Privilege and Oppression

With privilege comes oppression. And what I mean by this is that privilege is defined as "benefits, advantages, and power that accrue to members of dominant groups". If one group has power and gains all the benefits, that leaves group number two with pull backs and disadvantages correct? Correct! Group number two would be oppression, defined as "prejudice and discrimination directed toward a group and perpetuated by the ideologies and practices of multiple social institutions. However, just because most of the time it is inevitable that privilege comes with oppression, that doesn't mean it happens on purpose. Some groups, like the book Threshold Concepts in Women's and Gender Studies, state that some privileged groups just don't realize or recognize they're privileged. Like I heard in class from a video we viewed last week, "privilege is invisible to those that have it".

Now that we know the definition of both privilege and oppression, we can now apply it to real life public policies that either support equity or promote oppression. Sitting here, doing my homework, I thought to myself. Where in public policies, does either a female or male have priority or power over the other? I wanted to focus on gender and privilege, however that doesn't mean privilege is only associated to gender. Moving forward, as I thought, I came across one of the most obvious situations where a woman is privileged and a male is oppressed (usually it is common for males to be more privileged, so I wanted to change it up a bit): Women are granted the privilege with the ability to birth children. Now to some, women may feel that ovaries are a detriment to their bodies... Harsh contractions, long labors, sore muscles, and the overall pain of birthing a human being out of their bodies. 

 However, in the judicial system, ovaries are a privilege to have because when fighting for custody or paying child support, woman are most likely to win their battles. In the 1970's, it was common for custody to be granted to the mothers because it was the "best interest of the child". But since then, they have removed that policy and disallowed the consideration of gender to influence the decision of what was really "best for the child". 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK231400/

"Custody laws have changed over the years from a presumption (until the late nineteenth century) in favor of fathers because of their provision of financial support, to a presumption in favor of mothers because of their primary caretaker role, to the current “best interest of the child” laws. During the 1970s, a combination of pressure from women's rights groups seeking legal equality and pressure from fathers' rights groups complaining of unfair treatment in custody led to the removal of gender preferences in state custody laws (Fineman and Opie, 1987; Fineman, 1989, 1992). In fact, most state statutes today specifically forbid consideration of the parents' gender in custody cases (Fineman and Opie, 1987), with some states even mandating joint legal custody in most cases. Fineman (1988, 1989, 1992) argues that given the reality of economic inequality between men and women, so-called gender neutrality really amounts to devaluing of the nurturing role and favoring the father for economic reasons (Fineman and Opie, 1987:120-121):"

As of now, laws have been formed to treat both parents fairly when deciding how to settle child support claims, child custody and etc.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/767/VI/511, 

"Ensure that the parties have stipulated which party, if either is eligible, will claim each child as an exemption for federal income tax purposes under 26 USC 151 (c) (1) (B) [26 USC 151 (c)], or as an exemption for state income tax purposes under s. 71.07 (8) (b) or under the laws of another state. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement about the tax exemption for each child, the court shall make the decision in accordance with state and federal tax laws. In making its decision, the court shall consider whether the parent who is assigned responsibility for the child's health care expenses under s. 767.513 is covered under a health insurance policy or plan, including a self-insured plan, that is not subject to s. 632.897 (10) and that conditions coverage of a dependent child on whether the child is claimed by the insured parent as an exemption for purposes of federal or state income taxes."