True Control

I am by no means the author of this post. I am only reposting it because it was so well written. You can find the original here.

Well, then, since it is not immediately obvious, allow me to explain.

Women have much more power in relationships than men do. Not just by social convention (which, believe me, is power enough), not just because others are more sympathetic to their side of any story (which, believe me, is also more than power enough), but via the full weight and majesty of the law.

Let us construct, in our heads, a hypothetical scenario. I shall use you and I as examples, just give some sense of the impact of these events on people's lives.

Let us suppose that we meet, by chance, in some gathering place in some city where, at some time in the future, we both reside. I am tall, handsome, muscular, well-dressed, and confident; you are pretty, intelligent, charming, and you get my jokes.

Nature takes its course.

About a year later, you decide that I am a good catch, the best of your available options, and you would like to be married. You drop hints, but I demur. I like you well enough, but you want children and I do not. Not to mention that I am still considering my options and am unready to enter into any sort of lifelong pact.

(This is the branch point. This is where we tell the story of what you could legally do, were you so inclined.)

You simply stop taking your birth control pills, without a word to me. This is not a crime, because legally, I have no right to know. They are your pills, and it is your body.

After a couple of attempts which I did not know were attempts, you become pregnant. You may have attempted with other men as well. Let's leave that matter unresolved for the moment.

You do not tell me until you start to show. This is also perfectly legal.

Once I figure things out, I offer to pay for half the termination procedure. You decline to undergo one. This, too, is legal. The law allows you the "right to choose". I, however, have no such right.

I do a little snooping, and discover unused quantities of birth control pills in the bathroom cabinet. Since they come in those neatly dated little wheel-things, I am easily able to deduce the exactly day you stopped. I terminate our sexual relationship post-haste.

You are angry and accuse me of putting you in this delicate situation and then abandoning you. I demur, arguing that you placed yourself in this situation. Negotiations deteriorate.

I demand a paternity test, not feeling very trusting at this point. You refuse. You can do that. You have the legal right, it's your body, I cannot force you to undergo amniocentesis.

You give birth to a daughter, and name her Zoe. I am named on the birth certificate as the father, simply because mine was the name you gave when they asked. I was not even there.

Now, I have refused to marry you. I still have that right, in most situations. (Look up "common-law" marriage, a law that allows a woman to force a man to marry her.)

So you legally demand that I provide you with the benefits of marriage anyway, to wit, a large portion of my income. You have the legal right to do this. It's called "child support".

In court, I demand a paternity test, but am denied one. You see, because I offered to pay for an abortion, I acknowledged the child as mine. And my name is on the certificate. And, most important of all, the very court that is ruling on the matter receives a cut of all child support payments. (Bet you didn't know that, did you?)

Legally, the money is for Zoe, but the checks come to you, in your name. You can spend them however you like, with no oversight whatsoever.

I'm not even sure Zoe is mine.

Now I'm in a bad situation. But the story does not end here.

The tanking economy causes budget cuts, and my cushy job as an engineer at a major defense contractor is lost. The only thing thing I can find to replace it is a job hawking cell-phones in one of those mall kiosks. This is not, however, grounds for reducing my child-support payments. The initial amount of them was determined by my income at the time, but legally, they are a right belonging to Zoe, and determined by Zoe's need, so my income is not a factor.

Now I cannot pay. I am a "deadbeat dad", according to society. And the newspaper my photo is published in. And the website my picture is posted on.

My failure to pay tanks my credit rating, too, with all its attendant woes.

The economy loosens up a bit, and I reapply to my old firm. They're keen to hire me, but they can't. With a record of delinquent child support payments, I cannot pass the background check. Now my career is blighted, too.

Many years have passed at this point, and I'm in deep trouble. Broke, no career prospects, poor credit, spotty criminal record (failure to pay child support is a misdemeanor in some jurisdictions), depressed, no means or confidence to attract another woman even if I could ever trust one again.

But the story doesn't end here.

