White Male Privilege

NI24

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Between Patrick's post, and NI24's post, and from many posts in this thread, from a couple of different perspectives, it seems to me like this idea of "privilege" is some sort of competition for 'victim status' - either you're a victim because you feel you're being discriminated against, and now there's this new idea of "privilege" which seems to me like people suggesting they're victims of their own... "success"? (there's probably a word, but it's such a bizarre concept the word eludes me), almost like they need to feel guilty for something, doesn't matter what it is, they're "responsible".

That's not what responsibility means. Acknowledging that you are indeed, well, in my case I'm a straight white male... so what? That doesn't actually mean anything. I'm never going to be able to identify with a lesbian black female, and I don't feel guilty for that. Someone else has their experiences and their perspective, and I have mine. I made my own opportunities in the same way as a black female makes opportunities for herself. I simply don't get where this idea of "privilege" helps anyone? Is it the "know your place" nonsense? Because to me that's alienating people, that's carving people up into their nice little demographics and it allows people to fester in their victim complexes.

I don't think the idea of "acknowledging privilege" is any way to tackle discrimination, because the idea to me simply comes across as - "I feel like I'm less than you, and in order for us to be equal, you have to give up what you have in order to come down to my level". That's simply not going to happen. It's unrealistic idealism. It's theoretical. It has no real world application. I don't care about equality, never did, because to me it says "uniformity", and I don't want everyone to be "the same". I see everyone as unique, I want everyone to be able to fulfill their potential, and to that end I help people to create opportunities for themselves, rather than this effort of spoon-feeding them. This idea of "privilege" seems to me at least to be an ideology used by people who want to be spoon-fed. It's like looking at someone else and saying "I want what they have, but I don't want to work for it". That's not the way the world works. Society can never function like that, and it never will function like that.

Bizarre and meaningless concept.

Except that to tackle discrimination people need perspective and people who are born into privilege don't have it (as much as others). Especially people who think that young kids live in a society without context-- now that's a bizarre and meaningless concept.

And I'm certainly not advocating being spoon-fed opportunities. I am no proponent of things like quotas or even something like maternity leave, but not because I feel it's discrimination against men, but because I feel it's discrimination against business owners. I am simply tired of this new crop of men who think that because women have more opportunities then they've ever had that that means they, as men, have less, or that they still aren't born into privilege. For instance, it is my belief that the US is at an all-time low both economically and politically, but I would be an absolute brat not to admit that I still live a life of privilege.

And to be fair to men, this new crop I speak of is not something I've encountered in real life, except for one man-- it really seems to be a breed found solely on the internet. Most men are reasonable enough to admit that despite all the laws written to give women a helping hand, they still have it easier than women and they're very happy with their lot in life. They like the things their bodies can do for them when it comes to strength, they like the fact that they can earn their attractiveness, and they love the fact that they can pick a partner and start a family from the ages of 17-70. I can't tell you how many times I've heard men say "Men age better than women", and whether or not that's true, this is exactly the privilege men grow up with. But like I mentioned before, this is the internet, and this is a site consisting mostly of men, and most of them really don't like people poking holes in their very weak arguments, particularly when it comes to male/female dynamics.

Balmed Out

NI24 wrote: »

they like the fact that they can earn their attractiveness

?
Men are to a large degree stuck as they are. Women can dye & straighten hair, put on make up, high heels etc etc and end up looking completely different then they would naturally?
The generally desired aesthetic for women is to be slim for men slim and yet muscular which is again more difficult.

NI24

Clyde Strong Anger wrote: »

Then why is it that women are socialised in a way that limits their ability to attain goals which are highly valued in nearly every cultural context, such as professional success and acquisition of material wealth?

The common answer (not saying it was the one that you personally were going to give) is that there's something inherent in women that means they don't put value in those goals, that it's nature more than nurture and women don't do those things because they don't want to. In which case it's a kind of chicken-and-egg situation where the goals that men value and achieve are considered more positively than those that women value. Either way it indicates a kind of negative cultural attitude to women and femininity

Good point and something I've though about frequently.

