Male Privilege Checklist

Dragan

helena.ryan wrote: »

For me holding a door open is not a sex issue, it's a manners issue. Just as I would hold a door open for someone - male or female who is walking behind me. Or if I'm walking through a door and someone is coming through the other side I will generally stand back to allow them through - male female or otherwise. It's all about manners and respect.

Not everyone feels the same way. In a similar discussion a couple of weeks ago on boards i was told that by holding doors for ladies i am perpetuating a stereotype that women are somehow in needs of mens help.

How ****ing insane is that?

gcgirl

If someone was behind me i would hold the door open regardless of who it was! male or female !

Macha

Yeah Dragan, please stop oppressing women by holding the door open for them.

Whispered

Dragan - you MONSTER!

I might just get lynched for this but I think people like that ruin things for the rest of us. Just like most women I know like doing things for their men: Most women I know love to be treated "like a lady" and most men are terrified to do that in case they somehow insult her.

For example - a friend of mine is very polite, would hold doors, move from his seat if a woman walked in to let her sit down, would usually insist on going to the bar (not to always pay but to order and carry the drinks) then suddenly he stopped. Just stopped. It came up in conversation and he told us that he had opened a door for a woman in work who proceeded to call him sexist, chauvinist etc. Told him she could hold her "own f***ing door" and went so far as to suggest it could almost be considered sexual harrassment! :eek: This was all in front of a canteen full of people. So he assumed he was insulting his female friends when he did anything like this but we were just too nice to tell him.

Please tell me what women like this are trying to prove?

WindSock

That's unfortunate he encountered a right geebag thinking she has something to prove. I never understood how holding the door constitiutes as something that only men do for women. Everyone mannerly does it for everyone behind them (provided they are within a close enough distance).

I have yet to encounter a man offering me his seat, but if he ever did I would just politely decline and think he were kind (unless I were pregnant or old) I certainly wouldn't turn it into an issue and make a scene. Women like that irritate me a lot and do sweet f. all for feminism.

aye

helena.ryan wrote: »

Dragan - you MONSTER!

I might just get lynched for this but I think people like that ruin things for the rest of us. Just like most women I know like doing things for their men: Most women I know love to be treated "like a lady" and most men are terrified to do that in case they somehow insult her.

For example - a friend of mine is very polite, would hold doors, move from his seat if a woman walked in to let her sit down, would usually insist on going to the bar (not to always pay but to order and carry the drinks) then suddenly he stopped. Just stopped. It came up in conversation and he told us that he had opened a door for a woman in work who proceeded to call him sexist, chauvinist etc. Told him she could hold her "own f***ing door" and went so far as to suggest it could almost be considered sexual harrassment! :eek: This was all in front of a canteen full of people. So he assumed he was insulting his female friends when he did anything like this but we were just too nice to tell him.

Please tell me what women like this are trying to prove?

what a cow, have you since corrected him?

i always hold doors open for people. i'd say i get thanked maybe 40% of the time. some people just walk through without even acknowledging you. i'm not doing it to get a thanks, but if someone holds a door for me i thank them, both ends of the spectrum require manners.

nothing annoys me more than poor manners on people. especailly on the dart, people tend to barge in the doors without letting people get off. the other one i cant stand is when an old or preganant woman in on the train and no one gets up to lets them sit down, i'm usually standing on the dart, but i have gone over to guys and asked them to let the woman sit down in their seat.

maybe this is just shyness though instead of bad manners?

Doctor DooM

helena.ryan wrote: »

Dragan - you MONSTER!

I might just get lynched for this but I think people like that ruin things for the rest of us. Just like most women I know like doing things for their men: Most women I know love to be treated "like a lady" and most men are terrified to do that in case they somehow insult her.

For example - a friend of mine is very polite, would hold doors, move from his seat if a woman walked in to let her sit down, would usually insist on going to the bar (not to always pay but to order and carry the drinks) then suddenly he stopped. Just stopped. It came up in conversation and he told us that he had opened a door for a woman in work who proceeded to call him sexist, chauvinist etc. Told him she could hold her "own f***ing door" and went so far as to suggest it could almost be considered sexual harrassment! :eek: This was all in front of a canteen full of people. So he assumed he was insulting his female friends when he did anything like this but we were just too nice to tell him.

