White Male Privilege

NI24

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

OK. Your argument is that male privilege is a societal construct and has since been abolished through legislation. I can see where you're coming from, however, I can't agree that society isn't set up in such a way that favors men more than women, and I don't mean legislatively. But I also want to address your original post about the bitterness and resentment that some young men feel. While the bitterness and resentment that some young men feel may indeed be exacerbated by the examples you mentioned, do you not think that it goes deeper, or to put it more literally, farther back in time? What I mean is, perhaps the bitterness some young men feel is due to the fact that the traditional male role in society, the provider role (a largely societal construct) has now, due to second wave feminism, been eliminated. And in that context, I can absolutely see where the bitterness comes from and I don't want to trivialize that hatrick.

NI24

tritium wrote: »

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.

Where am I playing victim? You continually used my logic in an inaccurate way and when I question that you call it playing victim. If you don't agree with my definition of privilege, then fine-- what is your definition of privilege? And if you're saying that privileges that are intrinsic can be argued for both sides, then I would like you to give an argument to counter the issue I raised about the discomfort/pain of a woman's fertility. But if you're not willing to do that, then I can only assume you have no counter argument. Perhaps you don't find it fun debating with me (I've never heard of the word "idealogue"), yet you insisted on doing that on multiple occasions, so I find that to be disingenuous.

zeffabelli

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?





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.



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.

Actually HP, girls, particularly in Ireland, have a lot more constrictions on their "freedom."

Let's start with the school uniform. In the local primary school, the girls are still not allowed to wear trousers, they are still in pinafores. Do you know how cold that is in the winter...how you can't do cartwheels... or ride a bicycle or even go down the slide in the playground. From very young their bodies are restricted, their movements are restricted, and many would argue power starts with the body.



The problem I have with universality, and egalitarianism is that is wants to assume certainty and that we are all the same.

Yes boys are being left behind in education. How do you feel about the compelling arguments from educators for starting boys a year later than girls in school? This argument comes from the assertion that boys develop later and slower, and due to various and complex socialisations should be separated from their mothers later?

Would you find that a sweeping generalisation? Sexist? Gender bias? or would you remove the social moralising from it and look at it as assessing and responding to that assessment?

I do agree that education, as it stands, is biased in favor of how girls learn, and yes girls have more PHDs etc, but on the other hand, education is failing businesses because they are not educating people to what creative businesses want, which might explain why in the real world the men are still outdoing the women, precisely because education failed to transform them into proper little bureaucrats.

Just Be Yourself

Lawnmower Tim wrote: »

One Eyed Jack many feminists are hypocrites because their goal is gender equality, yet they ignore situations where women have advantages such as family law or court sentencing where women receive much lighter sentencing for the exact same crimes. If gender equality really was someone's primary goal they would not ignore these scenarios, they would still be advocating for equal treatment even if it meant women were relatively worse off after gaining equality.

This so much. Feminists are full of it, they want equality on their terms.

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

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

I have to be honest, I was only thinking with regard to her work in women and children's welfare in the US, that as a feminist she has lived up to her idealism in that respect at least.

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

Hillary had a career for herself long before she ever met Bill? I wouldn't say she's riding her husband's coat tails at all, and the only thing that stopped her advance into the White House the last time was because they wanted a token black guy instead of a woman.

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

Very little sympathy for Monica tbh, a feminist herself it's not as though she tripped and fell on Bill's mickey. She wasn't keeping that cum stained dress for a special occasion either. I admire the way Hillary handled herself under the circumstances and didn't crumble, giving the impression that far from being victims of men who couldn't keep their penis in their pants, she showed that women could be just as ballsy as men.

Lawnmower Tim wrote: »

One Eyed Jack many feminists are hypocrites because their goal is gender equality, yet they ignore situations where women have advantages such as family law or court sentencing where women receive much lighter sentencing for the exact same crimes. If gender equality really was someone's primary goal they would not ignore these scenarios, they would still be advocating for equal treatment even if it meant women were relatively worse off after gaining equality.

No they wouldn't. That's just daft. Why would women advocate that they should have to settle for less in any area? They argue for equal treatment in areas where they aren't treated equally, ways in which they would benefit. I wouldn't expect anyone should have to accept lesser treatment in the interests of equality. That wouldn't be very progressive now would it?

