male privlege vs abusive females: which is real?

Obviously you can only have one or the other of the aforementioned concepts, but which one of them really exists?

One of the key points of proving the existance of male privlege is that women know that even if they do consider questioning the male that there is nothing they can do against his will because the male will simply batter the woman into submission.

So how exactly can an abusive female exist if we all know and understand that for a female to even consider questioning the demands of a male means for her to take a trip to the hospital?

Since we all know that the feminists would never lie to us, we know that male privlege is the truth, thus these so called abusive females must simply only exist in a fantasy realm alongside unicorns.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you are a real sexist arnt you.

In the majority of cases thankfully nither form of abuse is present.

For the small minority of cases which are there are male abusers and female abusers and male and female victoms. Most sadly of all the most common victoms (either directly or indirectly) are acually children.

as for the small number of extremist feminsits there are an equal number of extremist shovinests like yourself. As you well know we are currently having some debates about domestic vilonce and other forms of abuse. You well know that very few of us excuse female abusers (and those few are actually males). So you well know (i know you know this because i watched you read the threads in question) that the main group of people opressing male victoms of sexual abuse and domestic vilonce are actually OTHER MEN not radical moroninic feminists

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't have an idea what he is talking about, do you asguard?

Also, I'm just curious. How do you manage to answer essay questions in your exams for Paramedics?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What gives males any "privleges" ? I don't read or see any laws that grant certain rights to males only to do anything to females, if so please enlighten me as to where they can be located.

 

Don't you know in the Matriarchy babies sing flowers and chocolate rains from the sky as unicorns prance in the field?

It was the Evil Men and their Penises of Rape (tm) that destroyed the Paradise of Wymyn.

 

Exactly.

Now try telling that to feminists, who believe in that bullshit concept known as 'male privilege'.

 

O ... kay

Huh?

That might be a projection of male privilege into primitivist conditions, but in modern, first-world societies, at least, it's a strange assertion.

Have you any sort of references to help us put that one in context, or is it just some fanciful melodrama?

While presuming some sort of legitimacy to that question is a bit risky, I'm going to go with, "Men who know they can't get laid while their woman is in the hospital," for a thousand, Sprout.

What? Really, man, you're not giving us much to work on.

How about this, Sprout: Would it be impossible for you to provide some sort of sources to help us contextualize your idea of what constitutes male privilege? Methinks you're making a bit much of it.

 

Poor argument. Case stated in black and white terms. As if it cannot be that there is a strong tendency with exceptions. No, it must be one or the other or it is balanced. Sorry, this does not fit reality. Pop back 80 years.

Middle class blacks vs. white racists.
Oh, there cannot be white racism and discrimination. We have some black middle class people.
Duh.

 

So all priviledge is granted by law?
Odd, I often thought laws were made to even things out.

 

If male privilege does indeed exist, why are 'second rate citizens' allowed to hit the 'privileged' class of citizens with impunity?

 

(Insert title here)

Is there a law or court ruling you could cite that establishes the premise of the question as true?

 

You know exactly what I mean, Tiassa. I was referring to social attitudes, where a man hitting a woman is regarded as the lowliest scummiest act on the planet, while a woman hitting a man is merely 'asserting' herself to the cries of 'YOU GO GIRL!', or seen as a normal part of life. Even you yourself have admitted that such an attitude is prevalent in society, although you then placed the blame on men. Which is irrelevant. The fact that men support particular conditions which favour women doesn't somehow invalidate them when demonstrating why 'male privilege' is a load of shit.

Your comment about the legal system is a big fucking non-sequitur, because 'privilege' isn't just confined to the courtrooms. But since we are on the topic, while in theory the law on paper favours neither gender, the enforcement of said law is an entirely different matter. Men are more likely to receive longer sentences for assault, and they are more likely to be assumed to be the aggressor is a 'male-female' conflict. That's if they make it to the courts in the first place. Most men will not report due to the social stigma.

This sort of blows a whole in the whole 'male privilege' bullshit. In a society with male privilege, why are the 'privileged' class forbidden from hitting the 'second citizen' class citizens, yet it's seen as acceptable (or even encouraged) for the 'second citizen' class to hit the 'privileged' class? And yeah, I know what the law says. Just words on paper.

Can you imagine a Roman's mother saying the following: "Now son, don't you EVER hit Gauls! They are second rate citizens. But if a Gaul ever hits you back, you just stand there and take it like a true Roman!" How absurd.

The fact is that females have 'female privilege', a set of entitlements which men don't have. Being able to slap the opposite sex around without being denounced as scum of the Earth and getting your ass kicked by a bunch of vigilante men is one such privilege. Being able to report an act of domestic violence to the police without being belittled and humiliated is another. Being treated with favouritism in a court of law regarding domestic violence, because everyone assumes that women aren't as violent and aggressive as men, is yet another female privilege.

Now that I think about it, women are actually quite lucky. They get a lot of invisible female privileges, which IMHO they don't actually deserve.

 

You do, of course, have proof that aboriginals under law are considered to be second class citizens? Legislation? Court rulings? Anything at all? What about regarding healthcare? Are there any laws which discriminate the Aborigines in that area?

No? Then I guess that those Aboriginals up north are on par with the rest of Australia, and black privilege doesn't exist. Boy, that was easy.

 

i do reluctently have to agree with him, for instance a male teacher who comferts a child is more at risk of being acused of abuse than a female teacher (something we are discussing in another thread). Then there is the ways the stat rape laws are enforced (and even if they are enforced equally how they are viewed by the media and the public)

 

im assuming he is talking about that queensland rape case. If thats the truth you should realise that the proscuter was fired (i belive) and the judge was censored and put down VERY harshly by the apeals court

 

Aboriginals are equal to non-Aboriginals in the eyes of the law. In fact, they get extra benefits, as well as native title.