White Male Privilege

zeffabelli

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I think we can all agree having boobs is great.

Up to a point. Having big boobs sucked. Had them when I was pregnant. Can't imagine why people volunteer to do have big boobs.

Also when men have man boobs I don't think they are too happy about it.

Cold War Kid

zeffabelli wrote: »

Up to a point. Having big boobs sucked. Had them when I was pregnant. Can't imagine why people volunteer to do have big boobs.

How big are you talking? Having biggish (D/E cup) boobs is great IMO.

FF+ though, I don't know how them ladies don't fall down. Those things must hurt. Difficult to find good bras for them too I'd say.

zeffabelli

Cold War Kid wrote: »

How big are you talking? Having biggish (D/E cup) boobs is great IMO.

FF+ though, I don't know how them ladies don't fall down. Those things must hurt. Difficult to find good bras for them too I'd say.

I can't remember but they were gigantic....D would be ok...but these were immobilizing.

magma69

Ploure wrote: »

Living a life of bitterness and envy at imagined maleprivilege is a miserable way to live one's life. Take a step outside and realise you are blessed for your actual modern day human privilege. Imagine getting a toothache 3000 years ago.

That's akin to saying the gays better pipe down about equal rights because in the past it was illegal so shut up because it could be worse.

http://financialjuneteenth.com/this-woman-got-a-lot-of-job-offers-when-she-pretended-to-be-white/

Privilege certainly exists in America more so than in Europe. Thing is most of boards can't see past their own bubble and think they know the experience of every person from every different background.

tritium

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.

Yawn, apart from noting that biology and genetics by its nature confers privilege (hint: its called evolution) , your argument is pretty easy to simply spin on its head and have a very different perspective of who has the privilege:

Men can father a child at any age! But men can't give birth, can never bring another human being into the world. Sob, women are sooooo privileged.....

Women are judged by how attractive they are? You mean women can get by just on how they were born rather than what they've achieved, while a man has to work to earn that! Sob, women are so privileged

Now im obviously being a little bit facetious but theres a point nonetheless. Privilege, especially as youve defined it here is often purely a matter of perspective. That's actually one of the most annoying thing when certain groups talk about social privilege. They happily focus on the benefits of being part of some group as proof of privilege, but when the negatives are pointed out its dismissed as whining. Essentially it becomes a lazy and dishonest tactic to stiffle debate.

smurgen

Cold War Kid wrote: »

How big are you talking? Having biggish (D/E cup) boobs is great IMO.

FF+ though, I don't know how them ladies don't fall down. Those things must hurt. Difficult to find good bras for them too I'd say.

If I was a woman I'd want small ones.running etc would be a pain in the ass all that weight flopping about.

Anyway back to the point at hand.i think ideas such as white male privilege is such absolute crap. personality quirks and wealth have much more of an influence than a predisposition such as sex and colour might have.some of the most vulnerable people I know are white males and need encouragement,support and looking after- people who have severe anxiety and mental issues.if there is any privilege to being a white male it doesn't seem to have much of an effect on those poor guys.the whole 'ah they're lads they'll be grand' thinking is dangerous and is literally leading to men dying at their own hands.life isn't easy for anyone and the sooner people recognise this the better it'll be for everyone.

Cold War Kid

smurgen wrote: »

If I was a woman I'd want small ones.running etc would be a pain in the ass all that weight flopping about.

It's not just a case of small or huge - biggish ones/medium-sized ones are grand when it comes to what you're considering. Sports bras rein 'em in terrifically, absolutely no flopping about.

smurgen

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It's not just a case of small or huge - biggish ones/medium-sized ones are grand when it comes to what you're considering. Sports bras rein 'em in terrifically, absolutely no flopping about.

But they're literally heavy no?I'm not against big boobs,I am attracted to em but I'm actually happier that women have to lug em around than men!

Cold War Kid

When people say "Oh the only group it's ok to discriminate against now is white hetero men" though, they're being silly - positions of power are mostly held by white hetero men, so it renders that line invalid. That's the only time I see validity in pointing out the privileges individuals within a group are more likely to hold.
A white man won't experience discrimination/disenfranchisement because he is a white man (neither would his female equivalent in the western world).

Men do experience discrimination due to being men though, moreso in areas relating to family and sex, rather than business and politics.

Cold War Kid

smurgen wrote: »

But they're literally heavy no?

Not once they're under a F cup.
Well I guess it depends on the woman's frame too. A tiny woman might find DDs heavy, but in general I only hear of the heaviness issue in relation to really massive ones.

smurgen

Cold War Kid wrote: »

When people say "Oh the only group it's ok to discriminate against now is white hetero men" though, they're being silly - positions of power are mostly held by white hetero men, so it renders that line invalid. That's the only time I see validity in pointing out the privileges individuals within a group are more likely to hold.
A white man won't experience discrimination/disenfranchisement because he is a white man (neither would his female equivalent in the western world).

Men do experience discrimination due to being men though, moreso in areas relating to family and sex, rather than business and politics.