Please tell me what women like this are trying to prove?

Sounds like your nice pleasant friend just ran into a bully, tbh.

LaVidaLoca

What a litany of victimhood!

We could just as easily write a list just as long for the disadvantages of being a man.

Plus we could add on the male side: If any man suggests there might be any disadvantages, his masculinity will be seriously called into question.

I remember once about a year ago talking to two typical d4 women, who were laughing at their male flatmate for being traumatised after being assaulted in the street and having one of his teeth knocked out.

They were like "God he's such a ****in; wuss, it was loike two weeks ago!"

I simply asked them how they would have felt if their flatmate was female.

They didnt understand the relevance of the question: "BUt he's a man!" As if getting the **** kicked out of you by a total stranger is totally normal and easy to digest for a bloke.

Men also have to deal with about the same amount of gender stereotyping as women: We're don't pop out fully developed macho males: It takes years of being brutalised and called a ****** and getting the **** kicked out of you to achieve that. The difference is that it's totally taboo for us to complain about it. Men are every bit as sensitive and emotional as women: They are simply told for their entire lives never to show it. In fact by even typing the preceeding sentence my masculinity has just dropped by 10 points. This also effects domestic violence statistics - there is plenty of female-male violence, it just doesnt get reported half as often.

As for the pressure on women to be beautfiul, where do you think that comes from? Largely from other women. First-wave feminism tried to get rid of it, but in the 90's ordinary women firmly rejected the idea, saying, goddamn it, we want the right to wear strappy heels and short skirts and go shopping for beauty products all the time. (cf. "Sex and the City". )You think women's boyfriends/husbands are forcing them to take "Poledancing classes"?

Now of course: outside the Western World, the situation for women is dire. No question about it. However within the Western World, feminism liberated women (to a certain extent) but no attempt was ever made to do the same for men. It was not accepted that the traditional arrangements which we replaced also had oppressive characteristics towards men: A lot of this was because of feminisms middle-class origins - to the working-class woman putting in 12 hours a day in a cannery, the aspirations of upper-middle class women to be 'allowed to work' would have seemed pretty comical.

This problem is still there: Of course the extremely powerful in society - politicians, business leaders, etc are largely men - these are fields in which only 0.0001 % of us actually work and are insanely competitive - you dont get there just by being nice to people and working hard - and of course it's always going to be largely men who end up in those positions. To think otherwise is to assume that society is fair. It isn't fair at all, that's the basis of Capitalism!

Whispered

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Men are every bit as sensitive and emotional as women: They are simply told for their entire lives never to show it.

I'm not disagreeing with you but just to throw it out there - I personally don't know if men are quite as emotional and sensitive as women. Remember that we developed as a species where the main roles were - men, hunt, feed, look after women and children in a logical, practical way. Spending most of the day working alone or in a very structured way. Women however spent their days in groups with kids and each other and would have developed more emotional sensitivity through this. (while men probably developed the ability to work together better, almost like a pack). I could be totally worng but does this make sense to anyone else?


Agree with the idea that women put pressure on women over their looks.

paperclip2

helena.ryan wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you but just to throw it out there - I personally don't know if men are quite as emotional and sensitive as women. Remember that we developed as a species where the main roles were - men, hunt, feed, look after women and children in a logical, practical way. Spending most of the day working alone or in a very structured way. Women however spent their days in groups with kids and each other and would have developed more emotional sensitivity through this. (while men probably developed the ability to work together better, almost like a pack). I could be totally worng but does this make sense to anyone else?


Agree with the idea that women put pressure on women over their looks.

Have a look at the book by Barbara and Allan Pease "Why Men don't Listen and Women can't Read Maps"

Its mildly entertaining and though I think some of it is bunkum there are some good bits about the differing brain chemistry and other physiological differences between women and men.
One bit that stuck with me is that the skin on mans back is five (I think) times thicker than on his chest due to his hunter origins.

