White Male Privilege

gravehold

zeffabelli wrote: »

We can't make a case for squirrel privalege because humans can and do climb trees if they want to, and have the means to create and utilise technolgy to assist in this.

Women have the option to freeze an egg and use surogoccy to consive after menopause. So there goes one of the reasons why men are more privileged

orubiru

NI24 wrote: »

Overall, one gender is more privileged, therefore, male privilege does exist.

Why does it pain you so much to admit that one gender may, when all is said and done, have more privilege?

How are you defining "male privilege" though?

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that the life of a man is better than the life of a woman, therefore men have more privilege. How have you defined "better" though? Is this just your opinion of what is better or worse or do you have some objective measurement you are using to measure how much better life is for men?

If it's just your opinion and not an objective measurement then how can you declare that "one gender is more privileged"?

As a man, I cannot carry a child and give birth to that child. If some women say that childbirth is the greatest thing ever then they'd be considered privileged in my eyes, right?

Yet, it would seem kind of silly for me to proclaim that "female privilege" exists because of this as other women might turn round and say that childbirth is the most horrific thing ever?

So how can we proclaim that "white male privilege" exists when some of these "privileges" will be available only to a very small percentage of white males?

How can you say that one gender is more privileged when people can easily point out that there are positives and negatives that come with being either male or female?

You make bold statements such as "life is unfair for everyone at some point in everyone's life-- but it's more unfair to women". This statement is only true when applied to an extremely simplified model of reality.

Are you saying that a boy born in Dublin today will have a far better life than a girl born, in the same city on the same day, by virtue of gender alone?

zeffabelli

gravehold wrote: »

Women have the option to freeze an egg and use surogoccy to consive after menopause. So there goes one of the reasons why men are more privileged

Rich and young women do.

Oh god would you go do some reading or something.

zeffabelli

Crispy ChickenWings wrote: »

So believe that once a natural biological privilege can be partially negated by technology that it is no longer a privilege?

I think you're missing the point somehow. Fish can breath under water indefinitely, does that mean there is fish privilege?

Well we can build submarines, we have built hotels underwater, we have oxyfen tanks for breathing for scuba.

It's very hard to argue that animals have more privalkge than we do. The only time I have heard someone argue this was then they were jealous that their dog didn't have to go to work. This however is not true for many dogs.

Crispy ChickenWings

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well we can build submarines, we have built hotels underwater, we have oxyfen tanks for breathing for scuba.

It's very hard to argue that animals have more privalkge than we do. The only time I have heard someone argue this was then they were jealous that their dog didn't have to go to work. This however is not true for many dogs.

How many humans can afford a submarine? After all that was your rebuttal for freezing eggs?

Anyway, a submarine doesn't impart the ability to breath underwater indefinitely.

zeffabelli

Crispy ChickenWings wrote: »

How many humans can afford a submarine? After all that was your rebuttal for freezing eggs?

Anyway, a submarine doesn't impart the ability to breath underwater indefinitely.

No it had nothing to do with eggs.

How many humans can afford egg freezing and surrogacy? That is all financial privalege, if it even works, which is doubtful most of the time. We covered this already, try to keep up.

gravehold

zeffabelli wrote: »

No it had nothing to do with eggs.

How many humans can afford egg freezing and surrogacy? That is all financial privalege, if it even works, which is doubtful most of the time. We covered this already, try to keep up.

Is a sterile man more or less privileged then a fertile woman?

Crispy ChickenWings

zeffabelli wrote: »

No it had nothing to do with eggs.

How many humans can afford egg freezing and surrogacy? That is all financial privalege, if it even works, which is doubtful most of the time. We covered this already, try to keep up.

As is owning a submarine financial privilege, you still think it negates fish privilege.


You're just being evasive now and trying to bait me into a slagging match so your blatant contradictions can be ignored and forgotten about.

zeffabelli

gravehold wrote: »

Is a sterile man more or less privileged then a fertile woman?

You tell me.

gravehold

zeffabelli wrote: »

You tell me.

I don't know, I don't think the male privilege exists you do.

orubiru

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well we can build submarines, we have built hotels underwater, we have oxyfen tanks for breathing for scuba.

It's very hard to argue that animals have more privalkge than we do. The only time I have heard someone argue this was then they were jealous that their dog didn't have to go to work. This however is not true for many dogs.

I'd say it's impossible to argue. For all we know a dog offered the opportunity to become human would say "NO WAY!" and chase you down the street before being distracted by a tree.

That's a problem with this idea of "white male privilege".

Does everyone in society wish they could be a white male? If not, why not?

Would everyone in society be automatically better off if they became white and male? If not, why not?

There are people out there living spectacularly successful lives and some of those people are not white and not male. There are people out there who have miserable lives and some of those people are white and male. So surely we have to consider whether or not this concept of "white male privilege" reflects reality?

It's easy to look at the number of male CEOs and say "Look! Men have all the advantages and privilege, get more women in there!" In a lot of ways I agree that we do need to see more women in the top level positions in society.

At the same time though, where is the campaign to make sure we have more female garbage collectors? Why is there no campaign to make sure that the % of female coal miners is increased? Maybe lets get some of these guys out of coal mining and into teaching and get some of these girls out of the classroom and into the mines. Right?

Surely, it's very hard to argue that one diverse group (white men are not all identical) has more privilege than another, equally diverse, group?

