Men, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

curlew it has been really interesting from that point of view. Desperate justification of 'why I don't hate women' being used as evidence that the premise that society hates women must be wrong, exactly as described in the article. That and the 'but this is ok, which means that everything's ok' even when the this isn't actually ok debate.

You know.... the 'I'm not racist/misogynist/homophobic, but' argument.

Totally unfair, curlew. Send it by all means. You are starting from the assumption that everything she says is completely correct, and that anything that doesn't fit your view can be glossed over, e.g. men hating women. It is contradictory in the extreme. I am out.

Oh, and there are women disagreeing with her and you too. So, enjoy your privilege top trumps with them. There is a huff beeping its horn at my door - I am off in it.

'How women still take on the vast majority of child care and domestic work'.

Isn't this a choice? I chose to have DC's and be a SAHM, the fact that I didn't have to make this choice was practically rammed down my throat by my career's advisor.

How women are still regularly objectified in the media.....

Mmm, I loathe the term 'objectification', a great many women choose 'objectification' too. It's by no means restricted to women either.

Then why does 'the culture' allowed the legislation to even take place? Why let women get a foot in the door? Why not subvert healthcare away from women (e.g. incentivise companies to move drug development away from breast cancer and towards prostate cancer, or baldness!)? Why not investigate root-and-branch why boys do worse at school, and rig it so that they do better than girls? If you want to take it ridiculous extremes, why not be more like the Taleban and less like Westminster? Actually, while we are stomping all over Kabul, why not just let them be with their culture - keeping women, barefoot, pregnant and illiterate? Why insist on re-instatment of female education at all over there, if there is a systematic, cultural hatred?

Re women in Parliament - massively under-represented in the UK, but not so in other European cultures. So is the UK hugely more misogynistic than the Scandis? It's partly to do with the childcare aspect - for me it's the answer to pay equality in the workplace. I said so above. It is wrong, but it is changing for the better.

The killing/DV thing - I completely agree that it is unacceptable. But feminism approaches it from the only-women-are-victims angle. Men murder. Full stop. They fight, they maim, they carry out terrible violence - some of them. Whether they kill males or females, children or adults - it is all wrong, equally wrong. This might sound extreme, but sometimes I read feminist writings, and I wonder if they could flick a switch and stop all male-on-female violence, would that suffice?

But I have probably said enough, and I suspect that we aren't going to have a meeting of minds, so unless you want me to rabbit on, I will shut up and just see what others think, or let this thread die down.

I am not trolling here, by the way. I am interested in what you think, not trying to win an argument or bore anyone to death.

NOt necessarily full equality in every aspect, no. I thought graduate achievement was better for women than men. I also thought that this shifted back to men post-grad. I would have to check though.

There is still a pay gap, and that is wrong. I see this as mainly down to childcare, where there is an expectation that women will drop their career first, but I think that will change and society changes. I think old-fashioned stereotypes have lead to this situation. It should change, and I think it is. Also, in the lower income groups, according to woman's hour last week, women now are the main breadwinners, although I don't know if there is a like-for-like pay gap still.

Longevity is a product of genetics, lifestyle and healthcare. A system so desperately biased against women - a culture or a class that hates them - would not allow this. It would channel resources far in favour of men until it was redressed - access to drugs, professionals, hospital beds, research etc. It doesn't - why?

Dont stall on my behalf. i'll just lurk if it helps.

I don't mind 'culture'. I just tried to define it, for clarity. Someone else said that 'a culture cannot hate women', as ours is too diverse. I agree with them.

And at the risk of stating the obvious, I listed those areas because I do believe women are at least equal in them in. Healthcare, educational achievement, longevity for starters. Does anyone disagree? I am in the UK, so that is my reference point.

I asked some questions at 1338 re men's privilege, and men's oppression of women:

To address curlew's point - poor working class men vs women. So if there is a ladder, what makes up that ladder? Job opportunities, physical health, mental health, longevity, educational achievements, access to justice, access to medical care? Please tell me what factors in life are more important than those I have listed, and please tell me how men win out in all cases.

Let's say that such oppression of women as a class is true. Why do they not get the shitty end of the stick in all these important areas? An oppressive society would ensure, through legislation if necessary, that men had the better of all those areas.

To misquote:

These days, before we talk about privilege, women are increasingly being asked to modify our language so we don?t hurt men?s feelings. Don?t say, ?Men are more privileged than women? ? that?s sexism, as bad as any sexism women ever have to handle, possibly worse. Instead, say, ?Some men are more privileged than women.? Whatever you do, don?t generalise. That?s something men do. Not all men ? just somemen.

Men as a class have privilege over and oppress (in order to maintain that privilege) women as a class. Regardless of whether individual men go out of their way to do it, unless they are actively calling people out on it, they are condoning it and become part of the problem rather than solution.

Okay, good. That is something we can agree on.

Cisco, everyone on here who posts about privilege acknowledges that it is multi faceted. I'm pretty sure you've been here long enough to have seen that.

I also think it is worth noting that we are not addressing the title of the OP, nor the article's title, and how it contradicts the content of said article (the point about hate).

I am not denying that some people are more privileged in life than others. Obviously they are. I am saying that to split society in two, by genders, and then say that group A is always more privileged than B, is too simplistic. I am not dodging, arguing semantics, or ignoring what I as an individual have.

To address curlew's point - poor working class men vs women. So if there is a ladder, what makes up that ladder? Job opportunities, physical health, mental health, longevity, educational achievements, access to justice, access to medical care? Please tell me what factors in life are more important than those I have listed, and please tell me how men win out in all cases.

And I am going to re-iterate, simply to make it clear - the privilege I have in my life is not just due to my gender. It is much more complicated. That is my point.

being blind to male privilege is a manifestation of that privilege.

insisting that women embrace your lack of awareness as the truth about their own oppression definitely makes you part of the problem.

great article thanks.

curlew it's a great way to avoid the issue!

The problem is that the men discussed in the article are totally unaware of the benefits they enjoy everyday - so how are they going to take it seriously and find anything more than semantics to talk about?

cisco There are obviously many differences in equality law from UK today and USA then.

I was giving you an example of another situation purely to examine your proposal that if a world has a number variables then we should ignore the concept of privilege.

Privilege exists across class, education and appearance. Privilege in a society is not only defined by law as you seem to be suggesting.

Really like the computer game analogy - thanks amanda

Bunnylion, re your point about 1960s USA, I don't think that that is a fair comparison with UK society in 2013. There are no laws here prohibiting women from riding at the front of the bus; no men-only drinking fountains; no men-only cafes; no women-only ghettos. Our society makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender or race. That was not the case back then.

So does it make the idea of blanket male privilege in 2013 UK moot? Absolutely, yes. And that is because to say that all men in all walks of like are inherently favoured for everything, even when just compared to women in the same socio-economic bracket, is wrong, in my humble opinion. There are too many variables to make that assumption.