Desperate, I manage to find some pretext to visit you, and I steal some of Zoe's hair from her hairbrush in the bathroom. I pay for a lab test out of my meager remaining resources.

Zoe isn't mine.

I take you to court, and lose. Yes, lose. Because I had already been paying child support, I am the publicly acknowledged father. (If you do not believe this could possibly happen, I sympathize. It's crazy. But google "joseph michael ocasio" and prepare to be shocked.)

Okay, end of scenario.

Look where we are. My life is indeed ruined. At no point did I have any power to stop it (except by remaining celibate my entire life). At every point, what you did, you had the legal right to do. You didn't have to "get away" with anything. You could write a book about it, and nothing would change, because it was all legal.

The only thing protecting most men from this fate is nothing but women's lack of inclination to do this. They are entirely in her power.

Would you accept being in an 1700's-style marriage, where your husband owned everything, and had the legal right to beat you, simply because he was a "nice guy and wouldn't do that"?

That is precisely what men are being asked, no, expected, to accept.

Is it any wonder we are distrustful and suspicious to the point of paranoia? It's our only defense. The law will not protect us. The law is against us, straight down the line.

Think about it. Try to imagine how that might feel.

Maybe We're Living In Matriarchy

I had a conversation with a feminist today over the old subject of whether Americans are living in patriarchy. I was directed to an article which supposedly proved that we are, indeed, patriarchal. This was my response:

my first issue with the article is that it relies on an instance in which we cannot see the study itself. a single one which may or may not be made up. it also mentions things such as "men don't have to wait in line to use a bathroom". this isn't always true, and to state it is would require proof. another example: "men can get away with simpler wardrobes". how can women not get away with simpler wardrobes? neither of these rely on anything but assumption. which makes me question the study in itself, which is already quite vague.

it concludes (using the single opinion of a single man as further 'evidence') that this study says "something powerful about people's lives." the study does not. it says what a (supposed) group of (un-numbered) individuals listed. that is all it actually says. i further question this article now as evidence toward patriarchy because it has already shown intense degrees of assumption. it continues to go on about more assumptions, following a ladder of one assumption concluding another assumption without ever using a single piece of objective evidence.

the only objective thing i've read so far at this point is that "patriarchy is a kind of society, and a society is more than a group of people." which nobody is arguing. but this doesn't in any way show that our society is patriarchal. only that a society can bepatriarchal.

continuing on.

it further (and inaccurately) defines patriarchy as being "male dominated, male identified, and male centered." inaccuracy aside, the above definition given by the article would suggest something our society itself does not; that media and consumerism are primarily male-oriented. these are key parts of society. they are, however, primarily female dominated, owned, and focused. 

it goes on to state patriarchy is male dominated in that positions of authority are reserved for men. however, in America, such positions are not reserved for men. in some religious communities they are, but in America as a whole (particularly with regards to separation of church and state) such positions are not reserved for men. in fact, such would be illegal. keep in mind that correlation does not equate causation. even if most of the members of congress are male, that does not mean they must be male, either legally or socially. 

it continues on with more assumptions, concluding these assumptions based on the fallacy of correlation = causation repeatedly.

the article goes on to give an occasional comment from someone here or there (presumably providing this as evidence, which is fallacious) and further describe how women (and men) can be affected or are affected by patriarchy. 

the article has yet to actually show the slightest bit of proof that current America is patriarchal. i'm on page 10. 

page 12 continues on with more assumptions, such as stating that males dominating conversations (ie., leading a conversation more often than a woman) equates to 'male focus everywhere'. correlation does not equate causation. fallacy again.

and more fallacies. more assumptions. i still haven't seen any proof or actual non-subjective, non-bias evidence. it mentions obscure things like "boys get more attention than girls in school" but doesn't mention facts such as:

Quote:

three of the four students who tied for valedictorian were girls. Among the National Honor Society members, 76% were girls. And girls comprised 85% of the students on Franklin's 4.0 honor roll.

or that women tend to graduate more than men.