People are still doing this because its easier to define reality when you say "Group A is like this and Group B is like that because of Reason Y" than it is when you say "there are literally millions of variables at play here and you'll never ever be able to understand every interaction".

It seems to me that these catchy phrases such as "white male privilege" exist to create a very simplified, and probably incorrect, understanding of the real world because this simple version of "reality" is much easier to understand and believe.

gravehold

orubiru wrote: »

I'd say it's impossible to argue. For all we know a dog offered the opportunity to become human would say "NO WAY!" and chase you down the street before being distracted by a tree.

That's a problem with this idea of "white male privilege".

Does everyone in society wish they could be a white male? If not, why not?

Would everyone in society be automatically better off if they became white and male? If not, why not?

There are people out there living spectacularly successful lives and some of those people are not white and not male. There are people out there who have miserable lives and some of those people are white and male. So surely we have to consider whether or not this concept of "white male privilege" reflects reality?

It's easy to look at the number of male CEOs and say "Look! Men have all the advantages and privilege, get more women in there!" In a lot of ways I agree that we do need to see more women in the top level positions in society.

At the same time though, where is the campaign to make sure we have more female garbage collectors? Why is there no campaign to make sure that the % of female coal miners is increased? Maybe lets get some of these guys out of coal mining and into teaching and get some of these girls out of the classroom and into the mines. Right?

Surely, it's very hard to argue that one diverse group (white men are not all identical) has more privilege than another, equally diverse, group?

People are still doing this because its easier to define reality when you say "Group A is like this and Group B is like that because of Reason Y" than it is when you say "there are literally millions of variables at play here and you'll never ever be able to understand every interaction".

It seems to me that these catchy phrases such as "white male privilege" exist to create a very simplified, and probably incorrect, understanding of the real world because this simple version of "reality" is much easier to understand and believe.

Also it's very easy for white woman to become white men if they so please.

orubiru

zeffabelli wrote: »

No it had nothing to do with eggs.

How many humans can afford egg freezing and surrogacy? That is all financial privalege, if it even works, which is doubtful most of the time. We covered this already, try to keep up.

Yes. It is financial privilege.

If we take the "fish privilege" example then fish can breathe underwater but humans can call upon "intelligence privilege" to design a submarine and some of those humans can then use "education privilege" to learn how to engineer and build that submarine and then they can use "financial privilege" to pay for the materials to create the submarine.

Then we need someone with "submarine pilot" privilege to get in the submarine and finally get down there under the water.

Then we could look at the race and gender of our Imaginary Submarine Pilot.

Uh oh. The Imaginary Submarine Pilot is a white male!

Um, I think I've just proved that Imaginary White Male Submarine Pilot Privilege exists?

Maybe we can agree that if white male privilege is a thing then white female privilege is also a thing and we live in a world where a few million different privileges interact and intersect?

zeffabelli

orubiru wrote: »

I'd say it's impossible to argue. For all we know a dog offered the opportunity to become human would say "NO WAY!" and chase you down the street before being distracted by a tree.

That's a problem with this idea of "white male privilege".

Does everyone in society wish they could be a white male? If not, why not?

Would everyone in society be automatically better off if they became white and male? If not, why not?

There are people out there living spectacularly successful lives and some of those people are not white and not male. There are people out there who have miserable lives and some of those people are white and male. So surely we have to consider whether or not this concept of "white male privilege" reflects reality?


It's easy to look at the number of male CEOs and say "Look! Men have all the advantages and privilege, get more women in there!" In a lot of ways I agree that we do need to see more women in the top level positions in society.

At the same time though, where is the campaign to make sure we have more female garbage collectors? Why is there no campaign to make sure that the % of female coal miners is increased? Maybe lets get some of these guys out of coal mining and into teaching and get some of these girls out of the classroom and into the mines. Right?

Surely, it's very hard to argue that one diverse group (white men are not all identical) has more privilege than another, equally diverse, group?

People are still doing this because its easier to define reality when you say "Group A is like this and Group B is like that because of Reason Y" than it is when you say "there are literally millions of variables at play here and you'll never ever be able to understand every interaction".

It seems to me that these catchy phrases such as "white male privilege" exist to create a very simplified, and probably incorrect, understanding of the real world because this simple version of "reality" is much easier to understand and believe.

True, but I think some things are hard to deny, like you have a much greater chance of getting shot by cops in the US if you are black male, for example.

Or you will have a much harder time getting hired if you are visibly pregnant. This would be particular to women. And please don;t come back with mushy wushy feelings of bonding blah blah blah to counter this because it cannot compensate for having no money nor can biological risks associated with pregnancy or childbirth be denied.

It is silly however, to look at race and gender without also considering economic status and its mobility.

However I am not a marxist and I don;t believe for one second that we are all social constructs. I do believe mother nature wants what she wants and will do whatever she needs to do amorally and ruthlessly, and it's up to us ti either collaborate, or accept the realities of this and then deal with it.

Also, I don't believe for one second that any of those bunnies actually sleep with Hugh Heffner, and if they do, they cheat on him and he probably doesn't care, as long as they are in the photos and the myth sustains. HUgh Heffner made his fortune off of legitimizing male vanity,and he did this by putting pictures of naked women in Playboy so people knew without debate this was not a magazine for gay men.

orubiru

zeffabelli wrote: »

True, but I think some things are hard to deny, like you have a much greater chance of getting shot by cops in the US if you are black male, for example.

