« Commenting rules | Main | A beginning attempt at a Christian male pro-feminist theology of appetite -- or further proof that I have lost it completely »

February 09, 2005

Comments

mythago

Or do you take the position that no remedies need be available to the children unjustly denied access to their fathers, until we first change the percentage of men in primary caregiver roles?

Why present it as an either-or situation? Men should assume more caregiving rather than suddenly become converts to 50-50 shared parenting upon a filing for divorce; in addition, courts should not presume that a parent's share of custody ought to be determined by gender.

bmmg, there is a big difference between only seeing injustice towards women, and correctly perceiving that most of the benefits of a sexist society go to men. I mean, it's true that racism also creates injustices towards whites, but nobody would argue that it's unfair to say that it affects blacks more harshly.

bmmg39

"bmmg, there is a big difference between only seeing injustice towards women, and correctly perceiving that most of the benefits of a sexist society go to men."

Anyone else see why we're going in circles here?

mythago

Sure. Because you apparently cannot simultaneously acknowledge that men are victims of sexism as well as women while acknowledging that sexism hits women harder and benefits men more. Either we say 'sexism hurts everybody' and bite our tongues over the particulars, or we're playing Victim Olympics and might as well give it up.

I note that you conveniently snipped the last sentence of my post. Why is that?

stanton

Mythago: You use the expression "Victim Olympics" with a note of disdain, yet I get the sense that you are trying to get bmmg39 to award the gold medal to women. Am I mistaken?

Actually, bmmg39 is quite interested in the particulars, and is actively addressing sexism in the realm of DV. This is a good thing, is it not?

bmmg39

"Because you apparently cannot simultaneously acknowledge that men are victims of sexism as well as women while acknowledging that sexism hits women harder and benefits men more."

Except that it doesn't, as I've made clear here several times. We saw the list of reasons men supposedly enjoy privilege, and there have been many thorough answers to each and every so-called point on that list.

"Either we say 'sexism hurts everybody' and bite our tongues over the particulars, or we're playing Victim Olympics and might as well give it up."

You are the one playing Victim Olympics as long as you insist that "women are hurt more." That's a neat, convenient little way to tell any man hurt by sexism to buck up because women "always" have it worse.

"I note that you conveniently snipped the last sentence of my post. Why is that?"

Because you went off on a tangent about race, whereas I'm discussing gender, not race, hair color, or lefthandedness.

Bonk

re the original post:
Hurl!

1247142428

LdlhwR mqmkvmgj rwrqiwrc bhmlfisj

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004