Just Be Yourself wrote: »

This so much. Feminists are full of it, they want equality on their terms.

Well of course they do? Honestly, what else would you expect? Who doesn't argue for equality on their terms? Every movement argues for more rights and for the welfare of whatever particular movement they identify with, which is why I have no time for any of them, because they are all inherently selfish and discriminatory and promote division in society rather than inclusion of everyone in society.

Cold War Kid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well of course they do? Honestly, what else would you expect? Who doesn't argue for equality on their terms?

Isn't that contradictory though when it's specifically in relation to equality? Wanting more rights is expected of a particular group for sure, but if they're going to bring the word "equality" into it, it would either surely be the case that they have a lack of rights as it is, hence want equality, or in the case of gender equality they wouldn't ignore men's rights.
Women don't fit into the first category (we are not a downtrodden group anymore but there are some concerns, like abortion) so if feminists are concerned with gender equality they should be considering men's rights too - they don't, so they should be referring to themselves as the women's rights movement rather than the gender quality one.

One eyed Jack

Lawnmower Tim wrote: »

It's daft not to pursue equality when it's your primary goal. Women who actually want equality would be happy to settle for less where they have the unfair advantage. It also gives feminism much less credibilty when they blatantly ignore scenarios where there is gender inequality due to women having the unfair advantage. It hurts the movement as a whole to behave in such a hypocritical manner.

Instead of pointing fingers at others though, what is it you actually want?

Because it sounds to me like you just want to point fingers, and I don't have much time for people who want to point fingers at other people.

Cold War Kid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Instead of pointing fingers at others though, what is it you actually want?

Because it sounds to me like you just want to point fingers, and I don't have much time for people who want to point fingers at other people.

Yes, while I don't have time for a lot of feminism, this is what bugs me about some people who rant on and on about feminism, create hundreds of accounts to rant about feminism, start threads about e.g. some random crazy bint in Oregon and try to hold this up as representative of all feminists etc - they never actually do much of the more constructive talk: e.g. suggestions for men's rights, just moaning at *others* and "society" (which includes them) for not doing anything about men's rights. Maybe the odd post to some maniac, rape-trivialising hardline MRA's blog to provoke a reaction, but nothing actually useful.

One eyed Jack

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Isn't that contradictory though when it's specifically in relation to equality? Wanting more rights is expected of a particular group for sure, but if they're going to bring the word "equality" into it, it would either surely be the case that they have a lack of rights as it is, hence want equality, or in the case of gender equality they wouldn't ignore men's rights.
Women don't fit into the first category (we are not a downtrodden group anymore but there are some concerns, like abortion) so if feminists are concerned with gender equality they should be considering men's rights too - they don't, so they should be referring to themselves as the women's rights movement rather than the gender quality one.

Well as I understand their ideas of gender equality, it's in respect to where women are perceived to be treated inferior to men?

They're using the term "gender equality" from their perspective, in the same way as there are men who identify as egalitarian, who seem to solely focus on areas where they perceive women are treated as superior to men, from their perspective. They want women to be treated equally inferior in order to redress that balance, instead of arguing for both men's and women's welfare equally.

I think the whole point of Emma Watson's speech was to engage men to become involved in feminism, but the way it came across to me at least was incredibly patronising to both women and men. It screamed "let's all be victims together" tbh. I'd rather encourage people not to see themselves as victims and realise what they are actually capable of, than encouraging the opposite sort of mindset.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well as I understand their ideas of gender equality, it's in respect to where women are perceived to be treated inferior to men?

They're using the term "gender equality" from their perspective, in the same way as there are men who identify as egalitarian, who seem to solely focus on areas where they perceive women are treated as superior to men, from their perspective. They want women to be treated equally inferior in order to redress that balance, instead of arguing for both men's and women's welfare equally.

I think the whole point of Emma Watson's speech was to engage men to become involved in feminism, but the way it came across to me at least was incredibly patronising to both women and men. It screamed "let's all be victims together" tbh. I'd rather encourage people not to see themselves as victims and realise what they are actually capable of, than encouraging the opposite sort of mindset.

There are so many problems with the "equality" argument.

So do we have equality when there are as many women in prison as there are men? Or do we have equality when there are as least men in prison as there are women....in other words what barometer are you going to use?

Do you want to ban circumcision for boys in the US or make circumcision for girls the default choice, just to make things "equal."