NI24

Balmed Out wrote: »

?
Men are to a large degree stuck as they are. Women can dye & straighten hair, put on make up, high heels etc etc and end up looking completely different then they would naturally?
The generally desired aesthetic for women is to be slim for men slim and yet muscular which is again more difficult.

And if a man's attractiveness was dependent on looks in the same way as it is for women, you might have an argument; but it's not and studies have shown that it's not. And if you want links to that study you'll have to consult a poster called Wibbs, because they were originally posted by him. Needless to say it was very eye-opening and about as accurate a study as has ever been conducted.

Balmed Out

Zuspruch wrote: »

In the first world overall women have it easier than men.

How so?
Think it a little silly saying one has it eaier then the other. In certain situations men have unfair advantages and vice versa.

Balmed Out

Zuspruch wrote: »

That's why I said overall, the legal system which is the most important area where equality should apply is biased in favour if women. Women even receive much lighter sentencing for the same crime.

But most people have very very little interaction with the legal system in their lives, they interact daily with a society which glorifies male sporting achivements etc etc daily.
Not that im completely agreeing with some other posts you quoted like NI24 though plenty in it makes sense. I think if you want to blame either sex for the value placed on womens image then women more so than men are at fault for trying to outdress / look each other. Women again are 50% of the electorate yet in my own experience are quick to belittle female candidates for reasons that would never be mentioned for males.

NI24

Balmed Out wrote: »

But most people have very very little interaction with the legal system in their lives, they interact daily with a society which glorifies male sporting achivements etc etc daily.
Not that im completely agreeing with some other posts you quoted like NI24 though plenty in it makes sense. I think if you want to blame either sex for the value placed on womens image then women more so than men are at fault for trying to outdress / look each other. Women again are 50% of the electorate yet in my own experience are quick to belittle female candidates for reasons that would never be mentioned for males.

Women try to outdress/look each other because the best looking/dressed women get more attention from men, so women are not to be blamed more so than men, however, I agree with you about that certain group of women who belittle other women. They're called idiots and I have personally lambasted them both in real life and on this site for their idiocy.

And I'm still waiting for the list of privileges that women are born into that men are not. I have a feeling it doesn't exist.

silverfeather

My theory is this. The many devices of propaganda over time create the illusion of a tiered society conferring false authority on some. It's a part of social psychology and social persuasion. The illusion of control for one group and subtle rumors ideas or themes which might help or hinder another group.

newport2

AlphaRed wrote: »

Here is a more detailed explanation of white male privilege (explained by a feminist)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdjrA2Jy9UQ

So here we have someone who claims to strive for equality explaining why we should pre-judge a large section of the global population based solely on their skin-colour and gender??

Balmed Out

NI24 wrote: »

Women try to outdress/look each other because the best looking/dressed women get more attention from men, so women are not to be blamed more so than men, however, I agree with you about that certain group of women who belittle other women. They're called idiots and I have personally lambasted them both in real life and on this site for their idiocy.

And I'm still waiting for the list of privileges that women are born into that men are not. I have a feeling it doesn't exist.

I would completely disagree. Perhaps different social stratas behave differently but among my own peers women try to impress and out do each other without it being to try to impress men.

As for a list of privileges im not sure what you're getting at. Men will tend to be stronger, women tend to be more flexible, able to bear children.. apples and oranges. I don't see either being superior.
There are other privileges many of which are down to a lack of equality but every cloud has a silver lining, the pressure of male bread winning can add increased pressure on men to earn more and not to fail and l I know id love to be a woman at a time of conscription, sinking ships etc.

If we want things to improve its important to look at the whole picture as an us vs them mentality wont help anyone. Equality for men or for women shouldnt be the aim just equality.

zeffabelli

YOu cant have freedom, equality, and fairness all at the same time.

If you have one, it means one of the other gets compromised.

Lots of wanting it all on this thread.

zeffabelli

Balmed Out wrote: »

I would completely disagree. Perhaps different social stratas behave differently but among my own peers women try to impress and out do each other without it being to try to impress men.

As for a list of privileges im not sure what you're getting at. Men will tend to be stronger, women tend to be more flexible, able to bear children.. apples and oranges. I don't see either being superior.
There are other privileges many of which are down to a lack of equality but every cloud has a silver lining, the pressure of male bread winning can add increased pressure on men to earn more and not to fail and l I know id love to be a woman at a time of conscription, sinking ships etc.

