White Male Privilege

Maguined

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

When you say it doesn't exist do you mean it is not currently being enforced in any country or that it cannot legally be enforced? Plenty of western countries legally can enforce a male only conscription during wartime. In Finland all males have to give a year to national service or face prison. Women can volunteer, it is a choice not a duty. Is Finland not a western country in your eyes?

The previous link I provided suggests there is a downside to mens increased strength. The testosterone in mens bodies that influences the greater muscle development also results in a weaker immune system and contributes to an earlier death. These look like downsides to me.

You are agreeing with me on that point then. I am not saying men are disadvantaged to women, I am saying there are different advantages and disadvantages which are subjective in nature and so you cannot tot them all up and reach the conclusion that men have objectively more advantages and hence are privileged.

KomradeBishop

Maguined wrote: »

When you say it doesn't exist do you mean it is not currently being enforced in any country or that it cannot legally be enforced? Plenty of western countries legally can enforce a male only conscription during wartime. In Finland all males have to give a year to national service or face prison. Women can volunteer, it is a choice not a duty. Is Finland not a western country in your eyes?

The previous link I provided suggests there is a downside to mens increased strength. The testosterone in mens bodies that influences the greater muscle development also results in a weaker immune system and contributes to an earlier death. These look like downsides to me.

You are agreeing with me on that point then. I am not saying men are disadvantaged to women, I am saying there are different advantages and disadvantages which are subjective in nature and so you cannot tot them all up and reach the conclusion that men have objectively more advantages and hence are privileged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#/media/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg

Grasping for any downside men face, to counterpoint the downsides of pregnancy for women, just comes across as trying to trivializing the downsides for women - it leads directly to 'Us vs Them' type trench warfare discussion.

If you think the issues are not comparable, don't compare them, by bringing up a potential male downside, to counterpoint a major female downside.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh? Conscription doesn't exist in the western world anymore.

Does in Switzerland. Not just a long stint when you're 18, but you have to do a few weeks every year thereafter until you're about 30. If you don't do it, you can elect to do community service. If you don't do either, you get to pay an extra 6% or so percent income tax until you're about 40 - it's why many 'secondos' (children of foreigners who were born and bred in Switzerland) remain 'foreigners' and only apply for citizenship once over 40. Austria also still has conscription.

Women are exempt from all of the above.

Also, remember that in times of national military need, all Western nations retain the right to impose it. What do you think was all the fuss about 'the draft' during the Vietnam war in the US? And conscription in time of war is probably a far more serious matter than during peacetime.

So, please don't say how it doesn't exist in the western world anymore. It's alive and well and at best waiting for the right moment.

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

Except for the negative effects of testosterone. Let's not forget those.

The Corinthian

DeadHand wrote: »

The advent of gunpowder finished the b*stards completely.

Actually it was the Black Death that killed off serfdom in most of Western Europe. With two thirds of the workforce gone, the remaining third was able to demand change and better conditions. Labour market forces at their finest.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Grasping for any downside men face, to counterpoint the downsides of pregnancy for women, just comes across as trying to trivializing the downsides for women - it leads directly to 'Us vs Them' type trench warfare discussion.

It's funny how any mention of men being at a disadvantage 'just comes across' as that. Fascinating how we've been conditioned to think so.

KomradeBishop

There are some western countries with conscription still, but by and large, it is gone - as the map I linked shows.

People are missing the point as well: The entire point is that there is no objective way to compare downsides that either gender face, so don't compare them.

Just acknowledge the downsides women face with pregnancy, without having to counterpoint it with *insert random male downside*.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's funny how any mention of men being at a disadvantage 'just comes across' as that. Fascinating how we've been conditioned to think so.

Yea when it's brought up to randomly counterpoint the downside women face from pregnancy, it does come across like that....

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There are some western countries with conscription still, but by and large, it is gone - as the map I linked shows.

So you accept what you said was incorrect. Now, where it comes to being gone, would you also care to recognize that it's only 'gone' until they need food for the cannons, as it were?

