White Male Privilege

One eyed Jack

NI24 wrote: »

I know it was an idiotic idea, that was my friggin' point.

Well then I'm still lost as to what this idea of privilege is actually all about and what it's supposed to do to actually address discrimination?

I'm trying really hard to understand where you're coming from, but you're not making it easy.

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually because you've been persisting in some of your claims despite pretty concrete evidence rebutting it being presented to you. Trying to turn this into some sort of oppression of your views by the majority is a bit silly, TBH.

Aaah, I love it. Some of my claims. Not the original ones I was trying to make against hatrickpatrick, just the recent ones I made which have been taken so out of context, I can't even remember what I originally wrote. And I guarantee that if more women were on this site, and more women contributed to these threads, I would not be the one responding to 20 posts at once, and this whole debate would be different.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That does not imply that they're happy though.

Unless you hadn't noticed, men are traditionally more likely to keep these things in. We're taught from an early age to suppress our feelings, keep a stiff upper lip and not show weakness. Boys don't cry, remember?

So your anecdotal evidence only demonstrates that you have not observed 'unhappiness' - not that it is not there. Meanwhile, you've been presented with pretty conclusive suicide rates that would indicate a pretty large 'happiness gap' between what you've perceived and the numbers of men who turned out not to be happy at all, to the point of ending their lives.

How does the evidence suggest that depression affects the majority of men? Oh and another thing. I don't care if men are happier than women or vice versa. I was simply making an observation that in my day to day life and from what I've read on this entire site, men do not snivel over so called examples of "misandry" like video games being demonized.

The Corinthian wrote: »

In short, you've presented a logical fallacy, presumed that your observations, your anecdotal evidence, is much stronger than it actually is, failed to consider that there are other factors that may mean it is flawed and then drawn conclusions ignoring any evidence that may contradict your hypothesis.

So, no, I don't think it's because you're a minority, although it may explain why you are a minority. Were your arguments able to stand to scrutiny then you might have a point, but they don't.

Ah the typical debating style of the Corinthian. You and all the other posters in here who thank your posts like parrots, you presume my observations and my anecdotal evidence failed because you cherrypick what I'm saying and then twist it around to come to your own conclusions. Not about my original arguments, oh no, but about one little nugget I wrote in a hurry against some re-reg troll or someone who came to the discussion 20 posts too late and has completely lost the context of what I'm saying. Even with all the legislation currently in place to "protect women" or whatever its called, alot of which I disagree with, men are still born into privilege.

NI24

strobe wrote: »

Ah, I believe that's what's known as 'tapping out'. Fair enough. If you reconsider and would like to put forward a coherent argument against anything I've said, I'll pop back later to have a read.

If you would like to read a coherent argument against what you said, then read all my friggin' posts. You don't really feel like doing that, so I believe you are the one "tapping out".

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

Aaah, I love it. Some of my claims.

Well, I've never questioned everything you said. Does it make those I question valid if I don't question them all?

And I guarantee that if more women were on this site, and more women contributed to these threads, I would not be the one responding to 20 posts at once, and this whole debate would be different.

And here is where I have to draw the line, because it is precisely this kind of conspiracy theory BS which is what perpetuates the whole mythology of 'male privilege'.

How does the evidence suggest that depression affects the majority of men?

I never said it affects the majority of men. Read again.

Ah the typical debating style of the Corinthian. You and all the other posters in here who thank your posts like parrots, you presume my observations and my anecdotal evidence failed because you cherrypick what I'm saying and then twist it around to come to your own conclusions.

Poor petal. Everyone's out to get you. It's all part of an evil patriarchal conspiracy and we're all penis-wielding oppressors.

You haven't been able to argue some of your claims. I've not read all of them, but those I did really did not stand up to scrutiny. I explained why. Turning now to this kind of victim defense is frankly a bit pathetic and only serves to further ridicule the idea of 'male privilege'.

Have a nice weekend.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well then I'm still lost as to what this idea of privilege is actually all about and what it's supposed to do to actually address discrimination?

I'm trying really hard to understand where you're coming from, but you're not making it easy.

I think the point was through satire if the gender equality fascists really want equality, then men should be sterilise at 55, same as menopause.

It's an argument against absolute equality, as equality can often mean I justice. Plato covered this problem in the Republic.