Do you want paternity leave for men or no leave for either,just to make things equal.... but no man at present will have a scar across their pelvis or lactating breasts.... nature does discriminate.

One eyed Jack

Lawnmower Tim wrote: »

I'm making observations about the world, what's wrong with that?

It's not very useful. That's what's wrong with it. Complaining about the unfairness of it all just comes across as whinging and moaning, and there aren't too many people want to listen to that because it's all very negative. There's nothing positive about looking like a whingebag. Instead, if you were actually seen to be doing something that led to positive change, then more people might become involved, as you're showing positive leadership as opposed to simply crying "poor me, I'm so oppressed".

You're not, not by a long shot.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not very useful. That's what's wrong with it. Complaining about the unfairness of it all just comes across as whinging and moaning, and there aren't too many people want to listen to that because it's all very negative. There's nothing positive about looking like a whingebag.

Yeah especially if you are a man. :pac:

Sorry couldn't resist.

KomradeBishop

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Yes, while I don't have time for a lot of feminism, this is what bugs me about some people who rant on and on about feminism, create hundreds of accounts to rant about feminism, start threads about e.g. some random crazy bint in Oregon and try to hold this up as representative of all feminists etc - they never actually do much of the more constructive talk: e.g. suggestions for men's rights, just moaning at *others* and "society" (which includes them) for not doing anything about men's rights. Maybe the odd post to some maniac, rape-trivialising hardline MRA's blog to provoke a reaction, but nothing actually useful.

Ya much of the prominent MRA content online - and not all of it, but a lot of the more prominent stuff - is obviously just there to attack feminism, with promotion of 'mens rights' just being there/tacked-on to try and lend credibility to the anti-feminist part of it, and to gain an audience/following.

It's a bit like how Libertarianism is primarily there to promote free-market-capitalism, and all the promotion of social/civil liberties are just tacked-on to try and lend credibility to free-market-capitalism and make it popular; even though the logical conclusion of the economic policies that are promoted, if enacted in reality - as opposed to the utopian promises - would actually turn society into a hellhole when it comes to social/civil liberties (so that side of it is just empty promises, used to 'sell' the economic side of it).

PopePalpatine

Some neckbeard started a boycott of the new Mad Max movie because Furiosa "barked orders" at Max. I'm wondering how quickly the first rape threat was fired off; I'm guessing it was about 20-30 minutes. :pac:

One eyed Jack

Lawnmower Tim wrote: »

I'm not complaining, I'm making observations about the world. I'm neither whinging nor moaning, merely making observations and having a discussion. Are people not allowed have a discussion without doing one thing to make change? I'm not even sure that I've said that I want change. All I have done is make observations to discuss.

For all you know so far I could be quite content with the status quo as it is.

I was discussing the new avengers movie with a friend a few days ago, there was several aspects to the movie that I was critical of, am I not allowed make those observations about the movie without doing something to make a positive change?

Of course you are.

The J Stands for Jay

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Some neckbeard started a boycott of the new Mad Max movie because Furiosa "barked orders" at Max. I'm wondering how quickly the first rape threat was fired off; I'm guessing it was about 20-30 minutes. :pac:

I couldn't believe that when I read it. Who watches a movie (apparently a great movie full of explosions and crashes) and then spots a feminist conspiracy at work because a woman gives orders to the main male character?

If the name was changed from 'mad max' to 'Trent', it would have made more sense: “Charlize Theron’s character barked orders to Mad Max. Nobody barks orders to Mad Max.”

I would've thought a fan of the movies would know the character's name is Max Rockatanski, and they would remember him being bossed about by Tina Turner.

Clandestine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Some neckbeard started a boycott of the new Mad Max movie because Furiosa "barked orders" at Max. I'm wondering how quickly the first rape threat was fired off; I'm guessing it was about 20-30 minutes. :pac:

It was one guy who wrote a half-serious article, which started it off - who's said he's not an MRA. It was blown out of proportion by click-bait websites to make a claim that there's some kind of conspiracy by anti-feminists to boycott the movie.

gravehold

Clandestine wrote: »

It was one guy who wrote a half-serious article, which started it off - who's said he's not an MRA. It was blown out of proportion by click-bait websites to make a claim that there's some kind of conspiracy by anti-feminists to boycott the movie.