People are missing the point as well: The entire point is that there is no objective way to compare downsides that either gender face, so don't compare them.

I don't disagree with you there. But I do dislike it when someone starts telling me that things that disadvantages can be demonstrably proven exist, don't and we should not mention them because it might upset the bigoted World view of someone who'd prefer to believe that men are all penis wielding oppressors who live a perfect life of privilege.

Just acknowledge the downsides women face with pregnancy, without having to counterpoint it with *insert random male downside*.

Then stop coming out with shìte like conscription doesn't exist in the West.

Maguined

KomradeBishop wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#/media/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg

Grasping for any downside men face, to counterpoint the downsides of pregnancy for women, just comes across as trying to trivializing the downsides for women - it leads directly to 'Us vs Them' type trench warfare discussion.

If you think the issues are not comparable, don't compare them, by bringing up a potential male downside, to counterpoint a major female downside.

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

A citizen’s initiative on abolition of conscription in Finland started collecting names on the 2nd of September 2013. The initiative proposed that men who refuse service should no longer be sentenced to prison. According to the initiative conscription is an expensive, sexist, and out-dated solution for combating any realistic threat scenarios of today. However, the initiative gained little public support and failed to reach the hurdle of 50 000 signatories needed for bringing the initiative to parliamentary process. The military is a strong part of Finnish society and culture. Before the 1990s, national service was regarded as a rite of passage for young men. This was especially true of the rural Finnish population. Often, before the 1990s, a lot of private companies were hesitant to hire 20-year olds if they had neither military service nor education to show for what they were doing during the previous two years.

The original claim made is that men have privilege because of their biology. I refuted that poisiton by saying it was subjective and that you cannot objectively say men are more advantaged than women. The debate was already an Us v Them when that claim is made.

If you agree with me that you cannot say one gender is more privileged than the other instead of disagreeing with me to then say you agree with me would it not be easier for you to go back and argue with those you actually disagree with? Those that are promoting the idea of a gender privilege?

the_monkey

AlphaRed wrote: »

Do you think it's real? Just because you're a man and white life is so much easier? This topic is probably more visible in America (if it exists at all) than in Ireland. To be honest, these days it feels like there is so much support and encouragement for women than there is men. After all, isn't mostly men who commit suicide? For the record I live in a tiny box studio apartment and it really doesn't feel privilege all.

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

She has a serious chip on her shoulder, assuming all potential employees are making assumptions about her because of her sex and the fact she's half Asian ?

Seriously ??

tritium

So to summarise the thought processes on this thread so far:

White male privilege, does it exist?
Yes camp: of course, heres all the reasons white males have it better in society

No camp: well, since you've framed privilege as a social construct, to counter that, there are many examples where (white) men have it worse in society. How can they be privileged if both face significant disadvantage?

Yes camp: OK but ignoring that, women have it harder as they age and fertility declines. They're judged on looks!

No side: sure and men are unfairly judged on success. Not to mention that just cause a 90 year old man has viable sperm doesn't mean he's going to be fighting off the young ladies.

Yes camp: OK but ignore all the social elements. Let's talk pregnancy and fertility, women have that to deal with!

No camp:WTF, we've gone from privilege as social construct to 'nature has it in for women'! When did mother nature sign up and pay dues for the patriarchy! Ok,pregnancy is a biggie. Tell you what, men on average die younger than women. That's a biggie too. ..

Yes camp: yes but ignoring that, and ignoring any other biological downside you present of being a man. What about pregnancy? men are so privileged!.......

When I put it like that I'm not sure there's much point debating, cause one half of this debate seems to want a veto on everything......

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There are some western countries with conscription still, but by and large, it is gone - as the map I linked shows.

To begin with you didn't even acknowledge 'some western countries' at the start. But, importantly, you do know that conscription will be reactivated the moment there is military need, in any Western nation? How can conscription be 'gone' if that is the case?