I dunno it just matters on a case to case basis.one of my good friends and housemate is a lesbian female and she's a teacher.she WILL definitely be a principle sooner or later.she just loves her job and she puts in a ton of extra work with kids. She's been through the mill with a messed up family life etc and it's made her one the strongest people I've seen.however she's not hardened in a sense that she's dead inside she just really self assured and confident.she loves men and seems to get along with men and women alike. however the only bit of conflict or difficulty she's come across has always been from straight females in work.one woman in particular sees her as somewhat of a threat and in the beginning the two were friends in a school.she told my housemate not to tell the rest if the staff that she was gay as it may hamper her career in the school.tye rest of the staff inevitably found out and we're okay with it.now that same woman who advised her to keep quiet is somewhat distant and almost jealous of her success and they barely talk anymore.if a person is a strong person I don't think discrimination will hold them back . definitely not in Ireland anyway.

AlphaRed

Can I recommend a book?

Foucault - power knowledge

If you look back throughout history and around the world power has manifested itself in many different types of people. To focus on a skin colour or sex is just the wrong thing to focus on.

hatrickpatrick

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Men do experience discrimination due to being men though, moreso in areas relating to family and sex, rather than business and politics.

And why is discrimination in the areas of family and sex less of a problem than discrimination in the areas of business and politics?

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

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.

Well I'm not saying so much, that someone can choose directly who they fancy, more saying that in general attraction does have some choice involved (that doesn't mean you can choose to be attracted to anyone though) - such as with personal prejudices being a choice that can affect attraction (something which I think is widespread enough, and where attraction is one of the few places prejudice is not questioned).

I agree that EP isn't completely invalid, but as a field, it's one to be extremely wary of due to widespread faulty logic (e.g. I see MRA's use it a lot, to back many of their more dubious views) - it does have plenty of valid input to provide though.

There are though, many biological things that are not a choice when it comes to attraction - and e.g. sexual orientation is scientifically regarded as something with little-to-no choice involved.

token101

AKW wrote: »

There's nothing Social or Fun about this.

Well it relates to society....

smurgen

Ploure wrote: »

I'd still ask how exactly are women discriminated against in business and politics.

I don't think they are.i think some men are just better at absorbing the stress that jobs in higher up levels of business, finance and politics demand than some women.in my company the top guy is a man but 4/5 of the directors under him are female.now this dude funded company initially and the females worked their way up through hard work.i don't see any discrimination in such a scenario.in other industries I'd be familiar with such as hedge fund trading the vast vast majority seem to be male but I just think that's down to men been naturally more risk prone than females on average.

colosus1908

Plain BS, i recommend you visit my college. Even "white man" find it had to get laid.

jackofalltrades

Cold War Kid wrote: »

When people say "Oh the only group it's ok to discriminate against now is white hetero men" though, they're being silly - positions of power are mostly held by white hetero men, so it renders that line invalid.

It doesn't though.
People are going as far as saying you can't be racist or sexist against white men.
No one is saying that for any other group.
So in that regard there is a basis to "it's OK to discriminate against white hetero men".

A white man won't experience discrimination/disenfranchisement because he is a white man (neither would his female equivalent in the western world).

So you're saying white men can never be discriminated against?

ALiasEX

We had a test in maths today. One of the questions was

Woman A can conceive until menopause. Woman B cannot conceive at all. Man A cannot conceive at all.

Which one(s) should check their priviledge?

Cold War Kid

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And why is discrimination in the areas of family and sex less of a problem than discrimination in the areas of business and politics?

Because I said that... where? I was saying it's incorrect and silly to say white men are this highly marginalised group when you look at how positions of power are most likely to be held by white men, however, at the same time, it should be noted that they still can face discrimination in other ways. I always find these discussions become very "You're either with us or agin' us" and anything that examines more than one perspective = being in disagreement, whereas I'd actually agree with a lot of what you say.

Ploure wrote: »

I'd still ask how exactly are women discriminated against in business and politics.

I would too, seeing as we're not.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It doesn't though.
People are going as far as saying you can't be racist or sexist against white men.

Nutty people, not anyone with an ounce of sense.

So you're saying white men can never be discriminated against?

For being men they can of course be discriminated against, in relation to family issues and sexual issues. For being white... I guess maybe in societies where whites are minorities?

zeffabelli

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Because I said that... where? I was saying it's incorrect and silly to say white men are this highly marginalised group when you look at how positions of power are most likely to be held by white men, however, at the same time, it should be noted that they still can face discrimination in other ways. I always find these discussions become very "You're either with us or agin' us" and anything that examines more than one perspective = being in disagreement, whereas I'd actually agree with a lot of what you say.

I?

This is where it loses its punch.

Pointing to positions of power and saying ah look they are all white men, therefore all white men are not marinalised, is plainly selective abstraction.

Should I point to all the Jewish names on the lead companies in Hollywood and deduce there is no such thing as anti-semitism?

How about that there are more white male Jack the Rippers....what can we deduce about all white males there?

How about the disaffected men of Appalachia?

The coal miners of the north of England?