So if you want to be fair, you have to compensate for biological disadvantage, but then the egalitarIan gender fascists who da da about equality will say it's unequal, which it is, but then it might be unjust. Fairness, freedom,equality, you cannot have all three, must choose your poison.

strobe

NI24 wrote: »

If you would like to read a coherent argument against what you said, then read all my friggin' posts. You don't really feel like doing that, so I believe you are the one "tapping out".

I've read all your posts." Boo hoo hoo men don't like me as much as they used to, the privileged bastards!" doesn't really address any of my points...

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

Aaah, I love it. Some of my claims. Not the original ones I was trying to make against hatrickpatrick, just the recent ones I made which have been taken so out of context, I can't even remember what I originally wrote. And I guarantee that if more women were on this site, and more women contributed to these threads, I would not be the one responding to 20 posts at once, and this whole debate would be different.



How does the evidence suggest that depression affects the majority of men? Oh and another thing. I don't care if men are happier than women or vice versa. I was simply making an observation that in my day to day life and from what I've read on this entire site, men do not snivel over so called examples of "misandry" like video games being demonized.




Ah the typical debating style of the Corinthian. You and all the other posters in here who thank your posts like parrots, you presume my observations and my anecdotal evidence failed because you cherrypick what I'm saying and then twist it around to come to your own conclusions. Not about my original arguments, oh no, but about one little nugget I wrote in a hurry against some re-reg troll or someone who came to the discussion 20 posts too late and has completely lost the context of what I'm saying. Even with all the legislation currently in place to "protect women" or whatever its called, alot of which I disagree with, men are still born into privilege.

It's because your tone is obnoxious and intolerant. How you say things are as important as what you say.

KomradeBishop

On the discussion of attraction: A lot of the claims trying to display it as 'innate', seem to be based on dodgy 'evolutionary psychology' based claims (that try to describe why one sex is attracted to certain traits in the other, but in a way that is unfalsifiable), but EP-based reasoning is usually quite poor, mixing up correlation with causation, and engages in 'begging the question' a lot in this regard (along with often being unfalsifiable).

There are aspects to attraction that can't be changed, but there is a lot about attraction which is simply down to personal and societal prejudices - so there definitely are aspects of attraction, that can be changed.
Attraction is not - as a whole - something you choose, but that doesn't mean there is no choice involved, in influencing what you are attracted to.

I don't see why people may argue that societal attitudes/prejudices can be changed, yet would argue that what determines attraction can't be changed - given that the latter is affected by the former.

Boom_Bap

MOD NOTE
Can you all stop trying to undermine each other, stop telling each other to go back and read posts, made remarks about other posters and being uncivil to each other.
Thank you.

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, I've never questioned everything you said. Does it make those I question valid if I don't question them all?

No, but when you only question certain claims, out of context, then your questions are invalid. You questioned my claim that men were happy and asked me to provide anecdotal evidence-- but it wasn't a claim, it was an opinion, and I specified that at the time that I wrote it. Also, you never question unsubstantiated claims (if they really are unsubstantiated claims) in posts you agree with, do you? Such as the claim that age is unattractive (to women) and that women don't find middle-aged men attractive, unless they're "dapper". Which is, of course, a boldfaced lie.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And here is where I have to draw the line, because it is precisely this kind of conspiracy theory BS which is what perpetuates the whole mythology of 'male privilege'.

Male privilege is not a myth. And unlike the female privileges that are written into law, the privileges I mentioned are bestowed to men at birth, so they are inherent. Not that privileges to women should be in law, but my point is that if they are written into law, that means they can be written out of law.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said it affects the majority of men. Read again.

Good. You should read my posts again too. Or don't, I don't really care.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Poor petal. Everyone's out to get you. It's all part of an evil patriarchal conspiracy and we're all penis-wielding oppressors.

Much like the posters who think that because video games are demonized there's this great conspiracy against men?

The Corinthian wrote: »

You haven't been able to argue some of your claims. I've not read all of them, but those I did really did not stand up to scrutiny. I explained why. Turning now to this kind of victim defense is frankly a bit pathetic and only serves to further ridicule the idea of 'male privilege'.

What a coincidence that you claim the arguments you speak of did not stand up to scrutiny, and yet the ones you didn't, did stand up to scrutiny. No one has been able to prove that male privilege does not exist. They simply complain of female privilege.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Have a nice weekend.