Tell me, if a draft is introduced in a Western nation tomorrow, as it was in Vietnam, or almost was over Iraq, or may end up being introduced if things with Russia spin out of control, are you still going to tell us that conscription is gone? That it is not, to this day, a sword of Damocles over every citizen unfortunate enough to have been born with a Y-chromosome?

People are missing the point as well: The entire point is that there is no objective way to compare downsides that either gender face, so don't compare them.

That point went out the window when you started to dismiss any disadvantages to being male. Are you going to accept you were, and frankly still are, talking shìte or not?

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you accept what you said was incorrect. Now, where it comes to being gone, would you also care to recognize that it's only 'gone' until they need food for the cannons, as it were?

Only if you want to ignore the context of what I said and be pedantic. By and large, with exceptions that account for only a tiny portion of the population, the western world does not have conscription.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't disagree with you there. But I do dislike it when someone starts telling me that things that disadvantages can be demonstrably proven exist, don't and we should not mention them because it might upset the bigoted World view of someone who'd prefer to believe that men are all penis wielding oppressors who live a perfect life of privilege.

Where are you pulling this shít from? In one sentence your a pedant deliberately missing the point, and in the next you're just totally making crap up to try and smear other posters.

Try engaging in a debate without spewing bile and nitpicking the fúck out of peoples arguments - by deliberately missing the point - in order to engage in point scoring.
I'm not the first the call you out on that nonsense, and doubt I'll be the last either.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Only if you want to ignore the context of what I said and be pedantic.

I'm not being pedantic. You said something that was stupid and factually wrong. You're pontificating about why we should not mention disadvantages to men, while symiltaniously demonstrating why it's necessary to do so - ignorance such as that which you've displayed.

Where are you pulling this shít from? In one sentence your a pedant deliberately missing the point, and in the next you're just totally making crap up to try and smear other posters.

What did I make up? You're the one who said how mentioning that men do suffer some disadvantages might upset some people - who do you think they are? The very people who like to deny that any such disadvantages are typically the ones who'll get upset - like you.

Try engaging in a debate without spewing bile and nitpicking the fúck out of peoples arguments - by deliberately missing the point - in order to engage in point scoring.

And you try engaging in a debate without coming out with stupid falsehoods, then lacking the courage to admit that you got it wrong and instead trying to hide behind accusations of pedantry to describe your being called out on something that we not a simple detail.

Indeed, you're still ignoring this detail:

Tell me, if a draft is introduced in a Western nation tomorrow, as it was in Vietnam, or almost was over Iraq, or may end up being introduced if things with Russia spin out of control, are you still going to tell us that conscription is gone? That it is not, to this day, a sword of Damocles over every citizen unfortunate enough to have been born with a Y-chromosome?

Go on, show some backbone and admit you got it wrong on conscription.

Maguined

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Try engaging in a debate without spewing bile and nitpicking the fúck out of peoples arguments - by deliberately missing the point - in order to engage in point scoring.
I'm not the first the call you out on that nonsense, and doubt I'll be the last either.

Is this not exactly what you are doing? Most western countries have conscription ie they legally can demand men to serve, it is not currently in effect as there is no need seeing as most western countries are not actively engaged in large scale wars but the legal capacity to enact such conscription is still there and still is sexist in that it only applies to men. However you want to nitpick rather than debate so you say it doesn't exist, then when it is proven to you that it exists you say it's only a small number.

I asked you to clarify and you did not but when you say the western world does not have conscription are you implying it is not currently in action or that it is not possible under those countries laws?

KomradeBishop

Maguined wrote: »

The original claim made is that men have privilege because of their biology. I refuted that poisiton by saying it was subjective and that you cannot objectively say men are more advantaged than women. The debate was already an Us v Them when that claim is made.

If you agree with me that you cannot say one gender is more privileged than the other instead of disagreeing with me to then say you agree with me would it not be easier for you to go back and argue with those you actually disagree with? Those that are promoting the idea of a gender privilege?