It really holds no weight anymore.

Cold War Kid

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is where it loses its punch.

Pointing to positions of power and saying ah look they are all white men, therefore all white men are not marinalised, is plainly selective abstraction.

Should I point to all the Jewish names on the lead companies in Hollywood and deduce there is no such thing as anti-semitism?

How about that there are more white male Jack the Rippers....what can we deduce about all white males there?

How about the disaffected men of Appalachia?

The coal miners of the north of England?

It really holds no weight anymore.

People keep being so absolutist in this discussion tbh, and keep viewing anything that vaguely strays from the majority consensus as an attack. I haven't said anything to contradict what you say above, nor do I disagree with any of it.
I am only referring to when people can sometimes say "The only group who face discrimination nowadays are white men" - this is nonsense. And there is demonstrable proof that this is nonsense.
However, sensible examinations of when men do get screwed for being men, I'm all for. And I'm glad that taken-for-granted phenomena (e.g. no biggie if a woman slaps a man, unlike the reverse) are having a mirror held up to them now.

zeffabelli

Cold War Kid wrote: »

People keep being so absolutist in this discussion tbh, and keep viewing anything that vaguely strays from the majority consensus as an attack. I haven't said anything to contradict what you say above, nor do I disagree with any of it.
I am only referring to when people can sometimes say "The only group who face discrimination nowadays are white men" - this is nonsense. And there is demonstrable proof that this is nonsense.
However, sensible examinations of when men do get screwed for being men, I'm all for. And I'm glad that taken-for-granted phenomena (e.g. no biggie if a woman slaps a man, unlike the reverse) are having a mirror held up to them now.

Ah yeah, no one can claim they are the only group. That's silly. You have a much less chance of getting shot by a US cop if you are a white male or frankly a female of any colour.

You know...no biggie if a woman slaps a man...it's no biggie on tv if men beat the crap out of each other, dismebowel each other, blow each other up.... there is very little accountability or consequence on tv for violence...so that example always flops.

jackofalltrades

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Nutty people, not anyone with an ounce of sense.

Which leads to people saying "white hetero men are the only group it's OK to discriminate against".

For being men, yes, in relation to family issues and sexual issues. For being white... I guess maybe in societies where whites are minorities?

My point is that white men absolutely can be discriminated against on the basis of being a white man.
And to say that they will never experience discrimination is absurd.

Cold War Kid

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Which leads to people saying "white hetero men are the only group it's OK to discriminate against".


My point is that white men absolutely can be discriminated against on the basis of being a white man.
And to say that they will never experience discrimination is absurd.

In the West? I don't know. Can't see how I would face it in the West as a white woman. Probably get a bit of grief from eejits in ghettos where whites are a minority if I went there, but discrimination?

One eyed Jack

Cold War Kid wrote: »

In the West? I don't know. Can't see how I would face it in the West as a white woman. Probably get a bit of grief from eejits in ghettos where whites are a minority if I went there, but discrimination?

This is why I think white people talking about discrimination against them on the basis that they are white, just rings a bit hollow for me. That's why I feel like this concept of privilege is misguided. White people have earned their place in society (how they did it is entirely questionable), but the fact is they earned it.

So this examination of privilege on the basis of numerous factors doesn't actually do anything to address or rectify the feeling of a group that they are discriminated against. What use is this idea of privilege, and how seriously is anyone taking it?

I'm just after coming home from an open day (my wife's 20 year school reunion is on tonight), she went to a convent, so the school was all women as far as the eye could see. I took a look in the assembly hall and muttered "Jesus!", and this old lady walking out says "Blessed art thou among women", cracked me up

Someone else in that situation could point out how she was sexist or discriminatory and all the rest of it, but they'd be reaching, and I wouldn't be able to take them seriously either. I'm sure someone else would say because they were all women in a convent school that it discriminates against men, etc. I wouldn't be able to take them seriously either, so just how seriously is this idea of privilege taken, and how useful is it in tackling actual discrimination and not just individual butthurt?


(couldn't think of a better way to phrase that).

hatrickpatrick

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Because I said that... where? I was saying it's incorrect and silly to say white men are this highly marginalised group when you look at how positions of power are most likely to be held by white men, however, at the same time, it should be noted that they still can face discrimination in other ways. I always find these discussions become very "You're either with us or agin' us" and anything that examines more than one perspective = being in disagreement, whereas I'd actually agree with a lot of what you say

You didn't say it, but that's been the argument of feminists and everyone in this thread whose said anything along the lines of "in general, men have it better". That's assuming that one area of life is more important than another, and crucially, the areas in which men allegedly have it better are unlikely to affect young people as much, meaning that young men and teens growing up and being asked to accept that paradigm have not experienced it. But are still shouted down any time they question it.

This means that from a young age, the whole debate around gender equality is full of bitterness.

EDIT: to give one example, at 16 years old the issue of maternity discrimination is somewhat unlikely to have affected you, but the issue of boys being exclusively criminalised for underage sex is.

jackofalltrades

Cold War Kid wrote: »

In the West? I don't know. Can't see how I would face it in the West as a white woman.
Probably get a bit of grief from eejits in ghettos where whites are a minority if I went there, but discrimination?

