Female Priviledge

[RobynD]

I struggle with the answers to this as there so many non privilege things that weigh on women (as Aurorasky made a great list and many good points) . I'm also a feminist and believe in 100% equality and many things flagged as feminine privilege seems to be rooted in inequality and the whole idea of a "weaker" sex, when we know women are not that at all.

Still i have to admit somewhat liking a few of the gentile type ways of social interaction

1. Opening doors and/or allowing me to go first up stairs etc.
2. Ordering first in a restaurant
3. I consider sisterhood with other women to be a sort of privilege, our culture encourages it and it something beneficial that men don't really have in the same way.
4. Trans women - We have the privilege of avoiding the high risk of prostate cancer that cis men face. Something like 11% and 80% of men will have other problems with that little organ in their lifetime. Its extremely rare in trans women that are on HRT.

Thats about all i can think of at the moment. I prefer equality and will fight for it every chance i get.

[JMJW]

I wouldn't want to go through divorce or family court as a man.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11497237/Construction-tycoon-left-homeless-after-ex-wife-wins-80-of-his-property-in-divorce.html

http://www.sflg.com/blog/2014/11/why-are-only-3-percent-of-alimony-recipients-men/

[Sarah leah]

Most of the things you say can actually be evidence AGAINST so called female privilege. We'll go one by one...

[alex82]

I wouldn't want to go through divorce or family court as a man.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11497237/Construction-tycoon-left-homeless-after-ex-wife-wins-80-of-his-property-in-divorce.html

http://www.sflg.com/blog/2014/11/why-are-only-3-percent-of-alimony-recipients-men/

Most couples don't slug it out in court. For those that do, there's already something very hostile going on and both parties have decided that independent arbitration is the only way forward.

Most children who are able to communicate their desires are asked, and there is a presumption that they know what they want.

Yes the courts do favour the custodial parent in terms of finances and housing. If more men were willing to take time off to the detriment of their careers and earnings, to do the flexitime, to sacrifice their pensions, then that would show up in the figures and the proportion of custody settlements.

It is slowly creeping that way, but not far enough, and that isn't women's fault. It's actually mens fault, and within the purview of men with children to fix.

The courts do presume in England that the richer partner will keep the poorer one in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. The poorer partner generally is the woman (and that's not indicative of privilege), but it isn't always.

There is nothing in the legal system that is gendered in that way. It isn't men v women. It's richer partner v poorer partner. Some of the biggest divorce settlements have been paid to men.

Even if custody is decided against for instance, the father, it remains illegal for the mother to remove a child from the country without the consent of the father. They can technically have you arrested at the airport for doing so, even if you're only going on a weeks holiday.

I've just been watching William and Harry doing their 'Our mother Diana' thing on ITV - that goes to show where the law really stands. There is a presumption of joint custody, and providing it isn't slugged out in court, that's where it rests. It did in that case.

There is also a presumption that the richer partner provides for the poorer partner, which is why she got the £20 million lump sum. Not actually a great deal of money realiy, considering his family art collection alone is worth God knows how many billions. But the point is, he was rich, she wasn't. She got the lump sum.

Paloma Picasso was divorced in England and had to pay her husband about half a billion. Joan Collins had to pay most of her Dynasty earnings to her ex husband for the same reason. That is not gender related, it's purely finance. That's where the gender part often comes into play, but it doesn't show female privilege.

[JMJW]

I  disagree.

Sweden's system is fair as it takes into account the advances of the modern woman:

Maintenance for spouse[edit]
Main article: Alimony
The fundamental idea is that divorce effectively severs all forms of economic relations between spouses.[9] Each spouse is therefore individually responsible for his or her own financial support after divorce. Maintenance is seldom granted except in certain circumstances. It must be shown that the spouse is financially needy and that the marriage has resulted in the need for maintenance.[9]
Maintenance is given when a spouse has difficulty in supporting himself or herself for a transitional period following the divorce. Such transitional maintenance provides the needy spouse with opportunities to seek gainful employment or retraining. The sum is determined by considering the spouse's ability to pay, as well as several other factors.
Spousal maintenance is also granted in cases involving marriages of long duration where the spouse becomes financially needy following the separation. This form of maintenance extends over the transitional period and the exact duration is determined upon the relevant facts of each case.

Maintenance for children[edit]
Main article: Child Support
Maintenance for children is compulsory and the sum is to be determined either by an agreement or by a court decision.[20] When assessing the sum, consideration is given to the financial ability of the spouse paying. If the spouse does not pay anything or gives below the stipulated sum, child support is provided by the Swedish Social Insurance Agency.[21] The spouse is then required to reimburse the agency for all or part of the sums paid for towards the child.