the author then gives a story of her own experience on something and, while perhaps her story is valid, this doesn't conclude that patriarchy exists.

it goes on to describe that men are in control (without providing how) and vaguely put expectations of men, such as they are assumed/expected to be unemotional and so forth. this does not in any way define America to be patriarchal. it just means a social stigma exists. again, correlation does not equate causation. because one thing exists which another thing requires, does not mean the thing which requires it exists as well.

continues on with various instances of stereotypes which for the most part, could arguably be considered out-dated by society. for example, i don't see how society expects women to bake bread. bread is available in the supermarket readily baked. many bakers are men. women are not demanded by society to bake bread. 

the part that really gets me, though, is the 16th page.

"what other term can one use to describe a state in which people do not have rights over their own bodies, their own sexuality, marriage, reproduction or divorce, in which they may not receive education or practice a trade or profession, or move freely about the world?"

if this is what describes patriarchy, America is, by the author's own definition, not patriarchal. 

women have rights to their own bodies. laws state such. abortion being legal is a prime example.
women have rights to their own sexuality. there are more contraceptives for women than men.
women have the right to accept, reject, or dispose of marriage and account for the majority of divorce initiators.
women have the right to relieve themselves of the financial burden of parenthood. men do not.

given the above, women have more rights than men, which, apparently, by the author's own use of term, means we are living in a matriarchal society.

Why Patriarchy Doesn't Exist in America

America Is Not A Patriarchy (nor are most 1st world western countries)

dictionary.com states that patriarchy is:

Quote:

1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe anddescent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

In America and most western countries, no human being holds authority over another based on sex. This is illegal. Descent is reckoned by both male and female lines (see: family tree) and children are 100% the property of women during gestation. Women win custody rights in 84% of child custody battles. Patriarchy in America and most western countries is not only illegal, but culturally impossible in this modern time.


But Women's Rights Are Ignored!
Evidence provides the contrary. For example, there are over 700 Women’s Studies programs on colleges and universities throughout the United States teaching thousands or tens of thousands of classes from the gender feminist perspective, but not one program or class, teaching men’s studies from the masculist perspective.

To date, there are numerous federal offices on women’s health, and not a single one for men. Also, the lion’s share of gender specific medical research is done on behalf of women.

But The Wage Gap Shows Sexism Against Women!
Actually, it doesn't. 

One could also logically assume that if this myth were true, employers would be eager to replace their male workers with cheaper (and better) female workers, and thus increase their profits. But the “72 cents” claim is misleading because it only refers to the median wages of all men and all women in the work force, without regard to age, education, occupation, experience or working hours — factors that even the NCPE admits are valid explanations for different pay rates. When those key factors enter the equation, the “wage gap” disappears. Studies based on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, taking into account these key variables, reveal that among people ages 27-33 who have never had a child, women's earnings are actually 98 percent of men's.

Remember, (wage) discrimination has been unlawful since 1963. You would not be surprised to know that bosses earn more than their assistants or that full time workers are paid more than their part-time colleagues. Market forces and common sense dictate that some people earn more than others because of their education and skills, their experience, the demand for their services, or their willingness to work longer, harder or under more difficult conditions. Differing wages exist for many reasons and are not in themselves an indication of discrimination.

The NCPE claims that certain jobs (like sales, clerical and service work) are paid less because they are held by women, and they say that any earnings differences not explained by differences in education, experience or time in the work force are “proof” of discrimination. But the NCPE is overlooking some important facts. First, the value of a job is determined by the supply and demand of able and willing workers. Women who might be able to hold a better-paying job often choose a job that pays less but provides more flexibility. This is not discrimination.

In case you didn't know, the "72 cents" claim was coined from a study done by a sexist organization; American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. A group which has been criticized since their founding for being sexist against men and providing anecdotal, bias evidence in their studies.