And that's discrimination, it can and does happen.

Cold War Kid

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You didn't say it, but that's been the argument of feminists and everyone in this thread whose said anything along the lines of "in general, men have it better"

Well I've no interest in any of that "them v us" stuff. If you cut a woman she bleeds, if you cut a man he bleeds.
When people lose the run of themselves in relation to how anyone is discriminated against (and that includes women) there's no harm in bringing a bit of perspective into the equation, but that doesn't mean lack of acknowledgement when there is discrimination.

hatrickpatrick

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Well I've no interest in any of that "them v us" stuff. If you cut a woman she bleeds, if you cut a man he bleeds.

Like myself then. I only get involved in this any time I see sweeping generalisations made about alleged male privilege, a few examples of which in this thread I'll be happy to quote I've I'm on a laptop.

When people lose the run of themselves in relation to how anyone is discriminated against (and that includes women) there's no harm in bringing a bit of perspective into the equation, but that doesn't mean lack of acknowledgement when there is discrimination.

Again agreed fully.

One eyed Jack

Youlikethat wrote: »

There is a distinction between fair discrimination and unfair discrimination. It is discrimination to have mens and women's toilets, nevertheless there is nothing unfair about it.

You'll forgive me if I fail to see the distinction you're trying to make there? Discrimination is always unfair on the people who are being discriminated against. The example you use of gender segregated toilets is quite controversial because more and more there are people of both sexes and all genders who claim that gender segregated facilities are discriminatory. It simply depends upon which perspective you view it.

For example you say there's nothing unfair about it, I'm not bothered either way*, yet someone else could come along and say that such gender separation is discriminatory.



*I've often used the ladies facilities, the only people who have ever been uncomfortable have been men. YMMV.

One eyed Jack

Youlikethat wrote: »

Tampons are marketed specifically to women, that is discrimination. It is completely fair and reasonable discrimination.

Whaaa'?

Just when I was getting the hang of this new meaning of the word privilege, you're now implying there's a new meaning to discrimination - marketing products towards a demographic that actually needs them?

What the hell would men need with tampons? (apart from being useful for nosebleeds). Even then, men aren't prohibited from buying tampons.

I dunno, some people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with examples of discrimination, and then they wonder why they're not taken seriously.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whaaa'?

Just when I was getting the hang of this new meaning of the word privilege, you're now implying there's a new meaning to discrimination - marketing products towards a demographic that actually needs them?

What the hell would men need with tampons? (apart from being useful for nosebleeds). Even then, men aren't prohibited from buying tampons.

I dunno, some people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with examples of discrimination, and then they wonder why they're not taken seriously.

The example is used to illustrate how sometimes discrimination based on gender is appropriate.

So tampon ads and heterosexuality....they are on the approval list. Ecept for those gender fascist activists who say there is no such thing as heterosexuality and it's all patriarchal oppression....oh god I've just started boring myself re iterating the ideological insanity.

One eyed Jack

Youlikethat wrote: »

Discrimination occurs when a decision is influenced by a discriminant. Anything can be a discriminant.

When I purchase a carton of milk I discriminate based on the best before date, the best before date is therefore the discriminant.

We're talking about people here though, not feckin' milk. If I buy one brand of milk instead of another, you're back to NI24's ridiculous example of discrimination against a business.

You'd be giving a better example of discrimination if I were to avoid or prefer one checkout operator over another on the basis of traits such as their age, ethnicity, gender, etc.

Youlikethat wrote: »

Men don't need tampons so the right decision is made when they are marketed towards women and men. There is nothing unfair or unreasonable about that for of discrimination.

That's not discrimination against men for goodness sake, do you think manufacturers wouldn't market their products to men if they spotted a market for it? Too right they would. There's just no profit to be made in marketing a product to people who have no use for it.

hatrickpatrick

Discrimination is applying different rules or standards to different people based on demographic, and as far as I'm concerned with the exceptions of age and able-bodiedness, they simply cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Why is why, once again, I find it so abhorrent that (a) Ireland has an actual statute which states that all other things being equal, a male minor can face criminal charges and prison time for an activity which an equivalent female minor cannot, and (b) that this generates so little outrage or opposition. It is fundamentally wrong and is as far as I'm aware the only gendered discrimination which is actually written into law rather than being a societal or cultural phenomenon, it makes a generalisation about sex and gender roles which is utterly poisonous and it ruins the lives of innocent young boys, while at the same time sending the message that as a girl, there are some things you have the right to do which boys do not.

It is all around disastrous for society and yet it only ever comes up in debates such as these and generates a lot of eye rolling when it does. Can you imagine the reaction if the law said that only a girl could be prosecuted for underage sex while a boy could not? There'd be entirely justified accusations of slut shaming coming from absolutely every quarter.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Discrimination is applying different rules or standards to different people based on demographic, and as far as I'm concerned with the exceptions of age and able-bodiedness, they simply cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Just how far are you concerned though?