As opposed to our system that hasn't been updated in a hundred years, where the wife is paid alimony until she remarries and the man (almost always a man) goes to jail when he can't pay child support and is kept there until he finds the means to pay.

[alex82]

I  disagree.

Sweden's system is fair as it takes into account the advances of the modern woman:

Maintenance for spouse[edit]
Main article: Alimony
The fundamental idea is that divorce effectively severs all forms of economic relations between spouses.[9] Each spouse is therefore individually responsible for his or her own financial support after divorce. Maintenance is seldom granted except in certain circumstances. It must be shown that the spouse is financially needy and that the marriage has resulted in the need for maintenance.[9]
Maintenance is given when a spouse has difficulty in supporting himself or herself for a transitional period following the divorce. Such transitional maintenance provides the needy spouse with opportunities to seek gainful employment or retraining. The sum is determined by considering the spouse's ability to pay, as well as several other factors.
Spousal maintenance is also granted in cases involving marriages of long duration where the spouse becomes financially needy following the separation. This form of maintenance extends over the transitional period and the exact duration is determined upon the relevant facts of each case.

Maintenance for children[edit]
Main article: Child Support
Maintenance for children is compulsory and the sum is to be determined either by an agreement or by a court decision.[20] When assessing the sum, consideration is given to the financial ability of the spouse paying. If the spouse does not pay anything or gives below the stipulated sum, child support is provided by the Swedish Social Insurance Agency.[21] The spouse is then required to reimburse the agency for all or part of the sums paid for towards the child.

As opposed to our system that hasn't been updated in a hundred years, where the wife is paid alimony until she remarries and the man (almost always a man) goes to jail when he can't pay child support and is kept there until he finds the means to pay.

That's not what happens in our system at all. I said what happens, which is pretty much what happens in Sweden.

Look I have male clients right now whose ex wives pay them alimony. I also have clients of both genders whose ex partners should be paying alimony but don't, and are nowhere near prison, although they are in debt and it could be enforced by asset seizure or bankruptcy proceedings. But what I said before is entirely accurate in that most people don't even fight that out in court, most people can't be bothered and don't want to drag it into court.

There is nothing in English law that says 'the female partner will be financially compensated by the male'. Absolutely nothing, no such clause exists. The richer partner pays the poorer partner (hence the 'need' basis is exactly the same as the legal presumption in Sweden), and that is it.

The poorer partner is usually the female, but that is the opposite of gender privilege.

Additionally, child support is NOT paid by the father until the mother remarries, and then ceases. You have that wrong. It is paid to whoever the custodial parent is, until the child is either 18 or has finished full time education. That holds whether the custodial parent never remarries, or subsequently cycles through multiple rich divorces.

The law doesn't work that way, so there isn't a single court in the land that will accept the premise that 'my ex wife married a millionaire so now I can stop paying child support'. No, your child, YOU pay. You either pay for them to live with you, or you pay for them to live with the other parent. That's it, those are the only two options.

[JMJW]

Women spend more than men. Women get double the university degrees, earn more than men on average before the age of 40. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214854/Pay-gap-Women-earn-men-till-40s-20-woman-paid-men-age-group-decade.html

And yet 97% of alimony goes to women.

Furthermore women can simply say their husband was abusive and that practically guarantees either full or the vast majority of custody. I have heard it from women in the documentary Divorce Corp, that lawyers have encouraged them to say it, cry, and cause the man to no longer contest custody, as it's a losing waste of money even at the threat of it. Family court has no jury and there In fact that National Organization of Women argued against a default starting point of 50/50 custody. There is absolute gender bias in family court, and the vast disparity in custody that exists to this day.

It was because of feminist Caroline Norton's Tender Years Doctrine that the man was put in the position of having to pay for the child while losing custody. To this day,  83% of mothers receive custody of their children in divorces, and this is defended in a topic where feminists are saying both parents have to work in this day and age and women are not typically allowed to stay at home and be full time caregivers.

[alex82]

Women spend more than men. Women get double the university degrees, earn more than men on average before the age of 40. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214854/Pay-gap-Women-earn-men-till-40s-20-woman-paid-men-age-group-decade.html

And yet 97% of alimony goes to women.

Furthermore women can simply say their husband was abusive and that practically guarantees either full of the vast majority of custody. I have heard it from women in the documentary Divorce Corp, that lawyers have encouraged them to say it, cry, and cause the man to no longer contest custody, as it's a losing waste of money even at the threat of it. Family court has no jury and there In fact that National Organization of Women argued against a default starting point of 50/50 custody. There is absolute gender bias in family court, and the vast disparity in custody that exists to this day.