What was the planned outcome of that outrage they manufactured, it did poorly number wise so are they trying to push don't pander to the feminists as they don't bring in the money?

Or where they expecting it to make tons of money and the click bait outrage backfired?

Clandestine

gravehold wrote: »

What was the planned outcome of that outrage they manufactured, it did poorly number wise so are they trying to push don't pander to the feminists as they don't bring in the money?

Or where they expecting it to make tons of money and the click bait outrage backfired?

I think they wanted to manufacture some outrage to generate some ad revenue. When people see a headline that pisses them off, they want to click it. And generally, most journalists rip off each other - so each article was essentially the same write-up with a few words changed.

gravehold

Clandestine wrote: »

I think they wanted to manufacture some outrage to generate some ad revenue. When people see a headline that pisses them off, they want to click it. And generally, most journalists rip off each other - so each article was essentially the same write-up with a few words changed.

Yeah but they usually push the agenda too in someway, like they didn't go all outrage when the some feminists did the same thing with avengers aou

Cold War Kid

No different to the phenomenon of "Look at this maniac who thinks women should have abortions if they find out they're having a boy, and her blog that nobody follows, and everyone agrees she's a headcase... look at that now, that's feminism for ya!" which is quite prevalent, including on this very site.

zeffabelli

Cold War Kid wrote: »

No different to the phenomenon of "Look at this maniac who thinks women should have abortions if they find out they're having a boy, and her blog that nobody follows, and everyone agrees she's a headcase... look at that now, that's feminism for ya!" which is quite prevalent, including on this very site.

My particular favorites are the "I want to **** as many sluts as I like and if any of them get pregnant by me not have to pay a penny to the upkeep bastard." Couched in reproductive equality rights.

Cold War Kid

zeffabelli wrote: »

My particular favorites are the "I want to **** as many sluts as I like and if any of them get pregnant by me not have to pay a penny to the upkeep bastard." Couched in reproductive equality rights.

Here you see a handful of posters supporting that vomit, you don't see anyone supporting the woman who thinks boys should be aborted though.

ColadaSolada

zeffabelli wrote: »

My particular favorites are the "I want to **** as many sluts as I like and if any of them get pregnant by me not have to pay a penny to the upkeep bastard." Couched in reproductive equality rights.

I haven't heard that one.

zeffabelli

ColadaSolada wrote: »

I haven't heard that one.

Don;t worry, you will....eventually. It usually happens when someone has been caught out and they then couch it in all sorts of political theory.

gravehold

ColadaSolada wrote: »

I haven't heard that one.

The idea is if a woman can give up her parental right with abortion till a certain period, men should be allowed to too by signing away rights and not being chased for child support as it takes two to make the baby and both are equally as much sluts for sleeping around

Not really a valid argument here as women cannot abort babies legally.

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

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.

So if someone comes out with ten claims and I only point out that one of those claims is false, ergo this is invalid and all claims are true? An interesting take on logic there.

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.

OK, so let's look at your central claim. You contend that male privilege is a biological one and specifically cite that our biology causes men to remain attractive to the opposite sex for far longer than the reverse because female fertility ends sooner. Correct me if this is incorrect.

This is true, or at least evidence does point to this. However, for men to be privileged overall, you can't simply cherry-pick one biological advantage but look on balance at both the advantages and disadvantages of both genders, which you have not done - you simply focused on male advantages / female disadvantages and ignored all else.

For example, where it comes to biological advantage in younger people, women and not men have the advantage. Women get to pick and choose whom they wish to have sex with, not men.

Norah Vincent, when she underwent research to live life disguised as a man, in her book "Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man" noted that women held all the cards in the mating game, could accept or reject a man at will and often, as a result, treated men "like dirt".

So what you've described is not that men have an overall biological sexual advantage, but that women begin with a biological sexual advantage and later lose it.

Additionally, you've ignored both female advantages and male disadvantages. Greater male mortality rates you've rejected on the basis that you believe them to be social rather than biological (which you've determined is irrelevant to the discussion), but this isn't entirely true as an important factor is that men have the problem of testosterone, which actively lowers our immune systems and contributes to this rate.

But notably, I would cite pregnancy to be a significant biological advantage for women. Women just need sperm from a male, after which they no longer need the biological input of a man. Men can't do this; after all, to quote Monty Python, where's it going to gestate? In a box?