Rhetorical question, because there's a school of thought now which is more about the importance of including people regardless of their ability, as opposed to treating like they need to be separated from society -

(it's been a while since I watched it myself, but she makes some great points)

Why is why, once again, I find it so abhorrent that (a) Ireland has an actual statute which states that all other things being equal, a male minor can face criminal charges and prison time for an activity which an equivalent female minor cannot, and (b) that this generates so little outrage or opposition. It is fundamentally wrong and is as far as I'm aware the only gendered discrimination which is actually written into law rather than being a societal or cultural phenomenon, it makes a generalisation about sex and gender roles which is utterly poisonous and it ruins the lives of innocent young boys, while at the same time sending the message that as a girl, there are some things you have the right to do which boys do not.

It is all around disastrous for society and yet it only ever comes up in debates such as these and generates a lot of eye rolling when it does. Can you imagine the reaction if the law said that only a girl could be prosecuted for underage sex while a boy could not? There'd be entirely justified accusations of slut shaming coming from absolutely every quarter.

The reason it generates a lot of eye rolling Patrick is because it simply isn't an issue for most people, men or women. It's a frivolous example at best because in order for the underage boy to be criminalised for statutory rape, a report has to be made to the authorities, and even then the DPP decides whether or not to prosecute. It's a ridiculously small number are actually affected by the legislation, to the point where using it as an example of gender discrimination draws eye rolls.

It's daft to do that whole reverse the genders nonsense*, and no, I can't imagine there'd still be a whole lot of people would care either.

*Not to mention it doesn't help nor make your argument valid.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just how far are you concerned though?

Rhetorical question, because there's a school of thought now which is more about the importance of including people regardless of their ability, as opposed to treating like they need to be separated from society -

(it's been a while since I watched it myself, but she makes some great points)

I didn't mean it was acceptable to have discrimination on the grounds of able bodiedness, more that it's ok to treat people differently (IE, disabled parking spaces since some might find it a struggle to walk all the way from the other side of the car park). As regards age, it's perfectly acceptable that voting, smoking, drinking etc be restricted on grounds of age.

But tell me this, would you be ok with a law saying that men can vote at 18 but women can't vote until 21?

The reason it generates a lot of eye rolling Patrick is because it simply isn't an issue for most people, men or women. It's a frivolous example at best because in order for the underage boy to be criminalised for statutory rape, a report has to be made to the authorities, and even then the DPP decides whether or not to prosecute. It's a ridiculously small number are actually affected by the legislation, to the point where using it as an example of gender discrimination draws eye rolls.

It's affected someone I know which is why I care, but it's about something deeper than that. It's about the principle that there shouldn't be anything men are banned from doing which women are not, and vice versa.

It's daft to do that whole reverse the genders nonsense*, and no, I can't imagine there'd still be a whole lot of people would care either.

*Not to mention it doesn't help nor make your argument valid.

Why not? There shouldn't be any double standards. Boys are just as good as girls and should have as much freedom as girls do, sexually and otherwise. Any law which restricts one gender but not the other is automatically toxic.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I didn't mean it was acceptable to have discrimination on the grounds of able bodiedness, more that it's ok to treat people differently (IE, disabled parking spaces since some might find it a struggle to walk all the way from the other side of the car park). As regards age, it's perfectly acceptable that voting, smoking, drinking etc be restricted on grounds of age.

But tell me this, would you be ok with a law saying that men can vote at 18 but women can't vote until 21?

I can honestly say I wouldn't care in the slightest.

It's affected someone I know which is why I care, but it's about something deeper than that. It's about the principle that there shouldn't be anything men are banned from doing which women are not, and vice versa.

Tell me this - would you care all that much if you had no personal experience of the way your friend was affected by it?

I get that it's about the principle of the law that it's discriminatory, but people who have no experience of something will never consider it relevant in their lives. I had rumours spread about me by a 15 year old girl when I was 19, I had the crap kicked out of me and all by a mob, lost a lot of people I had considered friends and all the rest of it. I never held it against that girl because I knew she had other issues going on and I wasn't going to make her life worse. 20 years later she's one of my best friends. I'd never have been able to forgive myself if I had tried to ruin her life back then. I considered it unnecessary.

I think you're going to struggle to find enough people who care about the possibility of boys being criminalised for having underage sex. I get where you're coming from and all, but I just can't get interested enough to care, when I think there are many more pressing issues that young people in society have to be concerned about nowadays.

Why not? There shouldn't be any double standards. Boys are just as good as girls and should have as much freedom as girls do, sexually and otherwise. Any law which restricts one gender but not the other is automatically toxic.

Yeah, that's true and all Patrick, but you're picking a very obscure and rarely ever invoked law to make your point, which is why most people simply can't relate to the point you're trying to make.

The fact is that those double standards do exist, you even argue yourself that it's ok to treat people differently (depending upon what criteria you choose), and that's why your "reverse the genders" argument is never going to work, because you want to limit the criteria under which that argument suits you, and tell people to ignore the criteria under which it doesn't.