Oh, you too.

NI24

strobe wrote: »

I've read all your posts." Boo hoo hoo men don't like me as much as they used to, the privileged bastards!" doesn't really address any of my points...

You obviously did not read through all my posts, because you asked for two things that I already gave. It seems you don't really want your posts addressed.

NI24

zeffabelli wrote: »

It's because your tone is obnoxious and intolerant. How you say things are as important as what you say.

Not unlike the literally dozens of posts and posters who came in halfway through game time with their guns blazing. Or unlike the hysterical, histrionic posts of someone you know better than anyone. But the post you wrote to One Eyed was absolutely the point I was trying to make, so thank you for that at least.

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

Not unlike the literally dozens of posts and posters who came in halfway through game time with their guns blazing. Or unlike the hysterical, histrionic posts of someone you know better than anyone. But the post you wrote to One Eyed was absolutely the point I was trying to make, so thank you for that at least.

Completely unlike them, because none of them got personally abusive which you have, including here and your calling my posts hystrionic because I pointed out outdated derogatory language that you use. Get over it. You used derogatory terminology and your still whining about it.

Once again you resort to personalising argument.

Your tone is rude, obnoxious, and one of the worst I've seen on boards. I've reported you again for being a dick.

NI24

zeffabelli wrote: »

Completely unlike them, because none of them got personally abusive which you have, including here and your calling my posts hystrionic because I pointed out outdated derogatory language that you use. Get over it. You used derogatory terminology and your still whining about it.

Oh, they most certainly did my dear. And I am talking of the posts in this very thread.

zeffabelli wrote: »

Once again you resort to personalising argument.

And you didn't?

zeffabelli wrote: »

Your tone is rude, obnoxious, and one of the worst I've seen on boards. I've reported you again for being a dick.

Your tone is hysterical, irrelevant and some of the dumbest I've seen on boards. And you can report me all you want, and like last time, it won't get anywhere.

G_R

NI24 wrote: »

Oh, they most certainly did my dear. And I am talking of the posts in this very thread.




And you didn't?



Your tone is hysterical, irrelevant and some of the dumbest I've seen on boards. And you can report me all you want, and like last time, it won't get anywhere.

zeffabelli wrote: »

Completely unlike them, because none of them got personally abusive which you have, including here and your calling my posts hystrionic because I pointed out outdated derogatory language that you use. Get over it. You used derogatory terminology and your still whining about it.

Once again you resort to personalising argument.

Your tone is rude, obnoxious, and one of the worst I've seen on boards. I've reported you again for being a dick.

NI24 wrote: »

Not unlike the literally dozens of posts and posters who came in halfway through game time with their guns blazing. Or unlike the hysterical, histrionic posts of someone you know better than anyone. But the post you wrote to One Eyed was absolutely the point I was trying to make, so thank you for that at least.

Mod: knock off the squabbling lads, ffs.

And don't be telling other users you've reported them - just report them and move on - don't engage if you feel its report worthy - let us deal with it.

One eyed Jack

NI24 wrote: »

Male privilege is not a myth. And unlike the female privileges that are written into law, the privileges I mentioned are bestowed to men at birth, so they are inherent. Not that privileges to women should be in law, but my point is that if they are written into law, that means they can be written out of law.

By that reducive biological standard then - I'd love to have boobs I could play with all day, that privilege is denied to me on account of the fact I'm not a woman. It doesn't matter if a woman doesn't play with her boobs all day, the point is, she can. That's a privilege then by your standards.

NI24 wrote: »

Not unlike the literally dozens of posts and posters who came in halfway through game time with their guns blazing. Or unlike the hysterical, histrionic posts of someone you know better than anyone. But the post you wrote to One Eyed was absolutely the point I was trying to make, so thank you for that at least.

Well why didn't you just say that then instead of trying to be satirical about it? I don't get the whole satire deal, or aping other people's posts or whatever. I find it easier to understand when people are direct and say what they actually mean as opposed to beating around the bush!

I'm still not sure what the point of "privilege" is though, is it the whole 'check your privilege!" thing?

Have you checked your privilege lately?