Or you will have a much harder time getting hired if you are visibly pregnant. This would be particular to women. And please don;t come back with mushy wushy feelings of bonding blah blah blah to counter this because it cannot compensate for having no money nor can biological risks associated with pregnancy or childbirth be denied.

It is silly however, to look at race and gender without also considering economic status and its mobility.

However I am not a marxist and I don;t believe for one second that we are all social constructs. I do believe mother nature wants what she wants and will do whatever she needs to do amorally and ruthlessly, and it's up to us ti either collaborate, or accept the realities of this and then deal with it.

I totally agree with this but I think that the reasons are much deeper than what appears on the surface.

I think that there are elements within our society that encourage us to look at trends (such as the pay gap between men and women) and come to the most simplistic conclusions.

Obviously there are risks involved with childbirth and I think it would be pretty dishonest if I were to try to argue that there were no risks. However, I don't think that we can say that, because men are not directly exposed to those risks, this means there is some kind of "male privilege" there.

zeffabelli

orubiru wrote: »

I totally agree with this but I think that the reasons are much deeper than what appears on the surface.

I think that there are elements within our society that encourage us to look at trends (such as the pay gap between men and women) and come to the most simplistic conclusions.

Obviously there are risks involved with childbirth and I think it would be pretty dishonest if I were to try to argue that there were no risks. However, I don't think that we can say that, because men are not directly exposed to those risks, this means there is some kind of "male privilege" there.

Well they do in that they have less responsibility over the pregnancy and birth itself, in fact they have none. He might feel a responsibility if he cares for the survival of his young, but that is subjective. So yeah you could look at that as a privalege. A man will never have to worry about that or all of its consequences, expenses, biological pitfalls, etc. But then they will never give birth...but then neither of the 30% of women who have c sections will either or those who have abortions or those who don't conceive in the first place. So it could be argued that they can enjoy and benefit from the spreading of their seed, without the burdens and responsibilities or risks of carrying it. And they can do this as often as they want. It's not like they run out of sperm. Its a cheap and easily distributed material. At the same time this advantage, was historically used to reason them into the disadvantage of war....at least up to the age of 35. The old men don't want old men doing the fighting.... they don't mind the young doing the dying though. It allows old patriarchs to secure the spoils of war, kill of other men's progeny and reduce competition for women.

So a woman drops one egg a month lets say...and you as a man produce countless amounts of genetic material in that same month. That makes her reproductive value way higher than yours.... but only for a limited time until she hits menopause. Men have no such limits because nature still needs this cheap and mass produced material.

Male sperm swim faster but die sooner. I said earlier in this thread there is a lot of cake and eating it mentality going on in it, the gods always exact a price for whatever advantage they grant you.

Are the young privaleged because they don't get arthritis? Or are the old just biologically disadvantaged....

You have to think about what privalage means in the first place and how it differs from a right. It should not be a privalaedge to not be shot by a cop. That should be pretty standard, but does one injustice to one group mean the other one is privaleges.

Their responsibility starts at birth, and then at least legally speaking, it's purely financial and even then .....there are times when that is a de jure and not a de facto responsibility.

Maguined

NI24 wrote: »

No it hasn't. Privilege based on society, economy, and everything else that you've mentioned is completely fluid, and completely dependent on culture. Biology is not fluid. Yet.

Is male biology an advantage and therefore a privelege though?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555221_2

Men are biologically and sociologically at a disadvantage from the time they’re conceived to the time they die,” says Marianne Legato, MD, professor emerita of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and founder and director of the Foundation for Gender-Specific Medicine. Here’s why:
Females are tougher in utero

Two and a half as many boys are conceived as girls, Dr. Legato says, but they’re so much more likely to succumb to prenatal infection or other issues in the womb that by the time they’re born, the ratio is close to one to one. “They’re also slower to develop physically than girls prenatally, which means they’re more likely to die if they are preemies due to underdeveloped lung or brain development,” Dr. Legato explains.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-22528388

Women live longer than men partly because their immune systems age more slowly, a study suggests.

Our findings indicate that the slower rate of decline in these immunological parameters in women than that in men is consistent with the fact that women live longer than do men

Can you definitevely say men have a biological privelege over women? Like most things in life its more a case of a trade off. Men endure less suffering from fertility but they are more likely to die in the womb before they even get a chance at life and then they are also more likely to die younger.

The Corinthian

I really hope that this is the last nail in this ridiculous argument.

Potatoeman

orubiru wrote: »

I'd say it's impossible to argue. For all we know a dog offered the opportunity to become human would say "NO WAY!" and chase you down the street before being distracted by a tree.

That's a problem with this idea of "white male privilege".

Does everyone in society wish they could be a white male? If not, why not?

Would everyone in society be automatically better off if they became white and male? If not, why not?

There are people out there living spectacularly successful lives and some of those people are not white and not male. There are people out there who have miserable lives and some of those people are white and male. So surely we have to consider whether or not this concept of "white male privilege" reflects reality?

It's easy to look at the number of male CEOs and say "Look! Men have all the advantages and privilege, get more women in there!" In a lot of ways I agree that we do need to see more women in the top level positions in society.

At the same time though, where is the campaign to make sure we have more female garbage collectors? Why is there no campaign to make sure that the % of female coal miners is increased? Maybe lets get some of these guys out of coal mining and into teaching and get some of these girls out of the classroom and into the mines. Right?