There are a multitude of more discriminatory laws you could use as examples that discriminate against people using certain criteria that concern people a hell of a lot more than the possibility of young lads being criminalised for underage sex tbh. Everyone is going to have their own priorities, and that just doesn't rate very highly for a lot of people.

NI24

tritium wrote: »

Yawn, apart from noting that biology and genetics by its nature confers privilege (hint: its called evolution) , your argument is pretty easy to simply spin on its head and have a very different perspective of who has the privilege:

No, it isn't. The main thrust of hatrick's argument, which is why I originally posted, is that male privilege does not exist, and by the very nature of the biological advantages that men possess at birth, that conclusion is false.

tritium wrote: »

Men can father a child at any age! But men can't give birth, can never bring another human being into the world. Sob, women are sooooo privileged.....

And if giving birth were comparable to fathering children at any age, you might have a point. But you're comparing apples and oranges. Tell me, can you give an accurate comparison of the inherent discomfort/pain that women have to endure for their fertility, that men also have to endure?

tritium wrote: »

Women are judged by how attractive they are? You mean women can get by just on how they were born rather than what they've achieved, while a man has to work to earn that! Sob, women are so privileged

Between attractiveness being based purely on luck, or attractiveness being based on something that is largely within your control, what position would you like? Society seems to agree that class mobility is a good thing, while class stagnation is bad. Is this not along the same lines? And where did I say women don't have privileges?

tritium wrote: »

Now im obviously being a little bit facetious but theres a point nonetheless. Privilege, especially as youve defined it here is often purely a matter of perspective. That's actually one of the most annoying thing when certain groups talk about social privilege. They happily focus on the benefits of being part of some group as proof of privilege, but when the negatives are pointed out its dismissed as whining. Essentially it becomes a lazy and dishonest tactic to stiffle debate.

Of course its a matter of perspective. Where did I say it wasn't? And what makes you think that privileges don't have consequences? A man living in a mansion in Bel-Air also has to pay higher property taxes. Does that mean he doesn't have privilege?

dogcat

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Discrimination is applying different rules or standards to different people based on demographic, and as far as I'm concerned with the exceptions of age and able-bodiedness, they simply cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Why is why, once again, I find it so abhorrent that (a) Ireland has an actual statute which states that all other things being equal, a male minor can face criminal charges and prison time for an activity which an equivalent female minor cannot, and (b) that this generates so little outrage or opposition. It is fundamentally wrong and is as far as I'm aware the only gendered discrimination which is actually written into law rather than being a societal or cultural phenomenon, it makes a generalisation about sex and gender roles which is utterly poisonous and it ruins the lives of innocent young boys, while at the same time sending the message that as a girl, there are some things you have the right to do which boys do not.

It is all around disastrous for society and yet it only ever comes up in debates such as these and generates a lot of eye rolling when it does. Can you imagine the reaction if the law said that only a girl could be prosecuted for underage sex while a boy could not? There'd be entirely justified accusations of slut shaming coming from absolutely every quarter.

Will you ring up Joe Duffy and email the Taoiseach to get this revolting law abolished?

NI24

I know these posts are directed at someone else, but I just want to say a few things.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And why is discrimination in the areas of family and sex less of a problem than discrimination in the areas of business and politics?

It's not okay. Both are equally important.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You didn't say it, but that's been the argument of feminists and everyone in this thread whose said anything along the lines of "in general, men have it better". That's assuming that one area of life is more important than another, and crucially, the areas in which men allegedly have it better are unlikely to affect young people as much, meaning that young men and teens growing up and being asked to accept that paradigm have not experienced it. But are still shouted down any time they question it.
This means that from a young age, the whole debate around gender equality is full of bitterness.

I still think that men generally have it better, however, it's an argument that can go around forever, and I would never argue for more laws benefiting women above men, or even advocate for the current laws that do benefit women specifically. And just because something doesn't affect young men and teens until later in life doesn't mean they don't have context on the issue.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Like myself then. I only get involved in this any time I see sweeping generalisations made about alleged male privilege, a few examples of which in this thread I'll be happy to quote I've I'm on a laptop.

You know, hatrick, you're just as guilty of making sweeping generalizations, too.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is why, once again, I find it so abhorrent that (a) Ireland has an actual statute which states that all other things being equal, a male minor can face criminal charges and prison time for an activity which an equivalent female minor cannot, and (b) that this generates so little outrage or opposition. It is fundamentally wrong and is as far as I'm aware the only gendered discrimination which is actually written into law rather than being a societal or cultural phenomenon, it makes a generalisation about sex and gender roles which is utterly poisonous and it ruins the lives of innocent young boys, while at the same time sending the message that as a girl, there are some things you have the right to do which boys do not.

How does being charged with committing a crime ruin the lives of innocent young boys? If they committed a crime they are not innocent.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It is all around disastrous for society and yet it only ever comes up in debates such as these and generates a lot of eye rolling when it does. Can you imagine the reaction if the law said that only a girl could be prosecuted for underage sex while a boy could not? There'd be entirely justified accusations of slut shaming coming from absolutely every quarter.