I can see the health campaigns now -

"Check your breasts, check your balls, check your privilege!" :rolleyes:

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By that reducive biological standard then - I'd love to have boobs I could play with all day, that privilege is denied to me on account of the fact I'm not a woman. It doesn't matter if a woman doesn't play with her boobs all day, the point is, she can. That's a privilege then by your standards.





Well why didn't you just say that then instead of trying to be satirical about it? I don't get the whole satire deal, or aping other people's posts or whatever. I find it easier to understand when people are direct and say what they actually mean as opposed to beating around the bush!

I'm still not sure what the point of "privilege" is though, is it the whole 'check your privilege!" thing?

Have you checked your privilege lately?


I can see the health campaigns now -

"Check your breasts, check your balls, check your privilege!" :rolleyes:

Ni24s argument boils down to men don't get menopause.

That's the privaledge. So congratulations boys, you don't get menopause.

NI24

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By that reducive biological standard then - I'd love to have boobs I could play with all day, that privilege is denied to me on account of the fact I'm not a woman. It doesn't matter if a woman doesn't play with her boobs all day, the point is, she can. That's a privilege then by your standards.

Right, and if having boobs was comparable to being able to father children at any age, then I could understand where you were coming from. However, it's not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well why didn't you just say that then instead of trying to be satirical about it? I don't get the whole satire deal, or aping other people's posts or whatever. I find it easier to understand when people are direct and say what they actually mean as opposed to beating around the bush!

Because everyone has their own posting style, yourself included. And you don't get the whole satire deal, but I don't get the whole every sentence I type has to end in an emoticon. We all have our own preferences.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm still not sure what the point of "privilege" is though, is it the whole 'check your privilege!" thing?

Have you checked your privilege lately?


I can see the health campaigns now -

"Check your breasts, check your balls, check your privilege!" :rolleyes:

I guess everyone has their own definition of privilege, so you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

But I love how zeffabelli keeps passive aggressively trying to bait me to respond to her posts. There's never really an argument to make, just flip flopping on issues like a dying fish in order to get attention.

zeffabelli

KomradeBishop wrote: »

On the discussion of attraction: A lot of the claims trying to display it as 'innate', seem to be based on dodgy 'evolutionary psychology' based claims (that try to describe why one sex is attracted to certain traits in the other, but in a way that is unfalsifiable), but EP-based reasoning is usually quite poor, mixing up correlation with causation, and engages in 'begging the question' a lot in this regard (along with often being unfalsifiable).

There are aspects to attraction that can't be changed, but there is a lot about attraction which is simply down to personal and societal prejudices - so there definitely are aspects of attraction, that can be changed.
Attraction is not - as a whole - something you choose, but that doesn't mean there is no choice involved, in influencing what you are attracted to.

I don't see why people may argue that societal attitudes/prejudices can be changed, yet would argue that what determines attraction can't be changed - given that the latter is affected by the former.

EP is dubious sure, just as most social sciences can be, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate EVERYTHING it has to offer.

What is considered beautiful has changed through the ages and across geographical boundaries, sure....but that does not change the fact that people will react biologically.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ageing has ever been in the beauty stakes across time or the globe.

Telling someone they can choose who they fancy, is like telling someone they can fall asleep when they are not tired, or not to blush, or to to the bathroom when they don't have to.

There are cultures which appreciate fat women, where young women preparing to be brides have to fatten up...why? Because in their culture this increases reproductive value.

But that does not mean that the men in that culture can necessarily "choose" to have biological responses to skinny women.

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

Right, and if having boobs was comparable to being able to father children at any age, then I could understand where you were coming from. However, it's not.

.

Thanks to the wonders of science its now possible, rightly or wrongly, for women to have children into their sixties.

Of course they now must have a vast privilege over men of a similar age given they don't need to find a mate to achieve this-a 90 year man may want to become a dad, but without someone to carry the child its not going to happen.

zeffabelli

tritium wrote: »

Thanks to the wonders of science its now possible, rightly or wrongly, for women to have children into their sixties.

Of course they now must have a vast privilege over men of a similar age given they don't need to find a mate to achieve this-a 90 year man may want to become a dad, but without someone to carry the child its not going to happen.

Ah yeah,but a 90 year old man can get a surrogate.

NI24

tritium wrote: »

Thanks to the wonders of science its now possible, rightly or wrongly, for women to have children into their sixties.