It was because of feminist Caroline Norton's Tender Years Doctrine that the man was put in the position of having to pay for the child while losing custody. To this day,  83% of mothers receive custody of their children in divorces, and this is defended in a topic where feminists are saying both parents have to work in this day and age and women are not typically allowed to stay at home and be full time caregivers.

The Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph are not reputable sources. The former is particularly not something that should ever be referenced as factual.

Look, it doesn't matter whether you lose custody, you have to pay for your own child. The trust is correct.

BTW, saying your husband was physically abusive does not 'guarantee' custody. It guarantees that the social work department will interview the child/ren, and if it's found that he has never been abusive to them, then it doesn't factor in.

[JMJW]

The Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph are not reputable sources. The former is particularly not something that should ever be referenced as factual.

Look, it doesn't matter whether you lose custody, you have to pay for your own child. The trust is correct.

BTW, saying your husband was physically abusive does not 'guarantee' custody. It guarantees that the social work department will interview the child/ren, and if it's found that he has never been abusivet to them, then it doesn't factor in.

These newspapers aren't the source for the pay gap stat. They're merely quoting statistics from the Office for National Statistics.

And two newspapers are reputable enough for stories about how a childless wife with a business degree wins 80% of a man's assets because my original point was if I was a man I wouldn't touch family court with a 4000 ft flag pole. Why would any man not believe the newspapers there? Out of some blind faith in the system?

He doesn't have to be abusive to the kids. She can merely claim that he was abusive to her, and his chance of getting custody? Down in flames. All a wife has to do is call the police, say he was threatening or violent, and he will be arrested and jailed on the spot (mandatory arrest) and denied access to the home, as detailed in the Violence against women act. His chances of custody? Crashes and burns.

If it doesn't matter who has custody, why do women get it almost always when the age of the dedicated housewife is over? Because the laws are old and out of touch.

[elkie-t]

I had been through the divorce. In theory it's all good and fair. In practice, my lawyer asked me, so we contest a custody? It will cost you 25k (please provide me a retainer) and we will lose at the end.

So, I ended up paying 33% of my money to child support, 33% to Uncle Sam in taxes and leaving a lucrative life on 33% myself.

Then, a few years later, I remarried, got 2 more children, and lost a job. I immediately applied for child support modification, payed 5k to a layer to do that (do you think it's little money when you are unemployed?). 2 years later modification was granted. All this time friendly IRS continued to withhold all amount + penalties for not paying child support for my nearly adult children. They would leave me with 35% of my net paycheck, and try to arrest money on checking account (just took once the 65 from paycheck and arrested the rest when they got deposited into the checking). I had to live and support my family on those leftovers. IRS cared that my ex-wife continued to enjoy our pre-divorce lifestyle, not asking if I can enjoy it, or if I have any roof over my head, or any food, or my younger children are enjoying the same life style. And I couldn't even be considered low-income, having a big family surviving on McDonalds-level salary since in paper my salary was over 100k. I survived it, I am strong. But in divorce court, laws and logic are thrown away, just 'give all you have to baby' and laws are totally in female's favor. At least I happened to divorce in such state (your state might vary).

And I know smarter guys who hide all the money abroad and transferred their company stocks to relatives and ended up paying nothing. I just did not want to pay any dirty tricks in relation to my children (but oh boy, I should)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Randi]

I came of age during the Vietnam War, and was subject to the the draft lottery. Of 365 numbers, my birthday was #7.  Anyone with a number under 120 was drafted.

Seeing the handwriting on the wall I left college and joined the Navy.  It beat being drafted and sent to Vietnam with a distinct possibility of being killed or wounded.  I was 30 years old when I finally got through college.

I was fortunate to make it to 30, mentally and physically sound.  Not so many of my cohort.  Many who were not physically injured or killed were left with mental scars that were slow to heal.

Women were not subject to the draft and only volunteers served in Vietnam.

Randi

[alex82]

These newspapers aren't the source for the pay gap stat. They're merely quoting statistics from the Office for National Statistics.

And two newspapers are reputable enough for stories about how a childless wife with a business degree wins 80% of a man's assets because my original point was if I was a man I wouldn't touch family court with a 4000 ft flag pole. Why would any man not believe the newspapers there? Out of some blind faith in the system?

He doesn't have to be abusive to the kids. She can merely claim that he was abusive to her, and his chance of getting custody? Down in flames. All a wife has to do is call the police, say he was threatening or violent, and he will be arrested and jailed on the spot (mandatory arrest) and denied access to the home, as detailed in the Violence against women act. His chances of custody? Crashes and burns.