You didn't 'refute' anything - obviously men are advantaged by not having to deal with the downsides of pregnancy. You can't 'refute' that by trying to counterpoint it with a completely incomparable issue like conscription.

Just because you can't objectively compare issues between genders, does not mean that neither group has an advantage over the other - obviously both groups do, in different areas.

Saying it's "already an Us vs Them" discussion, doesn't justify continuing down the path of an 'Us vs Them' debate.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

That point went out the window when you started to dismiss any disadvantages to being male.

You are directly lying here to spin-shít and to smear me. It is part of your usual tactic in debates, of needlessly personalizing them and trying to brow-beat posters.

The_B_Man

I don't think we should even be giving this the time of day.
Talking about it is only giving the idea more respect than it deserves.

I'd prefer if we ignored any talk of "privilege" in the hope that it just goes away!

hatrickpatrick

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There are some western countries with conscription still, but by and large, it is gone - as the map I linked shows.

People are missing the point as well: The entire point is that there is no objective way to compare downsides that either gender face, so don't compare them.

Just acknowledge the downsides women face with pregnancy, without having to counterpoint it with *insert random male downside*.

I'm happy to do that as long as feminists stop with the "women have it worse in general" and "men are the oppressor, women are the oppressed" bullsh!t. The ideal movement would be a gender neutral movement which recognises that all double standards are insidious and unacceptable, and fights to purge them from society. But that won't happen as long as the "privilege" argument is used to argue that some double standards are ok.

KomradeBishop

Maguined wrote: »

Is this not exactly what you are doing? Most western countries have conscription ie they legally can demand men to serve, it is not currently in effect as there is no need seeing as most western countries are not actively engaged in large scale wars but the legal capacity to enact such conscription is still there and still is sexist in that it only applies to men. However you want to nitpick rather than debate so you say it doesn't exist, then when it is proven to you that it exists you say it's only a small number.

I asked you to clarify and you did not but when you say the western world does not have conscription are you implying it is not currently in action or that it is not possible under those countries laws?

The entire conscription issue was ancillary, so the undue focus on that is pretty much missing the point, that there is no way to compare male downsides here to pregnancy.

If you're claiming - contrary to the previous link - that most western countries have conscription, you need to back that up with something.

Certainly, on a forum based in Ireland, citing conscription as an issue men face comes across as - at best - facetious.

KomradeBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm happy to do that as long as feminists stop with the "women have it worse in general" and "men are the oppressor, women are the oppressed" bullsh!t. The ideal movement would be a gender neutral movement which recognises that all double standards are insidious and unacceptable, and fights to purge them from society. But that won't happen as long as the "privilege" argument is used to argue that some double standards are ok.

If you react to a movement you view as taking an 'Us vs Them' position, by yourself taking an 'Us vs Them' position - you basically just give them exactly what they want, by providing them with a mutually opposed group they can permanently rail against.

That's exactly how 'divide and conquer' tactics work.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You are directly lying here to spin-shít and to smear me. It is part of your usual tactic in debates, of needlessly personalizing them and trying to brow-beat posters.

What lie? The bit where you decided to dismiss male conscription as a non-issue?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh? Conscription doesn't exist in the western world anymore.

You said it. There's a record. On top of which you still have not addressed the point of it still being alive and well in times of conflict, despite both Maguined and I having asked you to acknowledge that you had ignored this very important flaw in your claim that 'conscription doesn't exist' - or is something that proves you were coming out with complete tripe pedantry?

You've not accepted your 'error'. You've not even acknowledged it. You want to brush it aside and hope no one noticed. But we did. And at this stage your refusal to acknowledge it is the only lie here.

KomradeBishop

This lie:

KomradeBishop wrote:

The Corinthian wrote: »

That point went out the window when you started to dismiss any disadvantages to being male.

You are directly lying here to spin-shít and to smear me. It is part of your usual tactic in debates, of needlessly personalizing them and trying to brow-beat posters.