Are you taking specifically about laws?

Princess Laika

White male privilege?

More liek white male superiority.

hatrickpatrick

NI24 wrote: »

How does being charged with committing a crime ruin the lives of innocent young boys? If they committed a crime they are not innocent.

But the law specifically states that it's ok for underaged girls to have sex with underaged boys, just not vice versa. This is fundamentally wrong and is impossible to justify in the context of equality.

Are you taking specifically about laws?

In this case, yes.

hatrickpatrick

NI24 wrote: »

No, it isn't. The main thrust of hatrick's argument, which is why I originally posted, is that male privilege does not exist, and by the very nature of the biological advantages that men possess at birth, that conclusion is false.

That isn't my argument. My argument is that women and men have different privileges, and that the SJW stance that male privilege = men cannot be the victims of sexism or discrimination is utter bullsh!t. To back this up, I've cited legislation and cultural issues.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can honestly say I wouldn't care in the slightest.

Fair enough then, that means you're neither a feminist nor an egalitarian activist. No problem there.
However, feminists who justify any double standard whatsoever, or dismiss it, are hypocrites.

Tell me this - would you care all that much if you had no personal experience of the way your friend was affected by it?

100% absolutely. No law should exist which gives one gender more rights than the other.

Why should I have to have experienced something in order to care about it? I'm not a Palestinian nor have I ever lived in the Middle East and yet I advocate for the end of the conflict there.
The argument that one has to have personally experienced a particular injustice in order to find it abhorrent is ridiculous.

I get that it's about the principle of the law that it's discriminatory, but people who have no experience of something will never consider it relevant in their lives.

Speak for yourself.

I had rumours spread about me by a 15 year old girl when I was 19, I had the crap kicked out of me and all by a mob, lost a lot of people I had considered friends and all the rest of it. I never held it against that girl because I knew she had other issues going on and I wasn't going to make her life worse. 20 years later she's one of my best friends. I'd never have been able to forgive myself if I had tried to ruin her life back then. I considered it unnecessary.

Fair enough, that's your prerogative. Personally if someone did that to me, they'd never again get so much as a "hello".

I think you're going to struggle to find enough people who care about the possibility of boys being criminalised for having underage sex. I get where you're coming from and all, but I just can't get interested enough to care, when I think there are many more pressing issues that young people in society have to be concerned about nowadays.

That's cool, but for me, I cannot stand the existence of a law which explicitly states that girls have more freedom than boys. If any law existed which stated the reverse, I'd be just as incensed.

Yeah, that's true and all Patrick, but you're picking a very obscure and rarely ever invoked law to make your point, which is why most people simply can't relate to the point you're trying to make.

That law represents an archaic view of sexuality which persists to this day and does a massive amount of damage to society, namely that sex is something a man "does" to a woman rather than an activity people do together. This causes all kinds of bullsh!t, from the slut/stud double standard to the fact that when two people get drunk and have sex, the man is generally the one treated like a criminal if either are.

The fact is that those double standards do exist,

But they don't have to.

you even argue yourself that it's ok to treat people differently (depending upon what criteria you choose), and that's why your "reverse the genders" argument is never going to work, because you want to limit the criteria under which that argument suits you, and tell people to ignore the criteria under which it doesn't.

Nobody has ever cited a single valid criteria for giving women more freedom than men. I have cited a valid reason for disabled parking spaces. That's the difference.

There are a multitude of more discriminatory laws you could use as examples that discriminate against people using certain criteria that concern people a hell of a lot more than the possibility of young lads being criminalised for underage sex tbh. Everyone is going to have their own priorities, and that just doesn't rate very highly for a lot of people.

Fair enough, but in the context of a debate about gender equality it makes the "women have less freedom" argument utterly ridiculous.

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

No, it isn't. The main thrust of hatrick's argument, which is why I originally posted, is that male privilege does not exist, and by the very nature of the biological advantages that men possess at birth, that conclusion is false.



And if giving birth were comparable to fathering children at any age, you might have a point. But you're comparing apples and oranges. Tell me, can you give an accurate comparison of the inherent discomfort/pain that women have to endure for their fertility, that men also have to endure?


Between attractiveness being based purely on luck, or attractiveness being based on something that is largely within your control, what position would you like? Society seems to agree that class mobility is a good thing, while class stagnation is bad. Is this not along the same lines? And where did I say women don't have privileges?


Of course its a matter of perspective. Where did I say it wasn't? And what makes you think that privileges don't have consequences? A man living in a mansion in Bel-Air also has to pay higher property taxes. Does that mean he doesn't have privilege?

Here you go again, proving everyone's point while trying to play the victim/ sticking your fingers in your ears. You're clearly not interested in any argument other than your own and unwilling to process anything that might invalidate your view. I don't know what has made you so unwilling to step outside your own perspective but honestly, its no fun debating with an idealogue, so I'm out.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Does biology not explain this? White males run western Europe and USA, Black males run Africa, Asian males run the Orient. The male is more inclined to seek roles of leadership, like other mammals such as the big cats.