Surely, it's very hard to argue that one diverse group (white men are not all identical) has more privilege than another, equally diverse, group?

People are still doing this because its easier to define reality when you say "Group A is like this and Group B is like that because of Reason Y" than it is when you say "there are literally millions of variables at play here and you'll never ever be able to understand every interaction".

It seems to me that these catchy phrases such as "white male privilege" exist to create a very simplified, and probably incorrect, understanding of the real world because this simple version of "reality" is much easier to understand and believe.

The whole pay gap myth was started by social markists. So when moderates jump on the band wagon they seem to forget the consequences of direct action.

Men on average work more overtime and women work in more part time jobs.
They think decreasing this pay gap will increase pay for women but realistically it would mean bussinesses would push more women to do overtime and reject three day weeks. So it will limit certain womens options.

zeffabelli

Maguined wrote: »

Is male biology an advantage and therefore a privelege though?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555221_2



http://www.bbc.com/news/health-22528388



Can you definitevely say men have a biological privelege over women? Like most things in life its more a case of a trade off. Men endure less suffering from fertility but they are more likely to die in the womb before they even get a chance at life and then they are also more likely to die younger.

I think your data here is debatable.

More boys are born than girls, but only slightly so and female mortality exceeds male mortality in the womb.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/30/396384911/why-are-more-baby-boys-born-than-girls

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/16/E2102

This is in the US and Canada, not in places where they commit infanticide and abort females.

All in all I would say that males do have privaledge, but that same privaledge has been used to exploit them in specific contexts, like military action.

AS for lifespan, female lifespans have been dropping. But surely lifespan has to do with class, education level, and lifestyle as much as it does gender?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11507678/Alarm-over-sudden-drop-in-female-life-expectancy.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/us-women-are-dying-younger-than-their-mothers-and-no-one-knows-why/280259/

zeffabelli

Cinquecavalli wrote: »

Across all areas women live longer than men on average.



How is it a privilege to men if slightly more men are born?

I was disputing the data presented by Maguined.

Do you have recent data to support what you are saying about female lifespans?

zeffabelli

Cinquecavalli wrote: »

ww.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/world-health-statistics-2014/en/


In high income countries men live until 76 and women 82 on average, in low income countries men live until 60 and women 63 on average.

The link doesn't work.

NI24

Maguined wrote: »

Is male biology an advantage and therefore a privelege though?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555221_2



http://www.bbc.com/news/health-22528388



Can you definitevely say men have a biological privelege over women? Like most things in life its more a case of a trade off. Men endure less suffering from fertility but they are more likely to die in the womb before they even get a chance at life and then they are also more likely to die younger.

If men die in the womb, then they are not living. I'm talking about living breathing men (or boys). You aren't seriously considering fetuses in this discussion, are you? And someone mentioned that testosterone weakens the immune system right? Well, estrogen weakens the body. If women took the same physical risks that men do, they would have a higher mortality rate than men. So men's bodies have weaker immune systems, and women's bodies are more fragile. So not only do women endure for their fertility, they endure for their bodies overall. Men do not, as far as I know, have to endure in any way for their fertility--it's really just a pleasure trip, and yes, I consider that a privilege.

And no, Maguined, no person on Earth can definitively say that men have privilege, however, looking back over time, throughout different societies, the idea of "chivalry" has always existed. Why would this concept even exist if most people didn't secretly believe that men are more privileged? That men are inherently immune from things that women are not?

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

I really hope that this is the last nail in this ridiculous argument.

Ridiculous to you, because you seem to have the need to have the last word on everything. Ridiculous to you because you never want to admit that men have it easier than women, even in a feminist society. Ridiculous to you, and yet, you keep coming back over and over and over again. It was like pulling teeth to get you to admit that men to do not have to endure for their fertility and you only admitted it because it is a physical phenomenon that can't be denied.

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

And no, Maguined, no person on Earth can definitively say that men have privilege, however, looking back over time, throughout different societies, the idea of "chivalry" has always existed. Why would this concept even exist if most people didn't secretly believe that men are more privileged? That men are inherently immune from things that women are not?

You've mentioned chivalry a few times now. I'm not sure you actually understand the meaning, use or origin of that term.

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

gravehold

NI24 wrote: »

Ridiculous to you, because you seem to have the need to have the last word on everything. Ridiculous to you because you never want to admit that men have it easier than women, even in a feminist society. Ridiculous to you, and yet, you keep coming back over and over and over again. It was like pulling teeth to get you to admit that men to do not have to endure for their fertility and you only admitted it because it is a physical phenomenon that can't be denied.

I am a trans woman, no reproduction options since reproduction is so important to you and can say men don't have it easier then women in life. As middle class man then middle class woman life is preety much the same.

Men don't have it easier, but it's actually quite easy to change gender if you think men have it so great

NI24

tritium wrote: »

You've mentioned chivalry a few times now. I'm not sure you actually understand the meaning, use or origin of that term.

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

Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about--men holding chairs out for women, men opening doors for women, men helping women with their coats, etc. Why doesn't the reverse exist for men?

zeffabelli

gravehold wrote: »

I am a trans woman, no reproduction options since reproduction is so important to you and can say men don't have it easier then women in life. As middle class man then middle class woman life is preety much the same.

Men don't have it easier, but it's actually quite easy to change gender if you think men have it so great

What does that mean...you used to be a man or the other way around?