Of course they now must have a vast privilege over men of a similar age given they don't need to find a mate to achieve this-a 90 year man may want to become a dad, but without someone to carry the child its not going to happen.

However, someone has to carry that child and that someone is a woman, and it has to be a young woman. And they have to get a sperm donor to do it, so they need a man, so the comparison is weak. But I realize what you're saying about medical science and I agree that what I'm saying now may not be true in the future. For all we know, someday men will be able to carry children. I am a great admirer/patient of the wonders of medical science and wholeheartedly support it. But it doesn't disprove my point about male privilege. Just because women have privilege doesn't mean men don't.

tritium

zeffabelli wrote: »

Ah yeah,but a 90 year old man can get a surrogate.

Sure, and an older woman can freeze eggs earlier, adopt, etc. Lots of options

One eyed Jack

NI24 wrote: »

Right, and if having boobs was comparable to being able to father children at any age, then I could understand where you were coming from. However, it's not.

What's privileged about that? Men have obligations and responsibilities towards any children they bring into the world. Women after menopause are able to have sex and not become pregnant. Some women see this as an advantage and they stupidly forget that not getting pregnant isn't the only reason to insist your sexual partners wear condoms!

Because everyone has their own posting style, yourself included. And you don't get the whole satire deal, but I don't get the whole every sentence I type has to end in an emoticon. We all have our own preferences.

Not being able to understand satire isn't actually a preference, but your ability to make that assumption is based upon your privileged perspective that everyone actually has the same reading, comprehension and communication ability that you do.

Don't worry, I don't actually see it as your "fault" that you have that ability and I don't. I have different abilities that you don't. It's simply a matter of perspective.

I guess everyone has their own definition of privilege, so you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

Wait a minute! You've been telling me all along my definition of privilege was wrong (the commonly understood definition of the word privilege), then when zef explained it, you claimed that's what you meant all along (so by zef's definition you choose freedom as your poison, since you said yourself you don't care about fairness or equality), and now you're saying that everyone has their own definition of privilege and they have to figure out for themselves what their own privilege is?

Sounds very much like introspective navel gazing to me tbh, looking for ways in which you can feel like a victim, and in order to assuage your victimhood you have to find something to feel guilty about, or "be grateful for" as you put it. I'm still not seeing how that's supposed to help other people as it seems an entirely self-centred philosophy?

But I love how zeffabelli keeps passive aggressively trying to bait me to respond to her posts. There's never really an argument to make, just flip flopping on issues like a dying fish in order to get attention.

Seriously?

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's privileged about that? Men have obligations and responsibilities towards any children they bring into the world. Women after menopause are able to have sex and not become pregnant. Some women see this as an advantage and they stupidly forget that not getting pregnant isn't the only reason to insist your sexual partners wear condoms!

Exactly and the mens' rights activists would argue that women there have the biological privaledge because they wont have to worry about conceiving children they don't want but still have to pay for.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not being able to understand satire isn't actually a preference, but your ability to make that assumption is based upon your privileged perspective that everyone actually has the same reading, comprehension and communication ability that you do.

Don't take your not getting the attempt at satire in that particular instance as "not being able to get satire." The example was very poorly executed and the only reason I called it satire was because it is inconceivable that someone would actually advocate this. The contextual tones of how it was presented would easily mislead someone into taking it seriously.

NI24

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's privileged about that? Men have obligations and responsibilities towards any children they bring into the world. Women after menopause are able to have sex and not become pregnant. Some women see this as an advantage and they stupidly forget that not getting pregnant isn't the only reason to insist your sexual partners wear condoms!

Privileges have obligations and responsibilities you know.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not being able to understand satire isn't actually a preference, but your ability to make that assumption is based upon your privileged perspective that everyone actually has the same reading, comprehension and communication ability that you do.

No it isn't. I can't even begin to rebutt that twisted logic.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don't worry, I don't actually see it as your "fault" that you have that ability and I don't. I have different abilities that you don't. It's simply a matter of perspective.

I don't see it as my fault either, just others.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wait a minute! You've been telling me all along my definition of privilege was wrong (the commonly understood definition of the word privilege), then when zef explained it, you claimed that's what you meant all along (so by zef's definition you choose freedom as your poison, since you said yourself you don't care about fairness or equality), and now you're saying that everyone has their own definition of privilege and they have to figure out for themselves what their own privilege is?