It doesn't mean that the female can't also contribute.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fair enough then, that means you're neither a feminist nor an egalitarian activist. No problem there.
However, feminists who justify any double standard whatsoever, or dismiss it, are hypocrites.

I wouldn't call a feminist who doesn't care for men's welfare a hypocrite. In fact the way I define feminism is that they advocate for women's welfare, and women's welfare only. That's why I admire women like Hillary Clinton - she has fought tirelessly for women's welfare. I don't at all get the likes of Emma Watson who is the head of this "he for she" campaign or whatever it is now which calls on men to join the feminist movement, it's a bit too "women will protect you" for my liking. I think men should advocate for their own welfare, and egalitarianism, well, always struck me as people who were on the fence who couldn't pick a side and therefore get nowhere - you'll be deemed a hypocrite depending upon whether you're advocating for women's welfare, or men's welfare.

100% absolutely. No law should exist which gives one gender more rights than the other.

But that whole gender blind society you talk about ignores the fact that men and women are different, and therefore have different needs, therefore different rights, protections and different responsibilities. It's ridiculous to suggest for example that women and men should have the same reproductive rights. We can aim for balance in laws overall, but 100% gender neutral laws that ignore the differences in genders? That's the sort of idealism I for one would never advocate for.

Why should I have to have experienced something in order to care about it? I'm not a Palestinian nor have I ever lived in the Middle East and yet I advocate for the end of the conflict there.
The argument that one has to have personally experienced a particular injustice in order to find it abhorrent is ridiculous.

So that in a discussion, some smartarse couldn't shut down your opinion with this -

Speak for yourself.

Fair enough, that's your prerogative. Personally if someone did that to me, they'd never again get so much as a "hello".

What your egalitarian perspective is doing is it allows you to ignore context, and so in saying that neither gender should have more rights than the other, you're ignoring a whole load of context. That's why the egalitarian philosophy for me at least is a load of, well, literally whatever you're having yourself, because it allows you to ignore context and think you're being "gender blind".

That's cool, but for me, I cannot stand the existence of a law which explicitly states that girls have more freedom than boys. If any law existed which stated the reverse, I'd be just as incensed.

It doesn't explicitly state that at all though. It infers that males are subject to a different standard than females. Taken in context it's easy understand why that particular law exists. There are other laws which prohibit girls under 16 from availing of contraception, whereas a boy can go into his local pharmacist and buy condoms OTC.

That law represents an archaic view of sexuality which persists to this day and does a massive amount of damage to society, namely that sex is something a man "does" to a woman rather than an activity people do together. This causes all kinds of bullsh!t, from the slut/stud double standard to the fact that when two people get drunk and have sex, the man is generally the one treated like a criminal if either are.

Well that's hyperbolic. When two teenagers are knocking boots, they're already ignoring laws regarding the age of consent. People's prejudices take care of the rest.

But they don't have to.

It's true that nothing has to stay the way it is and that the law should be fit for purpose and reflect society's moral standards and all the rest of it, but the unfortunate thing (depending upon your perspective) about the law relating to minors and underage sex is that there aren't many people calling for a change in the law which would give minors more sexual freedom. I certainly wouldn't advocate for any such laws tbh, and if we were to be held to your speak for yourself standards, well, minors can't speak for themselves when the law doesn't recognise that they are sexually active under the age of consent.

Nobody has ever cited a single valid criteria for giving women more freedom than men. I have cited a valid reason for disabled parking spaces. That's the difference.

Well I'm sure someone will be along shortly, I can't think of any valid criteria where women are more free than men when the Irish Constitution as a whole is taken in context, but you want to focus on specifics.

(as an aside, did you see Ellen Keane on Brendan O' Connor's show last night? You'll probably catch it on the player, but she was talking about exactly how she doesn't want to be treated differently than anyone else, and there are many people like her who don't particularly care for special adaptations being made on their behalf, because they want to be treated the same as anyone else)

Fair enough, but in the context of a debate about gender equality it makes the "women have less freedom" argument utterly ridiculous.

I don't think anyone made that argument though? Your argument seems to be based around the idea that you outright reject the notion of "male privilege", and I'm with you on that one, I think the concept of "privilege" full stop is a load of balls.

(I'm allowed say that, right?)

zeffabelli

Yeah Hilary Clinton....pro Palestine until she runs for Senate in NY and then suddenly has Jewish cousins.

Hilary Clinton the feminist who has a career because she rides her husband's coat tails.

A feminist would not have thrown Lewinsky under the bus and allowed that girls life to be destroyed by her predator husband.

NI24

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But the law specifically states that it's ok for underaged girls to have sex with underaged boys, just not vice versa. This is fundamentally wrong and is impossible to justify in the context of equality.

So what you're saying is that it ruins innocent young boys because it tells them that only they can commit a crime, in this case, statutory rape?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In this case, yes.

Are you sure about that though? I don't think eye rolling ensues when you talk about discriminatory laws, just anecdotal misandry.