Also that women have more connections between right and left hand sides of the brain which is responsible for increased communicative abilities as well as allowing them to follow different narratives more easily, i.e to follow the plot of a soap while simultaneously on the phone and placating children.

Its a good read and a bit of a laugh.

LaVidaLoca

I think the so-called "gender divide" usually builds its stereotypes on differences which exist in nature.

So it's quite possible that women are naturally more sensitive to the needs of others , and thus the societies we've built up tend to base their social conditioning on that.

It's often taboo however, in some feminist circles to suggest that their might ever be a natural basis for anything - it must always be put down to social conditioning.

Why are their more male CEOs than female? This is a very controversial question. Lets turn it around. Why are there more female, say, beauty therapists than male? Is it cause there is inbuilt predjudice against male beauty therapists in the industry? Or is it because, there are far more women than men who want to be beauty therapists.

Same with positions of power in business. The sort of talent that it takes to run a huge organisation is very rare and difficult to find. It is our assuming that this talent is somehow superior to having a talent for playing a musical instrument, say, or being a chef, that leads us to want to assume that women must be about equally good at this one thing. Im male, I have absolutely bugger all talent or desire to run a huge organisation. I would much rather play my guitar. Does this make me a failure?

Does it make women failures/weak that less of them want to be major powerful players in the world of business and politics? No. Why should it? any sensible person would want to avoid the long hours and extreme stress of such a life.

Whispered

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Im male, I have absolutely bugger all talent or desire to run a huge organisation. I would much rather play my guitar. Does this make me a failure?

Yes, yes it does. (what do you play?)

justsomebloke

helena.ryan wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you but just to throw it out there - I personally don't know if men are quite as emotional and sensitive as women. Remember that we developed as a species where the main roles were - men, hunt, feed, look after women and children in a logical, practical way. Spending most of the day working alone or in a very structured way. Women however spent their days in groups with kids and each other and would have developed more emotional sensitivity through this. (while men probably developed the ability to work together better, almost like a pack). I could be totally worng but does this make sense to anyone else?

Then the flip side of this is that men developed through the competitiveness of being the provider and this is why they do better in the work place as they have developed in such as way that women haven't to be more competitive then their counterparts so they can be the provider and that is why they are generally in better positions then women

Rob_l

paperclip2 wrote: »

Have a look at the book by Barbara and Allan Pease "Why Men don't Listen and Women can't Read Maps"

Its mildly entertaining and though I think some of it is bunkum there are some good bits about the differing brain chemistry and other physiological differences between women and men.
One bit that stuck with me is that the skin on mans back is five (I think) times thicker than on his chest due to his hunter origins.

Also that women have more connections between right and left hand sides of the brain which is responsible for increased communicative abilities as well as allowing them to follow different narratives more easily, i.e to follow the plot of a soap while simultaneously on the phone and placating children.

Its a good read and a bit of a laugh.

How did I get here?

anyway I highlighted the correct bit the rest is as you say buckum all these quasi-scientific research into the difference between men and women was done by whom exactly, with what scientific background and using what scientific methods

Whispered

jsb wrote: »

Then the flip side of this is that men developed through the competitiveness of being the provider and this is why they do better in the work place as they have developed in such as way that women haven't to be more competitive then their counterparts so they can be the provider and that is why they are generally in better positions then women

I agree that men tend to be more competitive and agressive, (although in fairness a lot of women are too) and this could be the reason that more management positions are filled by men. They might have more of a competitive instinct to go and get that high powered job.

But not all jobs need a competitive person to fill them.

LaVidaLoca

Historically, and still in the present day:

A man's career standing/success level has a large bearing on his ability to find a mate. A woman's has far less.

Take an example, a really good-looking man, that all the ladies fancy, then tell them he's a janitor. Many of them will fancy him less as a result.

Take a really hot woman, then tell the guys she's only a waitress. This will have no effect on her attractivness to them.

Men run for that high paying position cause they have to. Their sexual success depends on it.