If we want things to improve its important to look at the whole picture as an us vs them mentality wont help anyone. Equality for men or for women shouldnt be the aim just equality.

Yep. But the left want to completely deny any biological realities.

I fell sucker to some of the ideologies propegated in universities....and then my mind completely changed...complete 360 when I started reading about WW1..when I started to look at coal miners for example.....

And even the workforce..it should focus more on family, not on women in isolation.

silverfeather

zeffabelli wrote: »

YOu cant have freedom, equality, and fairness all at the same time.

If you have one, it means one of the other gets compromised.

Lots of wanting it all on this thread.

They are angles of a triangle.

NI24

Balmed Out wrote: »

I would completely disagree. Perhaps different social stratas behave differently but among my own peers women try to impress and out do each other without it being to try to impress men.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I could offer much more proof that men place much more emphasis on looks than women do on other women, but a simple google search will do the trick.

Balmed Out wrote: »

As for a list of privileges im not sure what you're getting at. Men will tend to be stronger, women tend to be more flexible, able to bear children.. apples and oranges. I don't see either being superior.

You don't see how being physically stronger is a superiority? Because many athletes would disagree with you.

Balmed Out wrote: »

There are other privileges many of which are down to a lack of equality but every cloud has a silver lining, the pressure of male bread winning can add increased pressure on men to earn more and not to fail and l I know id love to be a woman at a time of conscription, sinking ships etc.

All these things you mention? These are societal pressures and they can all change in an instant. None of these are biological obligations.

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

All these things you mention? These are societal pressures and they can all change in an instant. None of these are biological obligations.

American males have to put their names on the list for selective service or they will not receive federal funding for college. American women do not have to do this.

This is federal law, not a social option.

"Post-1980 draft registration[edit]
On July 2, 1980, President Carter issued Presidential Proclamation 4771 and re-instated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System.[67] At that time it was required that all males, born on or after January 1, 1960, register with the Selective Service System. The Selective Service System describes its mission as "to serve the emergency manpower needs of the Military by conscripting untrained manpower, or personnel with professional health care skills, if directed by Congress and the President in a national crisis".[68] Registration forms are available either online or at any U.S. Post Office.

The Selective Service registration form states that failure to register is a felony punishable by up to five years imprisonment or a $250,000 fine.[69] In practice, no one has been prosecuted for failure to comply with draft registration since 1986,[70] in part because prosecutions of draft resisters proved counter-productive for the government, and in part because of the difficulty of proving that noncompliance with the law was "knowing and willful". Many people do not register at all, register late, or change addresses without notifying the Selective Service System.[71] Registration is a requirement for employment by the federal government and some states, as well as for receiving some state benefits.[72] Refusing to register can also cause a loss of eligibility for federal financial aid for college.[73]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

Balmed Out

NI24 wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree. I could offer much more proof that men place much more emphasis on looks than women do on other women, but a simple google search will do the trick.


You don't see how being physically stronger is a superiority? Because many athletes would disagree with you.



All these things you mention? These are societal pressures and they can all change in an instant. None of these are biological obligations.

Your first point isnt what I was talking about. Married women will still generally spend a lot more attention on their appearance then men before going on a night out, its not to impress men but to compete with other women.

Being strong is an advantage, as is being flexible. As men are generally stronger women are generally more flexible. Were all superior!!!

What is the list of male biological advantages?
Dying earlier?
Suffering from a range of mental and physical diseases that women dont or only do to a far lesser prevalence / extent? color blindness, hemophilia...

orubiru

NI24 wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree. I could offer much more proof that men place much more emphasis on looks than women do on other women, but a simple google search will do the trick.

So what?

Is attraction a choice? If men are attracted to a certain "look" is that because they choose to find that attractive or are they compelled by genetics(?) to be attracted to that particular look?

If a heterosexual female decides to stick to a strict healthy diet while also working out at the gym 5 times a week then she can pretty much choose whichever partner she wants from the available males.

Would we say that this is down to human nature rather than human society? I am pretty sure that, given the choice, I'd rather have a healthy partner. Good hair, good skin, good body and such are indicators of health and so have to be factored in to attractiveness, right?

