The Internet's 'Misogyny Problem' - real or imagined?

[classical_hero]

TL;DR: Cheezy is wrong about "You can't be a racism victim if white". Everyone else is wrong to assume that the racism they're victims of in any way, form or shape compare to the racism non-white, non-males face in western society.

I bet he will also say that white people were never slaves, because only white people are cruel enough to enslave other people. Whites are the only bad people on the planet.

 

[Old Hippy]

It wasn't about what extra benefits males SHOULD have, it was asking what they DO have already.

again, they have all the benefits available to any UK citzen...

this whole debate is set against a 110 year struggle to get all UK citizens to this point, because since trying to get the vote and equal pay and a host of other rights, men have had all these extra benefits entirely to themselves... they thought that just being male entitled them to have these benefits, they were wrong and some, a few, seem to not get their head around this fact...

 

[Senethro]

I bet he will also say that white people were never slaves, because only white people are cruel enough to enslave other people. Whites are the only bad people on the planet.

Whites may not be the only bad guy but they are the probable holder of some award like "Outstanding achievements and innovation in the field of Cruelty"

From your own Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

Yours is a pretty piss poor argument saying that just because other people do bad things, noone should ever bring up the bad things white people did.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Privilege can be institutionalised by legislation or in other ways. I doubt the UK is totally free from legislation that favours men, and at any rate I'm pretty sure there are still social mores that are to the advantage of white men. Just because some of them are poor and part of the underclass doesn't mean there is no privilege.

The question was specifically about legislation, not social mores.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

again, they have all the benefits available to any UK citzen...

No that's not... no... that's not an extra benefit. Having the same benefits everyone else has, isn't having an extra benefit that they don't have.

 

[Senethro]

Well the question was clearly* asking "what legislation in the UK favours white men over other races or females?", and so the answer "the same legislation that applies to everyone else equally" is not really a sensible answer to that. It wasn't about what extra benefits males SHOULD have, it was asking what they DO have already.

When you were a kid did you ever ask your parents "How come theres a mothers day and a fathers day? Why isn't there a childrens day? Its not fair."

Did they respond "Childrens day is every other day."?

Because its like that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

When you were a kid did you ever ask your parents "How come theres a mothers day and a fathers day? Why isn't there a childrens day? Its not fair."

Did they respond "Childrens day is every other day."?

Because its like that.

A specific question was asked about what legislation benefits white men over other groups. In what way is it "like that"?

 

[Old Hippy]

No that's not... no... that's not an extra benefit. Having the same benefits everyone else has, isn't having an extra benefit that they don't have.

and your point would be... what

Originally Posted by brennan
Roman citizens were indeed favoured by legislation in the Roman state.

What legislation favours white men in the UK?

 

[Kennigit]

I remember when the UK had a royal family of every color, window shopped for a bit, and ultimately said "ehhhhh we'll take the white ones"

classic England

 

[classical_hero]

From your own Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

The stolen generation is a myth because a) they weren't stolen, and b) it wasn't a generation. In fact many where given up by their own mothers so their children could live better lives and often that happened when the child was a teenager so they could on farms to learn skill. We are seeing the myth have damaging effects now because no one is willing to take an Aboriginal child who is in danger from their family like we do for other children, let we are "stealing them" and as result we are seeing Aboriginal children die as a result of neglect.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

and your point would be... what

I honestly don't know how you're not getting my point by now. I really don't know how I can make it any clearer. Someone asked what EXTRA benefit white men are given in UK legislation, and your answer was "the same as everyone else gets". It's just a complete non sequitur. Something can't be "greater than everything else" and "exactly the same as everything else" at the same time.

As far as I can see the only argument against that is if you insist that I'm interpreting the original question wrong, but I really don't think I am and I've already explained why I don't think I am. If you accept that that was what the question meant then I don't know how you can think your answer makes sense.

 

[Old Hippy]

I honestly don't know how you're not getting my point by now. I really don't know how I can make it any clearer. Someone asked what EXTRA benefit white men are given in UK legislation, and your answer was "the same as everyone else gets". It's just a complete non sequitur. Something can't be "greater than everything else" and "exactly the same as everything else" at the same time.

As far as I can see the only argument against that is if you insist that I'm interpreting the original question wrong, but I really don't think I am and I've already explained why I don't think I am. If you accept that that was what the question meant then I don't know how you can think your answer makes sense.

ok point by point of a post about romans and male priveledge in the UK

Roman citizens were indeed favoured by legislation in the Roman state.