I'm not going to let you try to spin it around back to the conscription issue there - you tried to paint me as dismissing "any disadvantages to being male".

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The entire conscription issue was ancillary

Which is why you took pains to dismiss it as non-existent?

Certainly, on a forum based in Ireland, citing conscription as an issue men face comes across as - at best - facetious.

LOL. Dismissing it as a Western issue didn't work, so now the goalposts have changed so he can dismiss it as an Irish one.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not going to let you try to spin it around back to the conscription issue there - you tried to paint me as dismissing "any disadvantages to being male".

You're right; I should have said any disadvantages to being male being discussed. You've not managed to dismiss any others just yet.

KomradeBishop

So yes - you lied, by trying to portray me as dismissing "any disadvantages to being male", and now you're trying to needle at me with pedantry over the conscription issue.

You're even trying to perpetuate your lie still, by saying "You've not managed to dismiss any others [male disadvantages] just yet" - showing that you expect me to dismiss disadvantages to being male in general.

Your caricature of me, and your style of argument, are deliberately antagonistic and confrontational, in an attempt at brow-beating and smearing me by lying about me - and I'm going to keep calling you out on that bullshít wherever I see it.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So yes - you lied, by trying to portray me as dismissing "any disadvantages to being male", and now you're trying to needle at me with pedantry over the conscription issue.

Are you completely out of your mind or think we're all fools? You made a completely false and serious claim, pointing that out is not pedantry. And still you refuse to address, let alone accept the point made by both Maguined and I that underlines this. What a joke.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you completely out of your mind or think we're all fools? You made a completely false and serious claim, pointing that out is not pedantry. And still you refuse to address, let alone accept the point made by both Maguined and I that underlines this. What a joke.

I've addressed Maguined's arguments directly (and I have made clear, how the entire conscription issue is missing the point of what was being debated, in that you can't even compare issues like conscription against pregnancy) - so again, that's another deliberately misleading statement from you, as I have directly replied to every one of his posts - but I'm not going to entertain your nonsense when you've directly lied about me and are trying to smear me with the previously mentioned caricature.

Your debating style - directly trying to lie about and smear other posters, notching up the antagonism post by post to try and brow-beat them - makes you not worth debating with; it does make your debating style worth pointing out in detail though, to expose to other posters on the thread - which I'll keep on doing repeatedly here-on, whether I see that directed at me, or at other posters.

I still stand by the claim that, with exceptions from countries that make up a tiny proportion of the western population (something I've already acknowledged earlier), conscription is not an issue in the western world - and I've provided the backing for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#/media/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I've addressed Maguined's arguments directly (and I have made clear, how the entire conscription issue is missing the point of what was being debated, in that you can't even compare issues like conscription against pregnancy)

No you addressed it by refusing to do so as irrelevant; in short, you dismissed it. So that is a lie.

I still stand by the claim that, with exceptions from countries that make up a tiny proportion of the western population (something I've already acknowledged earlier), conscription is not an issue in the western world - and I've provided the backing for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#/media/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg

And the rebuttal to this? The one that rubbishes your response? The one that's been repeatedly asked of you? More dishonesty from you.

tritium

Of course for anyone who cares to look back at the thread, the issue of pregnancy and fertility was put into context with the longer lives women enjoy on average- not as a ' well look how bad men have it' point but as a reflection that both genders have biological aspects that are unfavourable to their gender.

Conscription really was never compared to pregnancy until some posters who'd rejected the idea of female social privilege to focus on biological privilege, then flip flopped again when they came up short on that one....

But given one side keeps narrowing the frame of reference for privilege there's actually no comparable aspect left to comapre conscription to

If anyone doesn't believe me go read back into the thread, its not hard to find...

zeffabelli

I don't know why conscription is being used as a generalised factor in what is very much a nation based policy in this competition of who has it worse.