Can you get pregnant? Menopause? WIll you need HRT?

How easy is it? How expensive is it? YOu don't struggle socially? It's as easy as pie? So there's no social persecution either?

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

If men die in the womb, then they are not living. I'm talking about living breathing men (or boys). You aren't seriously considering fetuses in this discussion, are you?

Why not? Did someone decide that fetuses, pre-partum, can be excluded for some reason? Other than you, that is.

NI24 wrote: »

Ridiculous to you, because you seem to have the need to have the last word on everything.

No, because the very premise of your logic is rediculous; One gender has an advantage over another in one specific area, ergo it is privledged. I and others have questioned this repeatedly and your response has been to ignore this challenge.

Ridiculous to you because you never want to admit that men have it easier than women, even in a feminist society.

Well that's bollocks. When have I done this? Men have it easier in some things and women in others. See, not that difficult.

Ridiculous to you, and yet, you keep coming back over and over and over again. It was like pulling teeth to get you to admit that men to do not have to endure for their fertility and you only admitted it because it is a physical phenomenon that can't be denied.

Admitted what exactly. Please show me what I admitted as I think you may be hallucinating at this stage.

Anyhow, are you going to respond to the challenge against your overarching logic or just continue avoiding it?

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about--men holding chairs out for women, men opening doors for women, men helping women with their coats, etc. Why doesn't the reverse exist for men?

Chivalry is also read as control and a series of codes which regulates permissions.

The use of protection is also exploited to control, as we can see from national security, just as an example.

So the door holding....it was also a case a woman could not enter a room until she had permission to do that, and the opening of the door was not so much to help her, but to block her unless clearly specified.

There is also a convincing argument that conventional courtship rituals give men the advantage in all sorts of areas of life, including rehearsal for risk taking, handling rejection, and getting around obstacles, competition, not to mention the fine art of persuasion.

So when all these social codes are enacted to protect women, protect women from what exactly?

Also Irish men don't do any of that stuff. They don't court either. It's mammy republic.

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why not? Did someone decide that fetuses, pre-partum, can be excluded for some reason? Other than you, that is.

If you are actually including unborn children in this discussion, then you're just reaching at this point.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, because the very premise of your logic is rediculous; One gender has an advantage over another in one specific area, ergo it is privledged. I and others have questioned this repeatedly and your response has been to ignore this challenge.

Questioned what?!?! I don't even know what the question is!

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well that's bollocks. When have I done this? Men have it easier in some things and women in others. See, not that difficult.

I meant overall.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Admitted what exactly. Please show me what I admitted as I think you may be hallucinating at this stage.

That women have to endure for their fertility and men do not.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Anyhow, are you going to respond to the challenge against your overarching logic or just continue avoiding it?

My logic is that a privilege is a right or an immunity. Anything other than a biological privilege changes over the course of countries and time, so the argument boils down to who has inherent, as in biological, privilege.

Potatoeman

NI24 wrote: »

Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about--men holding chairs out for women, men opening doors for women, men helping women with their coats, etc. Why doesn't the reverse exist for men?

Civilary doesnt really need to exist in todays western world but many women still like it. There was a debate about this. Emma Watson a self proclaimed feminist said she liked it. Well of course many women like it. Its preferential treatment.

NI24

Potatoeman wrote: »

Civilary doesnt really need to exist in todays western world but many women still like it. There was a debate about this. Emma Watson a self proclaimed feminist said she liked it. Well of course many women like it. Its preferential treatment.

But if men and women are inherently equal, then why does this preferential treatment exist? That's my question.

Potatoeman

NI24 wrote: »

But if men and women are inherently equal, then why does this preferential treatment exist? That's my question.

It's an old social expectitation that really isn't necessary anymore. There were expected behaviours for both sexes. Second wave feminism fought for equaliy in areas were women were disadvantaged but pretty much ignored areas where they benefited.

zeffabelli

Potatoeman wrote: »

It's an old social expectitation that really isn't necessary anymore. There were expected behaviours for both sexes. Second wave feminism faught for equaliy in areas were women were disadvantaged but pretty much ignored areas where they benefited.

http://daily.psychotherapynetworker.org/daily/couples-therapy/cultivating-erotic-intelligence-in-couples-therapy/?mqsc=E3779842&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=Psychotherapy%20Networker%20PN%20Daily&utm_campaign=093014%20Marriage%20Perel


"Ironically, some of America’s best features—the belief in democracy, equality, consensus-building, compromise, fairness, and mutual tolerance—can, when carried too punctiliously into the bedroom, result in very boring sex. Sexual desire doesn’t play by the same rules of good citizenship that maintain peace and contentment in the social relations between partners. Sexual excitement is politically incorrect, often thriving on power plays, role reversals, unfair advantages, imperious demands, seductive manipulations, and subtle cruelties. American couples therapists, shaped by the legacy of egalitarian ideals, often find themselves challenged by these contradictions."

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

If you are actually including unborn children in this discussion, then you're just reaching at this point.

I'm asking what gives you the authority to dismiss points in such a cavalier fashion, seemingly whenever those points are inconvenient to your position.

Questioned what?!?! I don't even know what the question is!

Then clearly you're not reading. I've asked again in my last post and not for the first time:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Anyhow, you've been asked already multiple times; if you point to on gender having an advantage of the other in one area, does not mean their privileged.

I meant overall.

Which is nonsense - at least from what you have argued.