I find that I am unable to change the kind of things that I am attracted to. Is it so bad then that I place an emphasis on looks?

You want a list of female privileges but surely you must understand that what one person sees as a privilege others might see as a burden.

Could we look at how much money men earn compared to woman and call it "male privilege" because men earn more on average? Could look at how many men die in work related accidents and call that "female privilege" because women don't die at work so often? I don't think so. The wives and daughters of the man who earns more are benefiting from that situation. The wives and daughters of the man who dies at work are suffering in that situation.

One gender does not necessarily have things "better" than the other.

Sure, we can simplify reality to paint a picture that shows one side coming out on top. People frequently employ statistics and anecdotes to achieve the desired effect "see how Group X is oppressed by Group Y". The truth is always a lot more complicated than that. "White Male Privilege" is a snappy one liner that paints a particular picture. Attach a few statistics and a couple of "my male colleague earns twice as much as me so..." anecdotes and you've got yourself an idea of reality that seems pretty convincing.

In some of your posts you seem to be denying, or ignoring, the nature of reality because it doesn't fit in with your idea of what reality should be like. You need to look deeper than just asking for "a list of female privileges" and ,when nobody gives you that list, thinking that you've proved that men have it better than women.

Life pretty much sucks for everyone.

zeffabelli

Zuspruch wrote: »

No one is to be blamed for men being at traced to looks or for women trying to improve their appearance. For a start, attraction is not a choice, so blaming someone for what they are attracted to is ridiculous. People can be attracted to whatever they are attracted to And likewise their suitors are entitled to try to improve their attractiveness. There is nothing wrong with that.

But I get the impression that when you talk about what society "values" you are referring to what society is attracted to sexually.

Display and competition is part of our evolution. Mother nature is amoral, she is unjust, she is ruthless about survival.

It may not be fair, but she's not interested in fair.

smoking_kills

NI24 wrote: »

Women try to outdress/look each other because the best looking/dressed women get more attention from men, so women are not to be blamed more so than men, however, I agree with you about that certain group of women who belittle other women. They're called idiots and I have personally lambasted them both in real life and on this site for their idiocy.

And I'm still waiting for the list of privileges that women are born into that men are not. I have a feeling it doesn't exist.

First off a sinking ship!
Never having to worry about being conscripted, but enjoying the democracy a standing army protects.
More lenient sentences than men for similar crimes.
Having organisations/politicians/incentives/quotas for your gender.
Anything to do with Family court!
Living on average longer than men.


Just a quick few of the top of my head

zeffabelli

smoking_kills wrote: »

First off a sinking ship!
Never having to worry about being conscripted, but enjoying the democracy a standing army protects.
More lenient sentences than men for similar crimes.
Having organisations/politicians/incentives/quotas for your gender.
Anything to do with Family court!
Living on average longer than men.


Just a quick few of the top of my head

Hold on there.....women get screwed by family court also....also thanks to feminists.

The first off the boat thing is a myth propegated by the story of the Titanic...that has more to do with British good form.

KomradeBishop

To be honest, I think there's far more choice in attraction than people think - societal prejudices play a very large part in determining attraction, and I think attraction is one of the last unquestioned places where it's not ok to challenge peoples prejudices (because of the idea that attraction is innate and can't be changed) - and that because it goes unquestioned, this bleeds out in to general social attitudes of prejudice (unrelated to attraction) as well. I try to challenge that in myself as much as I can, and would be nice if more people did too - but I think this is an area where people are (unfortunately) prone to snap judgements.


In the discussion, there's way too much comparison of societal inequalities, that you just can't quantify/compare - so I don't see the point in comparing like that, and equally: There is no possible way to say that inequalities among men/women 'cancel each other out' - because it's impossible to properly compare/quantify them.

That's why it annoys me when that when it's said "men are privileged in situation 'x'", you get people retorting "ya but women are privileged in situation 'y'" - it's just a pointless 'Us vs Them' discussion then, over (usually completely incomparable) often unrelated issues, which both should be corrected - but instead of having a discussion about privileges and what the most important privileges to correct are (in my opinion: wealth/income/political-access/economic/legal inequality - and I mean in general, not related to genders!), it just turns into gutter-level trench warfare type arguments.