This biological advantage has been central to women's position in our species, compared to men, who are 'expendable'.

So you've ignored anything other than the strictly biological. Anything that is an advantage for women or disadvantage for men has been similarly ignored. And your principle example turns out not to be an 'unfair' advantage for men, but a loss of an 'unfair' advantage for women.

Sorry but it really does sound like the sour grapes of someone who still wishes they got the same amount of attention they got at 20.

Maguined

gravehold wrote: »

The idea is if a woman can give up her parental right with abortion till a certain period, men should be allowed to too by signing away rights and not being chased for child support as it takes two to make the baby and both are equally as much sluts for sleeping around

Not really a valid argument here as women cannot abort babies legally.

The idea is linked to adoption not abortion. You can give birth to a child and then give that child up for adoption thereby voiding all your responsibilities and obligations as a parent. Giving a child up for adoption outside marriage only requires the mothers consent not the fathers.

gravehold

Maguined wrote: »

The idea is linked to adoption not abortion. You can give birth to a child and then give that child up for adoption thereby voiding all your responsibilities and obligations as a parent. Giving a child up for adoption outside marriage only requires the mothers consent not the fathers.

Can the mother give the baby up for adoption even say if the father says he want's to take it?

The Corinthian

gravehold wrote: »

Can the mother give the baby up for adoption even say if the father says he want's to take it?

In theory, if unmarried, yes. An unmarried father is a legal stranger to the child. Only guardianship, via the courts or through marriage, can change this position to the point that a child cannot be adopted without his consent.

In practice, I don't know if this can or does happen as I've heard conflicting reports of some cases where the social workers involved being happy enough to ignore any potential fathers and other cases where they will drag their heels until it is overwhelmingly clear that a father is out of the picture.

But legally, yes.

gravehold

The Corinthian wrote: »

In theory, if unmarried, yes. An unmarried father is a legal stranger to the child. Only guardianship, via the courts or through marriage, can change this position to the point that a child cannot be adopted without his consent.

In practice, I don't know if this can or does happen as I've heard conflicting reports of some cases where the social workers involved being happy enough to ignore any potential fathers and other cases where they will drag their heels until it is overwhelmingly clear that a father is out of the picture.

But legally, yes.

Even with the new children's and family act, I thought that was meant to fix all those issues

Maguined

gravehold wrote: »

Can the mother give the baby up for adoption even say if the father says he want's to take it?

Yes, though a father is entitled to be consulted so they basically get first choice in adopting the child however this entitlement is not really enforcible and is not punished if the mother does not inform them.

Maguined

gravehold wrote: »

Even with the new children's and family act, I thought that was meant to fix all those issues

The fixes for adoption was to do with who can qualify to adopt, making the process easier and also the issue of donor assissted births but made no changes to who can give their child up for adoption.

The Corinthian

gravehold wrote: »

Even with the new children's and family act, I thought that was meant to fix all those issues

I don't know, but my reading of the proposed legislation on guardianship in the last government was that it fixed nothing and in fact introduced that married fathers could lose their rights.

Maguined wrote: »

Yes, though a father is entitled to be consulted so they basically get first choice in adopting the child however this entitlement is not really enforcible and is not punished if the mother does not inform them.

Consultation does not imply any such first choice at adoption. I don't think that's mentioned anywhere in the legislation. Consultation basically means informed. Nothing more.

gravehold

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't know, but my reading of the proposed legislation on guardianship in the last government was that it fixed nothing and in fact introduced that married fathers could lose their rights.

Consultation does not imply any such first choice at adoption. I don't think that's mentioned anywhere in the legislation. Consultation basically means informed. Nothing more.

Wow that's absolutely disgusting especially on the children's act.

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

So if someone comes out with ten claims and I only point out that one of those claims is false, ergo this is invalid and all claims are true? An interesting take on logic there.

No, what I'm saying is that you are in no position to decide what is or isn't a false claim when you thank a post that comes out with drivel like "Age is unattractive, and women don't find middle-aged men attractive". Something that is so laughably untrue, I could write an entire sitcom around it. You thanked that post immediately, because it fit in with your biased world view. And yet, when I say that in my life I find men to be, on the whole, happy, you ask for evidence and I say "WTF?". In my experience, I have found women to suffer from depression more, to take more anti-depressant drugs (and maybe that's because they are over-prescribed, I don't know), and to suffer from anxiety more, so that is how I base my conclusion that women are more depressed.