That women have to endure for their fertility and men do not.

But that men might have an advantage in the fertility stakes does not mean that men overall are better off. Don't you get that?

My logic is that a privilege is a right or an immunity. Anything other than a biological privilege changes over the course of countries and time, so the argument boils down to who has inherent, as in biological, privilege.

Your logic is opinion. Nothing more. You refuse to accept anything other than biological advantage. But apparently don't accept the difference in mortality rates comparison, despite overwhelming evidence (note, you've not actually supplied any) or that a fetus can be used in a point. You cherry pick what is acceptable, and presume that because you decide the parameters that they must be correct.

They're not. To ascertain an overall 'privilege', you cannot ignore social, legal and other factors. You cannot presume that control over fertility in terms of how long we remain fertile is the most important 'privilege' that eclipses all others. That's just self-opinionated crap.

Potatoeman

zeffabelli wrote: »

http://daily.psychotherapynetworker.org/daily/couples-therapy/cultivating-erotic-intelligence-in-couples-therapy/?mqsc=E3779842&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=Psychotherapy%20Networker%20PN%20Daily&utm_campaign=093014%20Marriage%20Perel


"Ironically, some of America’s best features—the belief in democracy, equality, consensus-building, compromise, fairness, and mutual tolerance—can, when carried too punctiliously into the bedroom, result in very boring sex. Sexual desire doesn’t play by the same rules of good citizenship that maintain peace and contentment in the social relations between partners. Sexual excitement is politically incorrect, often thriving on power plays, role reversals, unfair advantages, imperious demands, seductive manipulations, and subtle cruelties. American couples therapists, shaped by the legacy of egalitarian ideals, often find themselves challenged by these contradictions."

Traditional relationships had advantages. There are mixed messages being sent. Women that say they believe in equality but then say they like some traditional things that work in their favour.

zeffabelli

Potatoeman wrote: »

Traditional relationships had advantages. There are mixed messages being sent. Women that say they believe in equality but then say they like some traditional things that work in their favour.

Look, when people talk about equality and egalitarianism, I'd wager 95% of the time they don't know what they are talking about. And not all women do talk about wanting equality. Feminists do not equal all women, they are a special interest group who took it upon themselves to speak for half the population.

I'd wager that 95% of the time, they will leave their property to their children or would choose to save their own children over another human, and would certainly asvantage their own blood line over other humans.

I take NO notice of the talk of egalitarianism, because the vast majority of the time, like other ideological pontifications, it is a cover up for more personal needs, wants, agendas etc.

Potatoeman

zeffabelli wrote: »

Look, when people talk about equality and egalitarianism, I'd wager 95% of the time they don't know what they are talking about. And not all women do talk about wanting equality. Feminists do not equal all women, they are a special interest group who took it upon themselves to speak for half the population.

I'd wager that 95% of the time, they will leave their property to their children or would choose to save their own children over another human, and would certainly asvantage their own blood line over other humans.

I take NO notice of the talk of egalitarianism, because the vast majority of the time, like other ideological pontifications, it is a cover up for more personal needs, wants, agendas etc.

I didnt say all women. I was refering to the examples I mentioned.

Maguined

NI24 wrote: »

If men die in the womb, then they are not living. I'm talking about living breathing men (or boys). You aren't seriously considering fetuses in this discussion, are you? And someone mentioned that testosterone weakens the immune system right? Well, estrogen weakens the body. If women took the same physical risks that men do, they would have a higher mortality rate than men. So men's bodies have weaker immune systems, and women's bodies are more fragile. So not only do women endure for their fertility, they endure for their bodies overall. Men do not, as far as I know, have to endure in any way for their fertility--it's really just a pleasure trip, and yes, I consider that a privilege.

And no, Maguined, no person on Earth can definitively say that men have privilege, however, looking back over time, throughout different societies, the idea of "chivalry" has always existed. Why would this concept even exist if most people didn't secretly believe that men are more privileged? That men are inherently immune from things that women are not?

I was really just offering up the biological reason men seem to die younger, they also seemed to be throwing in details about fetuses as well though Zeffas articles does look to refute that.

Is testosterone not inherently part of male fertility? If you accept that estrogen makes womens bodies weaker is a disadvantage how are you then dismissing men not enduring for their fertility when the hormone that controls it is also the hormone that results in a weaker immune system which is potentially the reason for the shorter life span? Testosterone is also attributed to why men are more aggressive and risk taking.

It's a trade off not one being objectively better than the other. You mentioned biological privilege and I responded to your biological points and you are bringing up chivalry which is not biological but social.

zeffabelli wrote: »

I think your data here is debatable.

More boys are born than girls, but only slightly so and female mortality exceeds male mortality in the womb.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/30/396384911/why-are-more-baby-boys-born-than-girls

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/16/E2102

This is in the US and Canada, not in places where they commit infanticide and abort females.

All in all I would say that males do have privaledge, but that same privaledge has been used to exploit them in specific contexts, like military action.

AS for lifespan, female lifespans have been dropping. But surely lifespan has to do with class, education level, and lifestyle as much as it does gender?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11507678/Alarm-over-sudden-drop-in-female-life-expectancy.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/us-women-are-dying-younger-than-their-mothers-and-no-one-knows-why/280259/

Oh completely debatable, I do not believe that women are biologically advantaged over men. I believe neither gender are objectively at an advantage because I believe it is completely subjective. As you say men can be at an advantage by being physically larger and stronger but that ceases to be a privilege when it becomes a disadvantage when it results in you being conscripted to fight a war you wish no part in.