It seems like a lot of this kind of 'Us vs Them' stuff is deliberately goaded on by news media and such too - which makes sense, because if the most important privileges in society are brought about by wealth/income/political-access/economic/legal inequality (topics which are often considered 'boring' to people), then trying to pit people into 'Us vs Them' arguments where they never really get anywhere deep into discussing or learning about the worst 'privileges' - if that can be done, it works as the perfect 'divide and conquer' distraction for protecting the most privileged/powerful groups in society, from being analysed/discussed.

Potatoeman

zeffabelli wrote: »

YOu cant have freedom, equality, and fairness all at the same time.

If you have one, it means one of the other gets compromised.

Lots of wanting it all on this thread.

Fairness is subjective but you can have freedom and equal opportunity. Equality seems to be looking for the same results under different circumstances when some people talk about it.

zeffabelli

Potatoeman wrote: »

Fairness is subjective but you can have freedom and equal opportunity. Equality seems to be looking for the same results under different circumstances when some people talk about it.

No you can't. If I want to be free, then I should be able to leave whatever I have to my children. But that is not fair, because that means other people wont have unearned money. [not that I have this to consider, just using it as an example. It is also unequal. ]

You can have equal parental leave for the mom and the dad, but that is not fair to the business. YOu can have no parental leave to the business, but that is cruel to a new mother recovering from childbirth and also pretty mean to the new baby who needs its mother.

You just can't have it all.

Do you want to be free [libertarian]? Do you want to be fair? {Any number of ideological insanities cover this one} DO you want to be equal {gender fascists}?

CruelCoin

Current societal attitude:

Potatoeman

zeffabelli wrote: »

No you can't. If I want to be free, then I should be able to leave whatever I have to my children. But that is not fair, because that means other people wont have unearned money. [not that I have this to consider, just using it as an example. It is also unequal. ]

You can have equal parental leave for the mom and the dad, but that is not fair to the business. YOu can have no parental leave to the business, but that is cruel to a new mother recovering from childbirth and also pretty mean to the new baby who needs its mother.

You just can't have it all.

Do you want to be free [libertarian]? Do you want to be fair? {Any number of ideological insanities cover this one} DO you want to be equal {gender fascists}?

I don't follow your first point, are you referring to taxing inheritance?

As for the second point any paid paternity leave could be seen as unfair to the business but thats a cost they have to pay to operate just like taxes. Again though fair is subjective.

zeffabelli

Potatoeman wrote: »

I don't follow your first point, are you referring to taxing inheritance?

As for the second point any paid paternity leave could be seen as unfair to the business but thats a cost they have to pay to operate just like taxes. Again though fair is subjective.

For example in France, the law says you must leave a minimum of you holdings to your biological or legal children.

What if you don't want to? What if they hate your guts? What if they betrayed you?

OR

Is it fair or egalitarian that Bill Gates;s kids could get all that money unearned but other people can't?

Paternity leave? Ha... you could argue maternity leave is unfair on the business....

Equal....the gender fascists don't consider that equality could also mean NO LEAVE for anyone....

jugger0

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Proud to be white, feels good mane

Isnt it great, Best country's in the world are white, all the other races are jelly as fukk.

PopePalpatine

CruelCoin wrote: »

Current societal attitude:

Didn't he harass a rape victim on Reddit?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Didn't he harass a rape victim on Reddit?

Probably turned around and gave out about feminists having a "victim complex" then. Which is somehow reconcilable with him literally flagellating himself to make a point. IDK.

Potatoeman

zeffabelli wrote: »

For example in France, the law says you must leave a minimum of you holdings to your biological or legal children.

What if you don't want to? What if they hate your guts? What if they betrayed you?

OR

Is it fair or egalitarian that Bill Gates;s kids could get all that money unearned but other people can't?

Paternity leave? Ha... you could argue maternity leave is unfair on the business....

Equal....the gender fascists don't consider that equality could also mean NO LEAVE for anyone....

I suppose it's the difference between democratic and libertarian systems. Democratic is fine until you cant do something you want to and libertarian is fine until someone is doing something you don't like.