Whispered

Ah but then you have the woman who feels the need to have it all, family, nice home and high powered career. She would feel just as much need as a man to go for that position because she sees it as being what is expected now. This might be a new trend in society, but it's there.

I must say that something bothered me today which made me think of this thread. In my work I am often the point of contact for customers. A new (male) customer came in today and was introduced to the men in my office while I was totally ignored by the person doing the introductions. Because of my position the man will most likely be talking to me more than any of the men he met today. :eek:

Tend to agree on the men and jobs thing. I could never see myself with a fireman, soldier or policeman. It's just tooooo dangerous. I know that if we were to stay together, get married, have kids I would have a real worry on how to provide for my kids if anything happened to him. I know this is not the same thing as turning my nose up at a janitor for example but a man would NEVER think that far ahead (and no I don't assess every man I meet as potential husband material)

LaVidaLoca

Im not saying those women dont exist, but we're talking about general trends here.

A new (male) customer came in today and was introduced to the men in my office while I was totally ignored by the person doing the introductions

Not good. Though Im sure the same thing happens among females all the time too: In fact I myself have had jobs where myself and the guys were sent to do the most dangerous/physically demanding tasks by the female boss, cause the others were "only girls."

Even though we did more work than the women we were still derided as "typical lazy blokes".

I wouldnt consider this as typical however.

Dragan

Guys, no matter what way you want to look at it, as a race men are being told what to do and think and say and so are women.

By and large it will always be the way things are. All you can do is live your own life, be happy and **** the rest of it. There is always going to be an outside influence, and there will always be at least two people telling you two different things about that influence. No point in listening to any of them too deeply.

Just my view on things.

helena.ryan wrote: »

but a man would NEVER think that far ahead

How many have you asked?

Zulu

Sangre wrote: »

Generalising is fun!...

Bravo Sangre! Brilliant post, Bravo!

Wibbs

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Historically, and still in the present day:

A man's career standing/success level has a large bearing on his ability to find a mate. A woman's has far less.

Take an example, a really good-looking man, that all the ladies fancy, then tell them he's a janitor. Many of them will fancy him less as a result.

Take a really hot woman, then tell the guys she's only a waitress. This will have no effect on her attractivness to them.

Men run for that high paying position cause they have to. Their sexual success depends on it.

Pretty much nail on the head in most cases. largely down to the different reproductive strategies of men and women. It may change with time, but it'll still have a hold for a good while.

On a very basic, very generalised, very ancient mammal brained level, women are looking for reproductive health, good genes and a resource rich protector male of as high a status as she can get. Wealth, social power, obvious health, mental and emotional stability are the important bits. Looks while important are further down the list. Women will take more crap from socially powerful men than from wall flowers.

Men are looking for reproductive health(which in women is far more related to youth), good genes and beauty which reflects those good genes and external appearance of youth. Beauty which would be clear wrinkle free skin, hip waist ratio, lustrous hair etc are all signs of youth and reproductive capability. Mental stability would be far enough down the list, hence men will put up with more batshít crazy from a good looking woman than with a less than average one. Hence her being a waitress is largely immaterial, whereas him being a janitor is, no matter how good looking he is. She may have a fling with him, but a long term thing is far less likely unless she's of much lower status than him. In which case he would raise her status. If she's of equal attraction she won't bother as he would then lower her status.

Add in that people will tend to pair up longterm with those that are close to them in status and attraction to them. That balance changes and all to often one will leave.

This is easily observed in everyday life. It's not everyone, but it is most, even if it's not recognised by the people involved.

I've just taken all the romance out of it.:D

Whispered

Dragan wrote: »

How many have you asked?

None to be honest, however in general conversation with friends, men seem much more interested in how a girl looks and carries herself (and thats putting it politely!!:p) than their long term compatibility. Now this could be again down to them living up to a sterotype, playing the big man while inside he's thinking otherwise. Keep in mind I'm in my early 20's (ok mid 20's ) so this is the age group I'm talking about, priorities change as we get older, so maybe older men do think more about long term prospects when they first meet a woman, or perhaps they just get more honest about what they have been really thinking all along. So I would like to ask the question - When you meet a woman, do you look at her long term potential, in terms of relationship and home stability? If not, how far into a relationship would you usually start looking at this?