If it doesn't matter who has custody, why do women get it almost always when the age of the dedicated housewife is over? Because the laws are old and out of touch.

Women almost always get it because it's based on a continuation of what the child already has. If the mother has been the main carer, and therefore the one who is financially disadvantaged, then the mother will get it.

Once again I add that most couples never reach that stage but come to an agreement outside the court system.

Yes, there is mandatory arrest for domestic violence. I have female clients who have been arrested for the same because the neighbours have called the police. Most people do not commit perjury by falsely stating that they have been physically or sexually assaulted.

[undautri]

I shouldn't have decided to read this, but now that I have I can't help but dispute some of the points mentioned. I mean this with all respect, but some of these points are just straight-up wrong or misled. I feel obligated to point these out and put in my two cents.

Women used to be able to, but nowadays with the economy the way it is, and salaries lower than the old days, they just can't. stay at home now. Psychology researchers postulate that this is the cause for the rising autism and ADHD rates in children. Parents who are barely in their children's lives as they have to work. Children who are raised by Tv.

Actually most of what I've seen is that the rising autism rates seem to be caused by the fact that we now know what to look for. While we still don't know for sure what causes it, you can spot autism in very young children- most are spotted by the age of 5 and a little under 20% are spotted under the age of 2. I doubt it's caused because of working mothers. Nobody just leaves their child alone- they hire a nanny or ask a relative to look after the kid. Changing hands often may cause some negative traits in children, but nothing as extreme as autism. You ever met anyone with extreme autism? No way in hell is that caused just by a kid being raised by someone other than their mom. I know plenty adopted kids, and I've met a decent amount of kids on the spectrum, and I know plenty of people who had working moms. There is no connection that I can see.

It's men who have to learn to listen and sympathize with each other

No. No no no, no. I have seen men being criticized for having feelings more often by women than by other men. Maybe it's just where I live, but I have seen men comforting eachother here while the women continue to hold them to this emotionless standard.

Men are more likely to be the one doing the beating. Therefore, more men are arrested for domestic violence than women.

Yeah, more likely, sure, but it's not exactly 99% men doing the beating. It's a 60/40 ratio (in the uk), and how many men are too scared to speak up? How many men are ridiculed out of pressing charges? Think about what happens if you hear a woman was hit by a man: "Oh girl, you need to go to the police! No man should get away with that!" But then if a woman hits a man? "You go girl! Break his nuts!"
  The inequality is real.

Yes... But circumcision is mostly a religious norm for Jews. And it's not the penis that is cut, it's skin. As for female genital mutilation, it's one of the main areas of deriving sexual pleasure for girls and women, the clitoris,  that is cut.

This makes me so angry. beyond angry. How can you dismiss genital mutilation as "the norm for jews"? Circumcision cuts away one of the "main areas of deriving sexual pleasure" for men, but even if this wasn't the case it'd still be disgusting. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation, and it disgusts me that it's still practiced to this day. And it's not just the jews- it's many types of abrahamic faiths that practice circumcision. including Christianity. Luckily the rates in the US are dropping, but even now the numbers are far above what any modern culture should be thoughtlessly accepting.

Angry nitpicking is over.

[Aurorasky]

Yes, undautri, I agree. There are definitely disadvantages to being a man, which are rooted in the thought that men are expected to be stronger because they are superior to females. That's why I don't agree that list is telling of female privilege, but it's definitely telling of how feminism has worked to liberate women but not men. Works needs to be done both ways.

[noleen111]

I know I answered a few days back

But I thought of another awesome female privilege.. actually two

- being able to wear open toe shoes or sandals to work in summer
- If its hot, I can wear above the knee skirt and have my legs bare at work... That was one thing I hated as a male.. when its hot, having to wear long pants with shoes and socks to work.

[Wednesday]

This one is based solely on general western norms and sure to upset. However, when I discussed this with a panel of five world class Universities it was pretty much a perfect snap shot.

Call me a natural born rebel, but I can't resist to react when authority is quoted as an argument. Just for pointing a few things:

1.I can socialise without the fear of being sexually manipulated and/or seduced. (girls only bars/security in my building, men will jump to my aid if I scream vs. other genders who might scream, separate areas on public transport between 9pm-7am to protect me if I want it)

Well, I'm not really sure how the measures to solve a big problem (women harassment) can be interpreted to be a "privilege". I'm no legal-head but you know, to me, to be proportionally protected against a threat sounds more like a right than like a privilege.

Sadly enough, even with those measures working, vast majority of victims still be women. Well, we always can argue they get advantage and they lie (we can go as far as arguing conspiracies if we want).

2.I can enjoy the luxuries of staying at home and rely on my spouse for financial security without being frowned upon by society for doing so.