UK citzens are indeed favoured by legislation in the UK state

What legislation favours white men in the UK?

see above

 

[cardgame]

Well, I care, and the poster who asked about it cares, and it's just about the only thing in this entire off-topic diatribe that relates back to misogyny (men receiving legal benefits women are not entitled to) so the mods might care.

 

[classical_hero]

UK citzens are indeed favoured by legislation in the UK state


see above

So coloured people can't be citizens of the UK. Gotcha. You would expect any citizen of a country to benefit from being a citizen of the country, but you are confusing the issue here, since you are saying only Whites have benefited, when everyone benefits.

 

[Evie]

Just because legislation doesn't explicitly give rights to one category that others don't get, doesn't mean it doesn't create an advantage for that category against others.

For example, legislation that gives everyone the right one category wants, but then fails to give the other categories the rights they want is legislation that effectively advantage that first category of people.

SIMPLE (non-gender related) Example (it can get a lot more complicated): a law that make Sunday a mandatory off-day. Fair for everyone; everyone get sunday off! Except not quite so fair to Jewish citizens who now can either abandon religious teachings or take two days off in the week because it's Saturday they want off. So Christians (compared to Jews) become more employable (they work all days of the week that store are open instead of just 5 out of 6), Christian business owners become more competitive over Jewish ones (because their stores can be open an additional day a week), etc.

Are there such laws in the UK? I don't know. But it's foolish to assume there aren't without a thorough investigation, given whose perspective dominated the laws being made for a very, very, very long time (and still do today when nearly 80% of MPs are males).

 

[choxorn]

Yours is a pretty piss poor argument saying that just because other people do bad things, noone should ever bring up the bad things white people did.

It sounded more like he was saying that "white people do bad things, but other races do bad things too!" Now, this argument tends to be in response to people pointing out white people doing bad things and tends to imply what you said, but in this case it was in response to Cheezy's "white men are the cause of everything bad" argument, so it seemed like a fair point to make even given what that point tends to imply.

 

[Senethro]

It sounded more like he was saying that "white people do bad things, but other races do bad things too!" Now, this argument tends to be in response to people pointing out white people doing bad things and tends to imply what you said, but in this case it was in response to Cheezy's "white men are the cause of everything bad" argument, so it seemed like a fair point to make even given what that point tends to imply.

Yah, but all this from the guy who says that it isn't genocide if god has judged them. Its a bit rich.

 

[Algeroth]

UK citzens are indeed favoured by legislation in the UK state

You do recognize the difference between citizenship in Roman Empire and modern UK, right? Otherwise you have nothing to do in RD thread.

 

[Camikaze]

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread" - Anatole France

The point is one worth keeping in mind when talking about the law. Laws don't need to specifically grant rights to a group in order to privilege them, or they don't need to specifically target another group to disadvantage them. A classic example is mandatory minimum sentencing for crack cocaine. Formerly in the US, there was a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence for possession of 5g of crack cocaine, but the same penalty only applied for possession of 500g of powder cocaine. The two substances are not significantly difference in any respect other than that crack cocaine tends to be used by a high proportion of black people, whereas powder cocaine tends to be used by a high proportion of white people. Now, on the surface the law does not state "this mandatory minimum applies particularly to black people", but the legislature had made a choice to target the type of cocaine black people happened to use as being somehow worse. Whether or not it was a conscious choice, the law was clearly disadvantageous to them.

More generally, the law tends to protect the status quo, or those with existing power and privilege, through such things as property rights. Again, on the surface property rights appear to apply to everyone equally, but that doesn't mean those who have more property don't therefore have more property rights. In the context of the English law, traditionally it's been rich white men who have held the most property, and who therefore benefit the most from property law, by having more property rights for the law to protect. It would seem strange to suggest that the law doesn't protect the status quo in this regard. Sure, it doesn't explicitly say "black women don't get our protection", but a black woman is certainly less likely to be getting the same degree of protection out of the law; a law which entrenches existing inequalities and privileges. Simply as an empirical matter, the group of people who will be getting the most protection out of the law are rich white men.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Good point well made.

Edit: er... okay, this comment isn't really becoming of an RD thread, but not much I can do about it now...