Wibbs wrote: »

On a very basic, very generalised, very ancient mammal brained level, women are looking for reproductive health, good genes and a resource rich protector male of as high a status as she can get. Wealth, social power, obvious health, mental and emotional stability are the important bits. Looks while important are further down the list. Women will take more crap from socially powerful men than from wall flowers.

This is very very true, the shyer men out of a group always seem to be overshadowed by the more confident members of the group. Confidence is attractive.

Wibbs wrote: »

Mental stability would be far enough down the list, hence men will put up with more batshít crazy from a good looking woman than with a less than average one. Hence her being a waitress is largely immaterial, whereas him being a janitor is, no matter how good looking he is.

Are you saying waitresses and janitors are not mentally stable? :eek: I think men get pretty fed up of the "crazy bat****" after a while though and a likely to put up with less crap in a relationship than a woman (this again is just my view of people I know and probably does not count for the majority)

Just about men and their quest for beauty to show reproductive health - how do men feel about women who don't want kids? How do other women feel about women who don't want kids?

WindSock

The greatest breeders in Irish society are the unemployed underclass. So to say Men must be given better jobs in order to procreate doesn't hold much ground anymore.
I would happily settle for a man with a lower paying job if I was the breadwinner.

Zulu

They may be breeding, but they not banging rides.

Hot chicks score rich men. Rich men score hot chicks.

WindSock

What if you're not a hot chick?

Zulu

I don't follow?
...if you're not a hot chick and want to score a rich man? is it??
Give good head???

Don't give up hope, there's always exceptions - people are surprising enough. And besides, true love is blind. Very, very, blind.

Wibbs

helena.ryan wrote: »

This is very very true, the shyer men out of a group always seem to be overshadowed by the more confident members of the group. Confidence is attractive.

Basically because confidence would show your status in the group and level of resources at your disposal. It can be fooled though. "bad boys" set off some of those triggers and thats why a lot of women go through a bad boy phase. Even when they discover the bad boy is broke or useless the triggers are so strong they'll still often stay around for a while.

Are you saying waitresses and janitors are not mentally stable? :eek:

No I think that was a copy and paste that went awry.

I think men get pretty fed up of the "crazy bat****" after a while though and a likely to put up with less crap in a relationship than a woman (this again is just my view of people I know and probably does not count for the majority)

Oh yea we do, but we'll put up with it for a lot longer if it comes with beauty attached. Men tend to have a tipping point that they don't discuss with their mates to nearly the same extent as women, so maybe that's why it looks sudden.

Just about men and their quest for beauty to show reproductive health - how do men feel about women who don't want kids? How do other women feel about women who don't want kids?

The animal brain, may want kids, but the intellect says no. The animal brain is still in their though so they'll still look for the most reproductively attractive partner regardless. Kinda like the bad boy example above. The triggers are still there. Pretty much everything considered attractive in either sex is down to reproductive fitness.

WindSock wrote:

The greatest breeders in Irish society are the unemployed underclass. So to say Men must be given better jobs in order to procreate doesn't hold much ground anymore.

True but as Zulu points out they're having sex with those of the same social/reproductive value. It may even be as an insurance against future poverty as more kids means more support as you age. There are loads of reasons for it though.

I would happily settle for a man with a lower paying job if I was the breadwinner.

But you would likely prefer a man who was of the same "value" as you, financially and every other way. Same with a guy who would settle for a more plain woman, if he's being honest with himself, he would prefer a more attractive woman. Obviously it's a mixture. A person will ignore one criteria if others are high(or higher) than themselves. So if a man was better looking and good with kids, yet was broke, the broke would become less important.

What if you're not a hot chick?

Someone will find her hot in and around her attraction level. Even with couples that appear mismatched in looks, if you look closer you'll generally find that for whatever reason they're quite well matched. The obvious one of plain rich guy with gorgeous woman. Their individual combined assets are very similar. Very mismatched couples on the attraction front are much rarer than the matched ones.