Not in my society unless you're the mom of at least 4 little kids. In fact, what my society would expect of a woman is to both take care of the kids/home and work in a job the most hours she can.

3.I can openly talk about my mental health and emotions without being negatively judged by society.

Not just men, but even other women may call you a "crybaby" depending on how much you "talk".

4.I am not expected to remain onboard a sinking ship in order to allow the opposite gender to reach safety first.

Putting others safety first in such a situation (no matter what gender you are or they are) is an honor. And those who do this, are really privileged and regarded as heros, whether they are men or not.

5.I am able to look after my children and simultaneously apply for financial compensation from my workplace without being negatively judged by society.

Not in my society. And even a compensation will be no privilege but justice, since because of motherhood many women lose important career opportunities and experience.

6.In case of divorce, I get greater custody over my children and a greater say in the situation, along with greater sympathy from the judiciary and greater freedom to choose my child's co-parent.

Again not in my society.

7.I will receive lighter prison sentences and better judicial treatment simply because of my gender.

I find really hard to figure how to make a reliable statistic since each crime is unique and usually a summary contains hundreds of pages.

8.Most domestic violence perpetrators of my gender do not get arrested in comparison to the counterparts of the opposite gender.

Even if true, sadly the most easy to verify victims (those who die) still are women. Watch out your privileges!

9.My gender does not commit suicide at a multiple rate in comparison to the opposite gender.

Curiously enough as some research indicates, suicide behaviours are linked to externalizing psychopatologies, who are more common among men (in fact, suicide can be regarded somewhat as an externalizing and violent, specially in the way men commit it, behaviour). Balancing this, there is the greater prevalence of major depressing (often lifelong) disorders among women. Food for thought.

And it goes on...

Obviously I think is really healthy to always look at the bright side of things and be happy for the opportunities we may have as women, that's for sure. But we need to be a little critical and realistic. The fact that those women that behave much like most men and play really well by mens rules are the ones who are on the top layers of society may raise a red flag about "who is who"; for who and by who is "designed".

I'm not saying being a man is living in a pink world full of fantasy and goodies. It's not. But saying that females are "privileged" is nonsensical, as is nonsensical to say a slave has the privilege of not having to care about his fate because master decides for him.

[alex82]

'Women and children first' is no longer the case. It should never have been the case in the first place, and it isn't any more.

Such a rule would be extremely dangerous and lead to great loss of life in the event of say, a plane crash. One aisle to get over 300 people out before it catches fire...'after you Madame, no after you, wait is that boy 15 or 17, hold him back, after you madame'. Man accompanying his children held back while a single woman was ushered ahead of him? That would be chaos. Most of the passengers would be incinerated before even the chosen ones made it to the exits.

[RobynD]

I know I answered a few days back

But I thought of another awesome female privilege.. actually two

- being able to wear open toe shoes or sandals to work in summer
- If its hot, I can wear above the knee skirt and have my legs bare at work... That was one thing I hated as a male.. when its hot, having to wear long pants with shoes and socks to work.

That is a great one and i agree. Its so nice to wear a skirt or dress in summer particularly.

[Mariah]

It really forces me to have to do even more to prove myself just because I am a woman. Hugs
Mariah

*Being talked down to at jobs
*Having to know more than the men in the discussion to be taken seriously, if you know the same or less, you won't be heard
*you'll get unsolicited comments about your appearance, whether you want it or not
*Gossiping is a real thing and sooner or later you will be the one everyone's gossiping about

[pretty pauline]

Both male and female priviledges sometimes balance out in the end, when myself and hubby got married 7 years ago, marriage was new to both of us, neither of us could cook, yet it was me that took the cookery courses and learning recipes, because I was the wife it was expected, he still can't cook, but then heavy repair chores he'll do them which I'm usless at,

- being able to wear open toe shoes or sandals to work in summer
- If its hot, I can wear above the knee skirt and have my legs bare at work... That was one thing I hated as a male.. when its hot, having to wear long pants with shoes and socks to work.

I do value my summer dresses, got another yesterday and hubby paid for it, I have over 20 pairs of shoes some with my beloved open toe showing off my painted nails, hubby has only 3 pairs including 1 pair of trainers, priviledges swing in roundabouts, if we stay in on Sundays, hubby spends it on the sofa with the Sunday newspaper watching football on TV playing with his phone, I'm in the kitchen preparing vegetable, and roast casserole, cooking is hot work, it's not a priviledge, but then Saturday nights, if we're not getting a cab, he does all the driving and has all the stress, I just sit back and relax and enjoy the night and get treated like a lady, now that is a priviledge.