can knock themselves out supporting families. I'm just saying that it's not sexist if they choose not to.

Anonymous wrote:And the fact that a man's career benefits from his being a dad and the mom's plummets, yeah that is sexist.

I'm not sure to what you're referring. I might agree with you if you explained it more.

You quoted me, but you're arguing against completely different points.

Yes, you did say it was a family's problem. And lack of maternity leave is sexist, since it penalizes the woman only.

"In any case, a lack of support for families isn't sexism. It's still a choice whether to have kids. If you don't want the career impact of having kids, don't have them or arrange beforehand for your mate to lead in childcare."

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Man with the username, I did support the statement. Quit being obtuse.

Bottom line is you say there is no sexism going on, and I don't agree. No real point in arguing further cause I doubt we will change each other's minds. I do think you are sticking you head in the sand. Take a Women's Study class, or read an article. Saying the work life policies in this country aren't sexist is not a valid argument. Not caring about it, or saying it's not your problem, that is valid.

Huh. Pop in, curse at me, then check out without responding to my points. You're right that you won't change my mind that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"as a dad, I would LOVE to be able to stay at home. There is a reason they call it "WORK", because it SUCKS. Not everyone is career obsessed. And talk about female privilege. Do you realize the stress that men are under in this economy? To be the breadwinner when so many traditional male jobs are disappearing. It is soulcrushing. "

Why are you assuming the male is the breadwinner? My DH earns 45% of the household income. If you don't like to work, you should have married a career oriented gal.

Also, I'm willing to bet that to you SAH is synonymous with "not working." Would you really do all the household work that SAHMs do if you were unemployed?

What planet are you living in? No one I know has this privilege. Most families in America are two income. Wake up. Women work now, and some of us are breadwinners.

If you don't like it, you shouldn't have had a family to support or you should have married a higher earner.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you did say it was a family's problem. And lack of maternity leave is sexist, since it penalizes the woman only.

"In any case, a lack of support for families isn't sexism. It's still a choice whether to have kids. If you don't want the career impact of having kids, don't have them or arrange beforehand for your mate to lead in childcare."

If you want to take that as saying that it's the family's problem, that's fine - that's close enough to what I said.

You haven't explained why it's sexist for a company to decline to ameliorate a preexisting injustice.

Is it racist for a company not to engage in affirmative action?

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man with the username, I did support the statement. Quit being obtuse.

Bottom line is you say there is no sexism going on, and I don't agree. No real point in arguing further cause I doubt we will change each other's minds. I do think you are sticking you head in the sand. Take a Women's Study class, or read an article. Saying the work life policies in this country aren't sexist is not a valid argument. Not caring about it, or saying it's not your problem, that is valid.

Huh. Pop in, curse at me, then check out without responding to my points. You're right that you won't change my mind that way.

Huh. I am responding to your points. It's just hard when you say something, and then say you didn't say it. It just means we will go in circles, and that is no fun. And you've gotta let the cursing thing go. I didn't curse you anyway, I said what you said was fucking bullshit.

Since it really bothers you, I'll stop. I posted later - you did say it was a family's problem. I didn't respond to the rest of your points because I didn't think you really had any good ones. We are just going to fundamentally disagree.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Huh. Pop in, curse at me, then check out without responding to my points. You're right that you won't change my mind that way.

Huh. I am responding to your points. It's just hard when you say something, and then say you didn't say it. It just means we will go in circles, and that is no fun. And you've gotta let the cursing thing go. I didn't curse you anyway, I said what you said was fucking bullshit.

Since it really bothers you, I'll stop. I posted later - you did say it was a family's problem. I didn't respond to the rest of your points because I didn't think you really had any good ones. We are just going to fundamentally disagree.

Yeah...heckuva job arguing your points.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Huh. Pop in, curse at me, then check out without responding to my points. You're right that you won't change my mind that way.

Huh. I am responding to your points. It's just hard when you say something, and then say you didn't say it. It just means we will go in circles, and that is no fun. And you've gotta let the cursing thing go. I didn't curse you anyway, I said what you said was fucking bullshit.

Since it really bothers you, I'll stop. I posted later - you did say it was a family's problem. I didn't respond to the rest of your points because I didn't think you really had any good ones. We are just going to fundamentally disagree.

Yeah...heckuva job arguing your points.

My main point was that this issue is not a family's problem but a policy problem. I argued that, so am satisfied. I can check back later, but not sure I have much else to say. I am at work, and though it's a slow Friday before a holiday weekend, I actually don't have hours to say everything I want to say about work and family policies in this country, something I'm very passionate about. So I'm checking out now for a bit but hopefully some others will come and join the discussion.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AnonymousYes, you did say it was a family's problem. And lack of maternity leave is sexist, since it penalizes the woman only.

"In any case, a lack of support for families isn't sexism. It's still a choice whether to have kids. If you don't want the career impact of having kids, don't have them or arrange beforehand for your mate to lead in childcare."

Even where there is maternity leave, paternity leave is mostly absent. Men are expected to be back to workthe next day or take their own vacation time.

Oh and let me explain something to you in terms you might understand. If you are discriminated against something that you do not have a choice in then it's "ist"

Discrinination over your gender - sexist
Discrimination over your race - racist
Discrimination over being a woman -misogynist
Discrimination over being a man - misandrist

If it's something you choose to do - have children, color your hair purple and pierce your face 30 times, become a SAHP; you cannot require that the world adopts itself to YOUR choice.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you did say it was a family's problem. And lack of maternity leave is sexist, since it penalizes the woman only.

"In any case, a lack of support for families isn't sexism. It's still a choice whether to have kids. If you don't want the career impact of having kids, don't have them or arrange beforehand for your mate to lead in childcare."

If you want to take that as saying that it's the family's problem, that's fine - that's close enough to what I said.

You haven't explained why it's sexist for a company to decline to ameliorate a preexisting injustice.

Is it racist for a company not to engage in affirmative action?

Yes, if a company has the ability to engage in some sort of action to recognize and prevent discrimination within their own workplace, then I would say that it is the equivalent of the sin of omission. Let me get at this in another way that you might understand. MLK Jr in his famous letter from a Birmingham jail, writes eloquently about how the greatest obstacle in the struggle for civil rights was not the KKK, but rather white ministers who failed to take a stand on the issue of race. By allowing the status quo to remain, by not condemning Christian leaders who upheld racist policies, white Christian leaders who failed to speak out were perceived by their congregations as tolerating racism.

For a company to do nothing when confronted by evidence of sexism or racism is indeed sexist. To not even properly investigate whether or not racism or sexism exists as a problem within the company is unjust.

I'm an academic, and when MIT was confronted with statistical evidence of institutional sexism, MIT had to act. For MIT not to engage in some sort of "affirmative action" (or whatever you want to call it) would be an injustice.

[Anonymous]

I'm an academic, and when MIT was confronted with statistical evidence of institutional sexism, MIT had to act. For MIT not to engage in some sort of "affirmative action" (or whatever you want to call it) would be an injustice.

You're comparing apples and oranges. What you've described here is evidence of sexism in a particular institution. That's very different from believing that individual companies and organizations have an obligation to institute policies to remedy the perceived wrongs of society as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm an academic, and when MIT was confronted with statistical evidence of institutional sexism, MIT had to act. For MIT not to engage in some sort of "affirmative action" (or whatever you want to call it) would be an injustice.

You're comparing apples and oranges. What you've described here is evidence of sexism in a particular institution. That's very different from believing that individual companies and organizations have an obligation to institute policies to remedy the perceived wrongs of society as a whole.

But institutions are an important part of society, and when institutions make changes to address injustices, they impact the larger society.