Your definition of privilege is not the commonly understood definition of privilege, in fact you said you don't even understand what privilege is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sounds very much like introspective navel gazing to me tbh, looking for ways in which you can feel like a victim, and in order to assuage your victimhood you have to find something to feel guilty about, or "be grateful for" as you put it. I'm still not seeing how that's supposed to help other people as it seems an entirely self-centred philosophy?

Sounds like taking my words, twisting them around, and then basing your own conclusions on that twisting. And what on Earth makes you think I'm in this thread to help people?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seriously?

Oh believe me, this is the calling card.

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

I don't see it as my fault either, just others.



.

This is the only thing you have written in pages and pages of whinging that has any certain truth to it.

One eyed Jack

NI24 wrote: »

Privileges have obligations and responsibilities you know.

Yes, I'm familiar with the commonly understood meaning of privilege and honour and all that sort of stuff, because I understand I have an obligation and a responsibility towards other human beings other than myself.

Your idea of privilege seems solely focused upon what's in it for you.

No it isn't. I can't even begin to rebutt that twisted logic.

We'll add that to the list of numerous times you've been unable to rebut anything, it's almost as long a list now as the list of nonsense you've putting forward as opinion that anyone should take seriously.

I don't see it as my fault either, just others.

But, but... your privilege, your privilege, don't you see your privilege! How can you ignore your privilege? You're discriminating against me because you don't recognise your own privilege!

(Christ that whole parody lark is an effort)

Your definition of privilege is not the commonly understood definition of privilege, in fact you said you don't even understand what privilege is.

I didn't understand what your idea of privilege is, until zef explained in one simple sentence what it took you an enormous amount of waffle to avoid trying to explain.

Sounds like taking my words, twisting them around, and then basing your own conclusions on that twisting. And what on Earth makes you think I'm in this thread to help people?

I don't know what your point is actually, I'm not the person keen on making assumptions about other people though.

Oh believe me, this is the calling card.

Why should I believe anything that you write? You haven't shown yourself to be in any way trustworthy, by your own admission you aren't interested in helping people even though I have tried on numerous occasions to understand where you're coming from.

You don't seem to want anyone to understand where you're coming from, as they might just see your calling card is blank - nothing of any substance to be found after all that effort.

Just Be Yourself

Disabled black muslim lesbian here. You guys cannot comprehend the oppression I face every day.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/3204840swsw.gif

strobe

NI24 wrote: »

You obviously did not read through all my posts, because you asked for two things that I already gave. It seems you don't really want your posts addressed.

Your entire argument is "men find other women more attractive than they find me, therefore privilege".

Yurt2

Just Be Yourself wrote: »

Disabled black muslim lesbian here. You guys cannot comprehend the oppression I face every day.

Hermaphrodite Pygmy with the whooping cough here. Just checked my intersectional privilege with the android app. Turns out I'm more oppressed than the Patagonian Toothfish.

Jjiipp79

I think if you apply yourself and work hard this "privilege" anyone can have regardless of colour or creed!

NI24

strobe wrote: »

Your entire argument is "men find other women more attractive than they find me, therefore privilege".

No its not that at all, and in fact, most posters on here realize it. I gave two very specific examples of privileges that men are born with, therefore the claim that male privilege doesn't exist is untrue.

Just Be Yourself

Check it lads.

http://www.checkmyprivilege.com/

Just Be Yourself

NI24 wrote: »

No its not that at all, and in fact, most posters on here realize it. I gave two very specific examples of privileges that men are born with, therefore the claim that male privilege doesn't exist is untrue.

Perhaps you should lecture all the binmen, sewer workers, miners, construction workers, oil rig workers, deep sea fishermen, and all the other unglamorous, dangerous jobs that are necessary to keep society running?

How about you lecture the men who are conscripted and sent to fight in war? I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear just how privileged they are.

strobe

NI24 wrote: »

No its not that at all, and in fact, most posters on here realize it. I gave two very specific examples of privileges that men are born with, therefore the claim that male privilege doesn't exist is untrue.

Ok, it's not your entire argument, just the source material for it.

To claim males are privileged, there has to be no equivalent trade off to what you perceive as advantages.