All I am saying is that it is preposterous to suggest men are biologically advantaged when it is completely subjective. I know women that have children that view it as the most important part of their life and feel a closer connection to their child due to pregnancy, in their own words they feel sorry for the partners for being men who do not experience this close connection as they do. I also know women who despise their biology, they never want children and completely hate the hormonal changes their bodies go through and are envious of the male experience. One is not objectively better than the other.

zeffabelli

Maguined wrote: »

I was really just offering up the biological reason men seem to die younger, they also seemed to be throwing in details about fetuses as well though Zeffas articles does look to refute that.

Is testosterone not inherently part of male fertility? If you accept that estrogen makes womens bodies weaker is a disadvantage how are you then dismissing men not enduring for their fertility when the hormone that controls it is also the hormone that results in a weaker immune system which is potentially the reason for the shorter life span? Testosterone is also attributed to why men are more aggressive and risk taking.

It's a trade off not one being objectively better than the other. You mentioned biological privilege and I responded to your biological points and you are bringing up chivalry which is not biological but social.




Oh completely debatable, I do not believe that women are biologically advantaged over men. I believe neither gender are objectively at an advantage because I believe it is completely subjective. As you say men can be at an advantage by being physically larger and stronger but that ceases to be a privilege when it becomes a disadvantage when it results in you being conscripted to fight a war you wish no part in.

All I am saying is that it is preposterous to suggest men are biologically advantaged when it is completely subjective. I know women that have children that view it as the most important part of their life and feel a closer connection to their child due to pregnancy, in their own words they feel sorry for the partners for being men who do not experience this close connection as they do. I also know women who despise their biology, they never want children and completely hate the hormonal changes their bodies go through and are envious of the male experience. One is not objectively better than the other.

Female fertility does have greater responsibility and consequence to it. I think it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

For those who have great pregnancies and feel a closer bond, that's great but it doesn't really change the enormity of risk and consequence as well as managing ones ability to conceive, menstruation etc.

Do you not see the implicit bias in your example....are you admitting because of pregnancy women have closer bonds with their children than fathers do? Don't let the fathers rights activists hear that or you might have a pitchfork in your side.

The problem I have with this debate is that when you deny that, you lose all credibility in the wider debate. It's just too obvious to deny.

Undoubtedly men enjoy this biological advantage and that it can only be recognised as partial privaledge by those denying male privaledge makes it even more suspect. Our sexuality, our reproduction, our family organisation are so central to the entirety of life, how we live, whether we survive as a species, that to dismiss it as partial, as if it doesn't matter, is insane.

DeadHand

zeffabelli wrote: »

So the door holding....it was also a case a woman could not enter a room until she had permission to do that, and the opening of the door was not so much to help her, but to block her unless clearly specified

I hold doors open for everyone, male or female. More as a means of ensuring that another human being doesn't get a slap of a door than as a way of asserting my supremacy.

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about--men holding chairs out for women, men opening doors for women, men helping women with their coats, etc. Why doesn't the reverse exist for men?

If you really think all of that has existed throughout history then you really have missed what its all about.

I'm short form -chivalry is little more than a set of social rules designed to keep some semblance of societal order. Even the terms associated with it point to its origin in medieval courts. It has some parallels with other honour codes throughout history

So do women get some preferential treatment under these codes-sometimes. Often there are rules that look to compensate or protect for their relative physical weakness versus men (pre technology) who would be historically be perceived as someone engaged in wars etc.and physically stronger. There would also have been a nod to the need to maintain child bearing options in your own group and men are traditionalky more expendable in this sense. Of course that fits as part of a wider set of rules that also call for (different) courtesies to be extended to a male. Stabbing them in the back would be bad form here and somewhat dishonourable.

Over time some of those rules have evolved into the more subtle courtesies we see today -holding open doors etc. But really its not preferential, its just one aspect of a social dance we engage in to hold everything together.

There's also of course the courting ritual element there too, best captured in the classic damsel in distress them, and essentially reducing to men wishing to be seen as strong prospective mates. That, for obvious reasons, is a much older concept and ties with the idea of males filling the protective role, I.e. expendable in the face of danger, and if anything the underprivileged gender.

Potatoeman

If the average man doesn't want to be a woman and the average woman doesn't want to be man then neither can be that privilaged.

Maguined

zeffabelli wrote: »

Female fertility does have greater responsibility and consequence to it. I think it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

For those who have great pregnancies and feel a closer bond, that's great but it doesn't really change the enormity of risk and consequence as well as managing ones ability to conceive, menstruation etc.

The problem I have with this debate is that when you deny that, you lose all credibility in the wider debate. It's just too obvious to deny.

Undoubtedly men enjoy this biological advantage and that it can only be recognised as partial privaledge by those denying male privaledge makes it even more suspect. Our sexuality, our reproduction, our family organisation are so central to the entirety of life, how we live, whether we survive as a species, that to dismiss it as partial, as if it doesn't matter, is insane.

Female fertility does have greater risk and responsibility. I am not denying that however I am denying that it is objectively a disadvantage. Just as with mens physical strength being an advantage in some areas and a disadvantage in others it is the same with women and reproduction. It depends on the individuals perspective and what they desire in life, it is subjective.