All policy depends on the nation. Ireland doesn't have ANY conscription nor does it have abortion and it certainly has a history of questionable obstetrics.

The US still has a requirement for men in a SPECIFIC AGE BRACKET to register but it is not enforced and all ONLY SONS are exempt.

Isreal- both men and women must do military service. It too probably has its exceptions.

Females tend not to have such biological exemptions.

How many of the men here have actually had to do military service. My guess is a big fat zero.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

No you addressed it by refusing to do so as irrelevant; in short, you dismissed it. So that is a lie.

Bollocks - more misrepresentation from you, here is my previous reply to him:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95587016&postcount=721

The Corinthian wrote: »

And the rebuttal to this? The one that rubbishes your response? The one that's been repeatedly asked of you? More dishonesty from you.

There was no rebuttal to my claim that - with exceptions that count for only a small portion of the western worlds population - conscription isn't an issue in the western world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#/media/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg

Unsurprisingly you never quote anything you claim is a 'lie' or a rebuttal - because you know what your posting is a misrepresentation.

zeffabelli

Maguined wrote: »

When you say it doesn't exist do you mean it is not currently being enforced in any country or that it cannot legally be enforced? Plenty of western countries legally can enforce a male only conscription during wartime. In Finland all males have to give a year to national service or face prison. Women can volunteer, it is a choice not a duty. Is Finland not a western country in your eyes?

This is a year of one's life. Female fertility is from around 12 to 65.

So one country, one year....vs....an entire half the world's population...for a vast majority of their lives.

Another own goal.

kowloon

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is a year of one's life. Female fertility is from around 12 to 65.

Is that not a little optimistic?

zeffabelli

Saullll wrote: »

Are you saying the average year of being a fertile female is as bad as the average year of being conscripted?

Your bias is ridiculous.

My bias is ridiculous....oh jesus. WOW....you haven't read the last four pages of this thread...it's like a clown car...

DeadHand

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In one sentence your a pedant

You're*

Playboy

Are people arguing that pregnancy is a disadvantage? Hmmm I thought that would depend on how you look at it wouldnt it? Most people see pregnancy and birth as an amazing and miraculous aspect of life.. women are lucky that it is them that get to experience it.

kowloon

Playboy wrote: »

Are people arguing that pregnancy is a disadvantage? Hmmm I thought that would depend on how you look at it wouldnt it? Most people see pregnancy and birth as an amazing and miraculous aspect of life.. women are lucky that it is them that get to experience it.

I'm guessing women who have actually given birth are the only ones qualified to say whether it's a good thing or not. Everyone else can be either jealous of it or repulsed if they so desire, but it doesn't make them an authority on it.

DeadHand

zeffabelli wrote: »

How many of the men here have actually had to do military service. My guess is a big fat zero.

Because we happen to live in a peaceful country.

If we were in a military situation in which conscription was essential to survival who do you imagine would be the first people conscripted? The young men. Then the slightly older men. And so on in that fashion.

For the uncomfortable but undeniable reasons that males make better soldiers and are, far from being the privileged sex, the disposable sex.

Playboy

kowloon wrote: »

I'm guessing women who have actually given birth are the only ones qualified to say whether it's a good thing or not. Everyone else can be either jealous of it or repulsed if they so desire, but it doesn't make them an authority on it.

huh? Generally the narrative that you hear is that pregnancy is positive and not negative. I'm sure some would prefer not to be pregnant and luckily they have that choice if they so wish. To paint it a a biological disadvantage is slightly ridiculous though.. disadvantage in comparison to what? Its just different to men, its not a handicap of some form.

NI24

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.

I'm not dismissing the effects of testosterone--I'm saying that the effects of testosterone are weaker immune systems, but the effects of estrogen are weaker bodies overall and, on top of that, all the other things they have to endure. Men do not inherently have to take risks or be more aggressive. So, I'm sorry, but the effects do not equal in my opinion--men are immune from the many things woman are forced to endure, unless medial intervention is taken. The only reason I mentioned chivalry was because I was curious about it.