An excerpt from The War Against Boys: 

Quote:

In 1990, Carol Gilligan announced to the world that America’s adolescent girls were in crisis. In her words, “As the river of a girl’s life flows into the sea of Western culture, she is in danger of drowning or disappearing. Gilligan offered little in the way of conventional evidence to support this alarming finding. Indeed, it is hard to imagine what sort of empirical research could establish so large a claim. But Gilligan quickly attracted powerful allies.”


Gilligan’s ideas had special resonance in women’s groups already committed to the proposition that our society is unsympathetic to women. Such organizations were naturally receptive to bad news about girls. The interest of the venerable and politically influential American Association of University Women (AAUW), in particular, was piqued. Officers at the AAUW were reported to be “intrigued and alarmed” by Gilligan’s findings. “Wanting to know more,” they commissioned a polling firm to study whether American schoolgirls were being drained of their self-confidence.


In 1991, the AAUW announced the disturbing results: “Most [girls] emerge from adolescence with a poor self-image. Anne Bryant, then executive director of the AAUW and an expert in public relations, organized a media campaign to spread the word that “an unacknowledged American tragedy” had been uncovered. Newspapers and magazines around the country carried the bleak tidings that girls were being adversely affected by gender bias that eroded their self-esteem. Susan Schuster, at the time president of the AAUW, candidly explained to The New York Times why the AAUW had undertaken the research in the first place: “We wanted to put some factual data behind our belief that girls are getting shortchanged in the classroom.”


At the time the AAUW’s self-esteem results were making headlines, a little-known journal called Science News, which has been supplying information on scientific and technical developments to interested newspapers since 1922, quoted leading adolescent psychologists who questioned the validity of the self-esteem poll. But somehow the doubts of the experts were not reported in the hundreds of news stories the AAUW study generated.


The AAUW quickly commissioned a second study, How Schools Shortchange Girls. This new study, carried out by the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women and released in 1992, asserted a direct causal relationship between girls’ (alleged) second-class status in the nation’s schools and deficiencies in their level of self-esteem. Carol Gilligan’s psychological girl crisis was thus transformed into a pressing civil rights issue: girls w…

A little about this Carol Gilligan individual:

Quote:

There has been criticism of Gilligan’s work and much of it has come from Christina Hoff Sommers, PhD. She says that Gilligan has failed to produce the data for her research. She condemns the fact that Gilligan used anecdotal evidence, that researchers have not been able to duplicate her work, and that the samples used were too small. She thinks the field of gender studies needs to be put to the test of people from fields such as neuroscience or evolutionary psychology rather than from the area of education. She feels strongly that promoting an anti-male agenda hurts both males and females. Public policy and funding has been allocated based on Gilligan’s data, which Sommers says is not publicly available.”

But Social Patriarchy Exists, Even If Not Legal Patriarchy!

1. You'd have to prove that men are socially favored, which would require overwhelming evidence aside from social stereotypes. The issue with proving men are socially favored is that if they were socially favored it would only be rational to assume they are also legally favored. This is typically how society functions. 

2. You'd also have to explain how women owning/running/controlling the majority of media and consumerism would not be indicative of women being socially favored, given that media and consumerism are a massive aspect of society. 

3. You'd have to take all data on male social favoritism and all data on female social favoritism and compare them objectively to come to any reasonable logical conclusion that could be provided as sound evidence. Good luck with that one. 

4. Laws are created by society. Laws come into affect because they are of the general consensus, not because a group of old and domineering patriarchal men decided them to exist. This is a democracy and contrary to the beliefs of prestigious UFO hunters and conspiracy theorists, it really does work quite well. 

5. Given that we live in a democracy which regularly promotes female rights in literally every single branch of government to include the White House, while male rights are ignored to such a degree that they have less rights and, that organizations such as the Domestic Violence Hotline redirect male victims of abuse to batterer programs, it would be easy to come to the rational conclusion that we do not, as a society, live in a patriarchy. 

Information and Sources
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mission-and-values/about/
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/04/23/the-gender-feminist-wage-gap-myth-appears-to-be-growing-legs/
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gilligan.html