If you offered women a magical pill and told them it will remove all risk and consequences to their fertility however they will die about 4 years earlier, some would take it and others would not. If you offered men a magical pill that would extend their life by about 4 years but would increase their risk and consequences to their fertility some would take it and others not. If you offered 100 men and 100 women such a magical pill what numbers do you think would take it?

Wealth is not subjective though, wealth is objectively an advantage. If you offered 100 men and 100 women 100m euro with no strings attached. They can even take it and give it away to charity if they wanted. How many do you think would say no?

DeadHand

Historically males have fought to protect females and worked to provide for them.

Never in the history of humanity have oppressors fought to protect or worked to provide for those they were oppressing.

Obviously, things have changed drastically and for the better but this narrative that has sprung up of all men having a ball while women were automatically oppressed and it was all the fault of the men is patent nonsense.

The amount of misery we get doled out has far more to do with our socioeconomic positions than our genitalia.

If most of my female counterparts are doing a little better than I am (they are) the "fault" is (quite rightly) attributed to me and it is squarely up to me to change this. Were I female and my male counterparts were having a better time I could scream sexism and wrap myself in the comforting blanket of victimhood, blaming abstract constructs like the "patriarchy" for my own failings. I would have several movements and an entire industry to encourage these feelings.

This is why invented victimhood is so seductive. This is why a powerful industry has bloomed around it. It shields people from having to look at themselves, it allows them to do the most comforting thing of all: blame someone else.

The Corinthian

DeadHand wrote: »

Never in the history of humanity have oppressors fought to protect or worked to provide for those they were oppressing.

Well, not entirely true. Fudalism was based on the principle of a warrior class protecting a serf class in return for their labour. It was like a protection racket that grew out of the lawlessness that followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

It was oppressive too; serfs were effectively the property of their warrior noble, but there was that exchange, at least at first - as central rule returned and the need to protect the local serfs from bandits or invading barbarians faded, the nobles maintained said privileges.

Doesn't disprove what you're saying overall, but I thought it fair to mention for historical accuracy.

KomradeBishop

Maguined wrote: »

Female fertility does have greater risk and responsibility. I am not denying that however I am denying that it is objectively a disadvantage. Just as with mens physical strength being an advantage in some areas and a disadvantage in others it is the same with women and reproduction. It depends on the individuals perspective and what they desire in life, it is subjective.

Eh? Conscription doesn't exist in the western world anymore. You're trying to paint a politically-dependent downside, as being comparable to the biological downsides of pregnancy.

Biologically, men have no downside to their increased strength. Biologically, there are a crapton of downsides to pregnancy.

You can't weigh up all the upsides/downsides between the genders though, and say one or the other has it worse overall - they are all mostly inherently incomparable - so it makes no sense for you to try and counterpoint one very obvious big downside for women (pregnancy and the risks involved) by picking '*insert random male downside here*' - that's how these debates turn to 'Us vs Them' trench warfare.

KomradeBishop

DeadHand wrote: »

If most of my female counterparts are doing a little better than I am (they are) the "fault" is (quite rightly) attributed to me and it is squarely up to me to change this. Were I female and my male counterparts were having a better time I could scream sexism and wrap myself in the comforting blanket of victimhood, blaming abstract constructs like the "patriarchy" for my own failings. I would have several movements and an entire industry to encourage these feelings.

This is why invented victimhood is so seductive. This is why a powerful industry has bloomed around it. It shields people from having to look at themselves, it allows them to do the most comforting thing of all: blame someone else.

It depends on the circumstances whether you are to blame or whether instead, the political/economic structure of society may be to blame - often you would be wrong to place the blame on yourself there, and people placing blame on a 'patriarchy' would also be wrong, but may be right that there's an overall power structure in society holding them back.

This is why gender-divide debates are so utterly stupid much of the time: There are real problems which cause discrimination against people in society, and which are structurally present in how politics and the economy are operated, but they most often have nothing to do with gender, and fooling people into focusing solely on gender is the perfect 'divide and conquer' tactic, for pitting people into 'Us vs Them' arguments where they fight among each other, rather than focusing on looking at and fixing the real problems with the way politics/economics/society operates.

DeadHand

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, not entirely true. Fudalism was based on the principle of a warrior class protecting a serf class in return for their labour. It was like a protection racket that grew out of the lawlessness that followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

It was oppressive too; serfs were effectively the property of their warrior noble, but there was that exchange, at least at first - as central rule returned and the need to protect the local serfs from bandits or invading barbarians faded, the nobles maintained said privileges.

Doesn't disprove what you're saying overall, but I thought it fair to mention for historical accuracy.

Fair point.

The nobility would have provided the leadership and cavalry but, in larger engagements and longer campaigns, the Serfs still would have constituted the bulk of the poor auld infantry that did most of the actual fighting and dying.

On an interesting side note, this is why crossbows drove the ruling elite crazy. This new technology meant that, for the first time in human conflict, a commoner with a days training could reliably defeat an elite warrior with a lifetimes's training, horse and expensive equipment. They saw that technology could render them redundant and powerless. The Pope even tried to ban them. The advent of gunpowder finished the b*stards completely.

One thing they would have had in common (in Europe) was they were all white males. Women, born in any bed, were not forced to suffer these pains and terrible risk. Not saying feudal society wasn't horrible for women too, it was. Just making the point that women (or anyone else) do not have a monopoly on misery historical or otherwise.