NI24

DeadHand wrote: »

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.

This word has been bandied around a lot in this thread and I'm wondering what it has to do with privilege? Or blame, for that matter?

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's funny how any mention of men being at a disadvantage 'just comes across' as that. Fascinating how we've been conditioned to think so.

Victimization much?

NI24

tritium wrote: »

So to summarise the thought processes on this thread so far:

White male privilege, does it exist?
Yes camp: of course, heres all the reasons white males have it better in society

No camp: well, since you've framed privilege as a social construct, to counter that, there are many examples where (white) men have it worse in society. How can they be privileged if both face significant disadvantage?

Yes camp: OK but ignoring that, women have it harder as they age and fertility declines. They're judged on looks!

No side: sure and men are unfairly judged on success. Not to mention that just cause a 90 year old man has viable sperm doesn't mean he's going to be fighting off the young ladies.

Yes camp: OK but ignore all the social elements. Let's talk pregnancy and fertility, women have that to deal with!

No camp:WTF, we've gone from privilege as social construct to 'nature has it in for women'! When did mother nature sign up and pay dues for the patriarchy! Ok,pregnancy is a biggie. Tell you what, men on average die younger than women. That's a biggie too. ..

Yes camp: yes but ignoring that, and ignoring any other biological downside you present of being a man. What about pregnancy? men are so privileged!.......

When I put it like that I'm not sure there's much point debating, cause one half of this debate seems to want a veto on everything......

Wrong tritium. Firstly, I never said white privilege existed, certainly not in Ireland. Secondly, I'm not talking about pregnancy. You hear me? Not pregnancy. Thirdly, why does discussing the biological differences between men and women always come down to the men trivializing the biological disadvantages that women face? Nature has it in for women, you say? Now who's dismissing the other side of the argument? And why do people keep talking about patriarchy? The people in here are arguing about privilege on the basis of society, economy, politics, etc., all of which change from country to country and throughout time. Biology is constant. So if you want to bring in the idea of conscription and all the other social factors, then fine, how about we take a trip back in time and focus on the fact that until now (and still only in the Western world) women were never considered equal to men. And why is that? Well, it all comes down to biology. Men have reproductive value their entire lives and women do not and that is why, throughout history, women have been treated like resources and traded like food and water and if you don't believe me then read a history book. It's ridiculous to compare women's fertility to a political immunity like conscription.

The point raised about testosterone causing early death is countered by the fact that estrogen makes the body more fragile, yet no one can counter what women have to endure for their fertility outside of pregnancy. All they can do is cite conscription-which is not a biological condition, it's a societal condition. And all of this back-and-forth started when someone posted that male privilege does not exist because of, among other things, video games being demonized, male sexuality being demonized, and girls' behavior being the gold standard. Using that logic, and citing examples of when women are subject to double standards, I came to the opposite conclusion. Oddly enough, his post got thanked by multiple posters, so your indirect accusations about brattiness and whining should be directed at that poster and all the others who thanked it-- not to me.

NI24

tritium wrote: »

Conscription really was never compared to pregnancy until some posters who'd rejected the idea of female social privilege to focus on biological privilege, then flip flopped again when they came up short on that one....

But given one side keeps narrowing the frame of reference for privilege there's actually no comparable aspect left to comapre conscription to

If anyone doesn't believe me go read back into the thread, its not hard to find...

OK how about this: the incredible social pressure women face to carry a child to term and raise it? Dismiss the pain women have to endure to carry the child to term, dismiss the risks to their health, how about the fact that in a majority of the countries in the world, including Ireland, women are legally bound to carry the child? And after the child is born, the pressure women have to face to spend the next 18 years of their life to raise that child. Comparable enough?

Actually, don't dismiss pregnancy. Men are expected by society to put their lives on the line to fight and women are expected to put their lives on the line for pregnancy.

zeffabelli

DeadHand wrote: »

Because we happen to live in a peaceful country.