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK, so let's look at your central claim. You contend that male privilege is a biological one and specifically cite that our biology causes men to remain attractive to the opposite sex for far longer than the reverse because female fertility ends sooner. Correct me if this is incorrect.

I do contend that, but not just for that reason alone. I think the fact that men do not have to inherently suffer for their fertility in any way is what constitutes the concept of "male privilege".

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is true, or at least evidence does point to this. However, for men to be privileged overall, you can't simply cherry-pick one biological advantage but look on balance at both the advantages and disadvantages of both genders, which you have not done - you simply focused on male advantages / female disadvantages and ignored all else.

I agree, however, I would like an example of how men intrinsically suffer for their fertility.

The Corinthian wrote: »

For example, where it comes to biological advantage in younger people, women and not men have the advantage.

Young men can have the advantage if they work hard enough. I know guys who were very popular in high school, and now they're not. Men's fertility is very fluid.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Women get to pick and choose whom they wish to have sex with, not men.

Disagree completely. Both men and women have a choice.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Norah Vincent, when she underwent research to live life disguised as a man, in her book "Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man" noted that women held all the cards in the mating game, could accept or reject a man at will and often, as a result, treated men "like dirt".

Who cares? Like what some woman (who obviously has no life) says about her experiences dressed as a man, in any way, validates the claim that women treat men like dirt.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So what you've described is not that men have an overall biological sexual advantage, but that women begin with a biological sexual advantage and later lose it.

No, what I'm saying is that if you had a choice, would you choose the side that is luck, but that you know the luck will run out, or would you choose the side that is earned, but you know you can keep the earnings?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Additionally, you've ignored both female advantages and male disadvantages. Greater male mortality rates you've rejected on the basis that you believe them to be social rather than biological (which you've determined is irrelevant to the discussion), but this isn't entirely true as an important factor is that men have the problem of testosterone, which actively lowers our immune systems and contributes to this rate.

No, I haven't, but some idiotic poster claimed that men live shorter lives, which is simplistic bull, because their is no guarantee that men live shorter lives, and even if they do live shorter lives, it is not entirely biological, or even, necessarily, largely biological. So "men live shorter lives", while it can be true, is a sweeping generalization (or statement, I'm not sure which).

The Corinthian wrote: »

But notably, I would cite pregnancy to be a significant biological advantage for women. Women just need sperm from a male, after which they no longer need the biological input of a man. Men can't do this; after all, to quote Monty Python, where's it going to gestate? In a box?

As would I. I'm not disputing that at all. But remember, only relatively young women have that advantage. Which is why you here posters in AH say things like "Women at that age are of no use to men" (paraphrasing, but an almost direct quote).

The Corinthian wrote: »

This biological advantage has been central to women's position in our species, compared to men, who are 'expendable'.

Older women are expendable too. It's just that by that time, they're too old to fight in wars, so their lives are largely unneeded in that area.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you've ignored anything other than the strictly biological. Anything that is an advantage for women or disadvantage for men has been similarly ignored. And your principle example turns out not to be an 'unfair' advantage for men, but a loss of an 'unfair' advantage for women.

Nope. That's your conclusion. And it's necessary to point out that my post was partly satire, partly truth. But I just could not fathom how anyone-- man, woman, child-- could thank a post that gave examples like "male sexuality is demonized" and "video games are demonized because they're largely male" and conclude that a)male privilege does not exist or b)that those are examples of misandry. It boggles my mind.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry but it really does sound like the sour grapes of someone who still wishes they got the same amount of attention they got at 20.

You know, corinthian, I've mentioned before I'm only 25. Come back to me in 5, 10, or better yet, 15 years time, and you would have a basis for your petty and cowardly insult. But I would like to point out that the underlying concept of your insult actually proves what I said when I first posted--that when misogynists insult women, they aren't attacking their character, but rather, their biology (in this case, my age), which is completely out of my control. And that this is why misogyny runs much deeper than any misandry ever could.

The J Stands for Jay

NI24 wrote: »

No, I haven't, but some idiotic poster claimed that men live shorter lives, which is simplistic bull, because their is no guarantee that men live shorter lives, and even if they do live shorter lives, it is not entirely biological, or even, necessarily, largely biological. So "men live shorter lives", while it can be true, is a sweeping generalization (or statement, I'm not sure which

Don't make me get out the actuarial tables....