Study after study has found that. One test is where they get people to rate ten men and ten women(that are in couples) on attractiveness from photographs(so social status is not in the mix). When they're rated by the group from one to ten, the men and the women match as couples in the majority of cases. So number five woman is with number 5 man etc. When there is a mismatch, say number three man is with number nine woman, in nearly every case he is of a much higher social/financial level than she is.

You see this with guys who become wealthy. They go for more beautiful women than when they were poor. Their options have gone up. Men have that major advantage over women. They can increase their reproductive value through wealth and power. Now a wealthy woman will have more options clearly than a poor woman, but not nearly to the same extent. Women can improve their chances through fashion, makeup, even surgery, but it is more difficult. Time is more against them too by comparison to men. A rich 60(or more:eek:) year old man can still attract a young attractive woman. Say a 28 year old. A 60 year old woman even if she's wealthy has far far less chance of that.

As Zulu said "love is blind", but it's not that blind. I think in the majority of cases we subconsciously choose and choose quite precisely those we fall in love with. We choose them with a template in our heads, that is set by both nature and nurture. Mostly we're not aware of it and it can be very subtle, but it's their. The next time you feel the "spark" for someone that's the template at play.

Zulu

Great post Wibbs

Dragan

helena.ryan wrote: »

So I would like to ask the question - When you meet a woman, do you look at her long term potential, in terms of relationship and home stability? If not, how far into a relationship would you usually start looking at this?

The only reason i would get into a relationship with somone ( and by relationship i mean an honest and open dynamic relationship between two people who both consider the other their partner/girl/boyfriend ) is because i see long term potential.

I don't enter into relationships to get laid, or to fill some minor need. I get into relationships because i can genuinely see myself staying with that person at that moment in my life. At the age of 26 ( almost 27 ) i have gone out with 3 people. I know guys who knock that out a year because they want to get laid and never think past that.

I can get laid when i want to, i can hang out with female friends and do all kinds of ****.....I only go out with someone because i want to go out with them and can see myself with them for a very, very long time.

Now, obviously it is very difficult to get to the point where a decision can be made properly about such things and that takes time. However, i simply would not get involved with someone in any kind of relationship sense until i had some kind of inkling towards the long term.

It's like people who turn around after seeing someone to 1 or 2 years and say "yeah, it's really getting serious"......for me the initial going out means it's serious that potential is already clear to me.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Just about men and their quest for beauty to show reproductive health - how do men feel about women who don't want kids? How do other women feel about women who don't want kids?

I imagine if someone was to ask "what do women think about X" then the reply in here would be "all women are different and will think different things" as such, the same answer applies here. All men are different. If there really is such an entity as "MAN" then that entitiy is made up of a million different points of few so answering for men is not possible. I can however answer for me.

If a lass does not want to have kids then it has **** all to do with me. Personally i don't want kids, ever, so i will be settling down eventually with a lass of the same mindset. It doesn't mean they are "broken" in some strange way. It just means they have made a choice they are happy with. I don't want to do plenty of things, so i don't. Anyone who told me to do something i don't want to do would swiftly be put back in their box. I see no reason not to assume the same would be done to me if i got uppity about something that doesn't concern me in any way.

Everyone is different though, some men wouldn't like it because they are driven to have a family for whatever reasons of their own, so will not be able to associate with the idea of not wanting this as a reality.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

They may be breeding, but they not banging rides.

Hot chicks score rich men. Rich men score hot chicks.

This is more down to social conditioning than actual preferences.

In Malcom Gladwell's book 'Blink', men and women were asked to rate attributes of the opposite sex from highest to lowest. Men put physical attractiveness first and women put money.

However, when their subconscious preferences were tested (ie the true ones that could not be consciously controlled) it showed that women put physical attractiveness first as well.

This is a form of the test used:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Lesson: if you're told something often enough you start to believe it. That's why generalisations and cliches, like the one you mentioned, are hard to remove.