If we were in a military situation in which conscription was essential to survival who do you imagine would be the first people conscripted? The young men. Then the slightly older men. And so on in that fashion.

For the uncomfortable but undeniable reasons that males make better soldiers and are, far from being the privileged sex, the disposable sex.

First of all you need to distinguish between the essential and the conditional. This is not to say that the conditional is not worth examining, but for now the essential is dominating this discussion.

You are counter arguing essentials with examples of conditionals, and conditionals which are fairly tenuous at best.

So you have Finland, Austria and Switzerland out of the entire west. And those countries even then offer alternative service. Norway voted in conscription for women, but overall their conscription is more de jure anyway.

The draft has been abolished, so while historically you may have had a point, I don't think in contemporary times, conscription really stands as an argument.

Technology also is changing warfare.

And out of curiosity who do you say men make better soldiers?

DeadHand

zeffabelli wrote: »

First of all you need to distinguish between the essential and the conditional. This is not to say that the conditional is not worth examining, but for now the essential is dominating this discussion.

You are counter arguing essentials with examples of conditionals, and conditionals which are fairly tenuous at best.

We happen to be lucky and live in a stable , peaceful place. If the time comes when we need to militarily defend our society who do you imagine will do most of the heavy lifting in this regard? This great "privilege" would fall on the young males.

The same group who have the great privilege of being more likely to fall victim to violent crime, die of suicide or fall into addiction.

And out of curiosity who do you say men make better soldiers

I assume you mean "why".

Because men are, generally, stronger and capable of greater physical endurance than women. Only in times of existential crisis does a nation conscript its females (Israel). Germany still didn't resort to this, even when Soviets were kicking in the door to Hitler's office.

zeffabelli

DeadHand wrote: »

We happen to be lucky and live in a stable , peaceful place. If the time comes when we need to militarily defend our society who do you imagine will do most of the heavy lifting in this regard? This great "privilege" would fall on the young males.

Honestly I think Ireland would rely on Britain or the US for any kind of defense measures if there really was some kind of attack.

DeadHand wrote: »

I assume you mean "why".

Because men are, generally, stronger and capable of greater physical endurance than women. Only in times of existential crisis does a nation conscript its females (Israel). Germany still didn't resort to this, even when Soviets were kicking in the door to Hitler's office.

Yeah I think its because men can' get pregnant...and no army wants a bunch of pregnant women and babies to deal with. If they were going to start drafting women, then they'd also have to have state enforced birth control. Also because war has often been about access to women and over women, that they hardly want to risk killing off such a resource.

German women had to procreate ideals of the species no less.... and confined to the kitchen.

DeadHand

zeffabelli wrote: »

Honestly I think Ireland would rely on Britain or the US for any kind of defense measures if there really was some kind of attack

With their overwhelming male soldiers. And, if the situation demanded more manpower both those powers would draft their young males first.

I doubt the Irish would have the luxury of being spectators to any conflict taking place in Ireland.

Yeah I think its because men can' get pregnant...and no army wants a bunch of pregnant women and babies to deal with. If they were going to start drafting women, then they'd also have to have state enforced birth control. Also because war has often been about access to women and over women, that they hardly want to risk killing off such a resource

Or... Men are, in general, physically fitted to make superior soldiers and are regarded socially as the disposable sex.

Access to women has been a spoil of war- not a casus belli in and of itself.

zeffabelli

DeadHand wrote: »

With their overwhelming male soldiers. And, if the situation demanded more manpower both those powers would draft their young males first.

I doubt the Irish would have the luxury of being spectators to any conflict taking place in Ireland.



Or... Men are, in general, physically fitted to make superior soldiers and are regarded socially as the disposable sex.

Access to women has been a spoil of war- not a casus belli in and of itself.

No, you are ignoring the advances in technology - more and more use of drones...less men.

You might be right...after all this is speculation....but why? It is because female fertility would be a liability in the context of war.