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

You thanked that post immediately, because it fit in with your biased world view. And yet, when I say that in my life I find men to be, on the whole, happy, you ask for evidence and I say "WTF?". In my experience, I have found women to suffer from depression more, to take more anti-depressant drugs (and maybe that's because they are over-prescribed, I don't know), and to suffer from anxiety more, so that is how I base my conclusion that women are more depressed.

I'll get to this at the end.

I do contend that, but not just for that reason alone. I think the fact that men do not have to inherently suffer for their fertility in any way is what constitutes the concept of "male privilege".

And again you change the goalposts. First of all, you reject any argument that does not focus on biological advantages or disadvantages, now you've narrowed it further and unless it's related to fertility. As a result, your claim of male privilege has frankly lost all meaning or credibility.

Even where it comes to fertility, it's not as black and white as you seem to think. Post conception it has been women and not men that have had the only control over fertility. Abortion and infanticide has been carried out since prehistoric times, by women, because they are carrying and giving birth to the offspring, and that's only from a biological standpoint.

But even if you reject this, your position has become ridiculous; it would be like arguing female privilege on the basis that male mortality rates are much higher - and no other factors may be allowed.

Disagree completely. Both men and women have a choice.

Then your own argument collapses; older women also have a choice. It may not be as good as it was in their twenties, they may have to lower their expectations more than men might, but it's still there.

So arguing that men, who are disadvantaged when younger, compared to women, have a choice and then ignoring that the same is true of older women, when the tables turn to a degree, is just arguing against yourself.

Who cares? Like what some woman (who obviously has no life) says about her experiences dressed as a man, in any way, validates the claim that women treat men like dirt.

If that's the case, given you also have given nothing but anecdotal evidence, who cares what you think? Or is your experience worth more than hers, or anyone else's?

No, what I'm saying is that if you had a choice, would you choose the side that is luck, but that you know the luck will run out, or would you choose the side that is earned, but you know you can keep the earnings?

You know, you're going to have to decide if we're discussing biological advantage or social. You can't rule the latter out of the discussion and then dip in whenever it suits.

No, I haven't, but some idiotic poster claimed that men live shorter lives, which is simplistic bull, because their is no guarantee that men live shorter lives, and even if they do live shorter lives, it is not entirely biological, or even, necessarily, largely biological. So "men live shorter lives", while it can be true, is a sweeping generalization (or statement, I'm not sure which).

It's a statistic. It means that in all probability a man will live a shorter life than a woman. That doesn't mean that all men will, but to dismiss it as if it is bull is pretty disingenuous too.

Older women are expendable too.

Oh, that women had a sexual advantage only when younger didn't matter a moment ago, but suddenly it does when they become expendable when older. Cherry pick much?

You know, corinthian, I've mentioned before I'm only 25. Come back to me in 5, 10, or better yet, 15 years time, and you would have a basis for your petty and cowardly insult.

I said what you sound like, not what you are, so seriously get over yourself.

But since you brought up age and have been happy to push your entire argument on the basis of your own experiences, I've got about twenty years on you, so I suspect my repository of anecdotal evidence is a bit larger than yours.

And I can tell you that it's not as simple as that. Not losing your fertility as you grow older does not help if your a man, because it's not going to make it any easier to have children unless you have a woman to carry them to term for you. You may have a better chance of being 'more attractive' when you're older than a woman of the same age, but it doesn't mean you will - any more than most men would not still give their right arm to end up with Monica Bellucci. But apparently generalizations though are good in this case for you, unlike when we discuss areas where men are disadvantaged.

And any gender privilege isn't simply limited to some narrow biological definition that suits your own conclusions, but a far wider and more complex series of pros and cons that also involve age and other factors. So fundamentally, your entire argument is nonsense in the end.

But do come back in 5, 10, or better yet, 15 years time, and you might have a basis for your own biased World view, as your anecdotal evidence might be a bit more credible then.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even where it comes to fertility, it's not as black and white as you seem to think. Post conception it has been women and not men that have had the only control over fertility. Abortion and infanticide has been carried out since prehistoric times, by women, because they are carrying and giving birth to the offspring, and that's only from a biological standpoint.

Sorry but infanticide is illegal, and abortion is illegal after a certain amount of weeks. It's not legal at all in Ireland still.