Men can earn attractiveness, so can women, no privilege there.

Women can't be younger, men can't be taller.

Women are judged on their physical attractiveness, so are men, no privilege there.

Women can't have babies when they are 60, but they have the final say over whether any babies are born at all, so men aren't privileged when it comes to reproduction either.

Where is the privileged position of being a man?

It doesn't exist. But your opinions are derived from a sense of bitterness, and are therefore emotional rather than rational, and so aren't open to be being challenged. So I'll leave you to it.

NI24

strobe wrote: »

To claim males are privileged, there has to be no equivalent trade off to what you perceive as advantages.

Wrong. Which discounts everything else you say.

osarusan

bluewolf wrote: »

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/3204840swsw.gif

I searched for a gif of water continually circling down a drain, but couldn't find one.

NI24

Just Be Yourself wrote: »

Perhaps you should lecture all the binmen, sewer workers, miners, construction workers, oil rig workers, deep sea fishermen, and all the other unglamorous, dangerous jobs that are necessary to keep society running?

How about you lecture the men who are conscripted and sent to fight in war? I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear just how privileged they are.

Right. Because if a person works a dangerous job, that automatically means they aren't privileged. Makes perfect sense.

Yurt2

NI24 wrote: »

Right. Because if a person works a dangerous job, that automatically means they aren't privileged. Makes perfect sense.

I'd be inclined to forgive a binman or fisherman if they don't share your perspective on 'privilege', it coming from the mass societal whinge that is third wave feminism. Perpetuated chiefly from the mouths and keyboards of middle class college educated people with liprings and purple hair.

strobe

NI24 wrote: »

Wrong. Which discounts everything else you say.

So in other words.
"la la la la, I'm not listening!"

Right so, have fun.

NI24

strobe wrote: »

So in other words.
"la la la la, I'm not listening!"

Right so, have fun.

Much like every post you've directed at me.

NI24

Yurt! wrote: »

I'd be inclined to forgive a binman or fisherman if they don't share your perspective on 'privilege', it coming from the mass societal whinge that is third wave feminism. Perpetuated chiefly from the mouths and keyboards of middle class college educated people with liprings and purple hair.

Ugh, I love it when you guys try to goad me with claims of third wave feminism because you can't dispute what I wrote. And when you try to goad me into revealing how I look or something about my personal life so you can attack that. You can't really seem to argue that if someone is a fisherman or garbageman, that means they aren't privileged.

Censorsh!t

I hate this privilege talk (and I consider myself a feminist).

In the end I feel it just generalises a whole gender or race, which is something we want to stop I had thought?!

'White' or 'male' as a demographic is just way too vague. Not everyone conforms to the stereotypical white male.

I first started having problems with the whole privilege thing when I felt my opinions and ideas were of less value because I supposedly have "white privilege", and therefore don't know what the hell I'm talking about, apparently.

Sure, in general, white males have it slightly better off, but that's in GENERAL. When it gets down to it, there are so many nuances that it becomes invalid.


At the end of the day, people's opinions should not be shut out just because they belong to a demographic.

Mesrine65

NI24 wrote: »

Ugh, I love it when you guys try to goad me with claims of third wave feminism because you can't dispute what I wrote. And when you try to goad me into revealing how I look or something about my personal life so you can attack that.

Because it's all about you, isn't it?! :P

zeffabelli

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Because it's all about you, isn't it?! :P

Yep, now you have it....it's the NI24 show....lights...cameras...action...

It's time to start the music...it's time to light the lights...it's time to get things started...

NI24

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Because it's all about you, isn't it?! :P

Well, seeing as how I'm the only one going against the majority here, and I'm replying to the majority of posts directed at me, I can only assume when they make those passive aggressive insults, they are indirectly referring to me.

Just Be Yourself

NI24 wrote: »

I have to laugh at all the men who say they can't help but be attracted to pretty young women because all it does is prove even more how unfair it is to be a woman. Because looks and age are the two things that a person can't earn/stop. And looks/age are the first two points of reference in a woman, for men. Which goes back to my previous point and that is that men can earn their attractiveness and women can't. So thank you guys.

Are you just mad that men prefer younger women than you?

You realise men are attracted to young women because youth=fertility and it's our goal to to reproduce?

Cold War Kid

I think we can all agree having boobs is great.