This is down to legislators and whomever decides what it best medical practise, so let's not pretend women have any control over that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I said what you sound like, not what you are, so seriously get over yourself.

It amounts to the same thing, and it's shame neither of you are capable of presenting an argument without personally insulting other people.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

Sorry but infanticide is illegal, and abortion is illegal after a certain amount of weeks. It's not legal at all in Ireland still.

Irrelevant; NI24 isn't interested in legal or social, she's talking simply about biological advantage.

It amounts to the same thing, and it's shame neither of you are capable of presenting an argument without personally insulting other people.

You're one to talk.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Irrelevant; NI24 isn't interested in legal or social, she's talking simply about biological advantage.

You're one to talk.

So let me get this straight...you are arguing that women have a biological advantage because they can commit infanticide but a man can't? Really a man can't do that? News to me.

Infanticide, if anything proves the opposite that females are at the disadvantage, as globally they are more often the victims of it, think India and China.

So a woman can get an abortion, albeit in another country, up to a specific time period, of 12 weeks with the exception of amnio results or life threats...again IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, with all those CAVEATS are a biological advantage but again only because of legal and social acts. Let's remove the legalities,

Purely biologically...a woman can have an abortion divorced from social and legal facilitation how exactly? In the bathtub with a gin bottle and a coat hanger?

Is this seriously your argument?

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

So let me get this straight...you are arguing that women have a biological advantage because they can commit infanticide but a man can't? Really a man can't do that? News to me.

Purely biologically, yes. How is a man going to abort a child he doesn't carry or infantizize an infant he is nowhere near at birth. Sure he could seek the mother to carry this out, but that doesn't change the fact that the mother biologically is in a better position to do this for obivious reasons.

Infanticide, if anything proves the opposite that females are at the disadvantage, as globally they are more often the victims of it, think India and China.

Oh, now you're bringing in social or legal factors, which NI24 ruled out of the discussion. I was responding to her using only the parameters she imposed, strictly biological, remember?

If you don't like that, then fair enough, but take it up with her, not me.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Purely biologically, yes. How is a man going to abort a child he doesn't carry or infantizize an infant he is nowhere near at birth. Sure he could seek the mother to carry this out, but that doesn't change the fact that the mother biologically is in a better position to do this for obivious reasons.

Oh, now you're bringing in social or legal factors, which NI24 ruled out of the discussion. I was responding to her using only the parameters she imposed, strictly biological, remember?

If you don't like that, then fair enough, but take it up with her, not me.

I'm sorry, but you have really done a good job of arguing NI24's case for her. Thanks to your argument, yes on balance she is right.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you have really done a good job of arguing NI24's case for her.

I didn't argue her case for her. If you think that you've not been reading.

Defeated by a 25 year old female.

What was that about presenting an argument without personally insulting someone? You gave up on that particular principle and got personal pretty quickly.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

I didn't argue her case for her. If you think that you've not been reading.

What was that about presenting an argument without personally insulting someone? You gave up on that particular principle and got personal pretty quickly.

Ah yeah, you have a number of own goals there.

Yes I deleted my comment about being defeated by 25 year old female, I just found it kind of quaint. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

Ah yeah, you have a number of own goals there.

Like?

Yes I deleted my comment about being defeated by 25 year old female, I just found it kind of quaint. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Not at all. I found it amusing that you managed to be so hypocritical so quickly.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Like?

Not at all. I found it amusing that you managed to be so hypocritical so quickly.

Ah no...I recognised that it was not really ok, so I edited it ...but by the time I did, you had already quoted it, which left me forced to ackowledge it, even though I had erased it out of my original post.

But saying that, given the amount of personal attacks you have dished out, surely you are by example, granting permission to others to do the same to you?

EIther way, you have proved NI24s points spectacularly well, and while I was dubious at first to her arguments, I am now pretty convinced by them, but mostly thanks to you.

Saturnshuttle

In order to determine if there exists privilege for men or women you need to look at all pros and cons comprehensively. NI24, you are just cherry picking a few arguments to suit your agenda.

Boom_Bap

MOD - The Corithian & zeffabelli - keep things civil please

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

EIther way, you have proved NI24s points spectacularly well, and while I was dubious at first to her arguments, I am now pretty convinced by them, but mostly thanks to you.

Again, how have I done this?