Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
White Male Privilege
Options
Comments
-
The pros and cons are inherently incomparable - there is no objective way to compare them, to determine if 'on balance' one group is more privileged than another.Saturnshuttle wrote: »In order to determine if there exists privilege for men or women you need to look at all pros and cons comprehensively. NI24, you are just cherry picking a few arguments to suit your agenda.
Different groups are privileged in different ways, depending on what specific issue you're looking at - it makes sense neither to hold these instances up as examples of privilege overall, nor to try and rebut them using incomparable counterexamples of how the group is less privileged in other ways.0 -
Being white and male doesn't mean your life will be fantastic, it just means it has the potential to be more fantastic than if you were say black/female/muslim/ insert any other 'oppressed' group
And to be fair, in an Irish context I doubt even being black/female/muslim would go against you much tbh.0 -
If white men can build structures and system that provide them privilege I'm sure non white women can so the same, what's stopping them?0
-
-
Magico Gonzalez wrote: »The existing structures created by those White Males perhaps!
But that is your challenge. Every generation faces a new challenge and to be worthy of life and equal status you have to over come those challenges.
Stop asking for equality, take it, earn it.0 -
Advertisement
-
But that is your challenge. Every generation faces a new challenge and to be worthy of life and equal status you have to over come those challenges.
Stop asking for equality, take it, earn it.
It's not my challenge, I'm white & male. You needn't spout empty truisms at me friend.
It's not a generational challenge either, that implies universality of this challenge.
"Worthy of life" - sorry, what now? How does one become worthy of life? Who is more worthy of life? A kid born into a south american slum whose family have to scan though rubbish picking out cardboard to sell to make ends meet? Ain't no time for that kid to study, I see them every day. If they aren't out with their family searching for my rubbish to sell, they don't eat. Empty aspirational rubbish, the like of which you must have pulled form an inspirational gym poster, won't help them. A kid who has the good luck to be born into a family wealthy enough to afford him the time to pursue an education? Is he more worthy of life?
I'm afraid poverty is a generational trap, as wealth is further concentrated across a globalized world, so is opportunity. Education is becoming a commodity, I'm afraid you're ideas may have held up 50 years ago before market economics where applied to education and social improvement programs, but now they are empty platitudes.
Why should someone have to overcome additional challenges just to have "equal status" in comparison to you & I. Morally and legally they should be granted that equal status. It should be theirs to lose. If you would spend some time outside your enclave you'd get to confront the reality of the unequal nature of opportunity and how the prevalent global economic and social system persists this model to the benefit of the great minority of people alive today...the same twits who hide behind dogsh1t statements about having to strive and overcome what are quite frankly impossible odds just to claw they way onto a level playing field.
I'd have more respect for you if you were honest, you don't want a level playing field because it jeopardises your share of the spoils.0 -
Magico Gonzalez wrote: »It's not my challenge, I'm white & male. You needn't spout empty truisms at me friend.
It's not a generational challenge either, that implies universality of this challenge.
"Worthy of life" - sorry, what now? How does one become worthy of life? Who is more worthy of life? A kid born into a south american slum whose family have to scan though rubbish picking out cardboard to sell to make ends meet? Ain't no time for that kid to study, I see them every day. If they aren't out with their family searching for my rubbish to sell, they don't eat. Empty aspirational rubbish, the like of which you must have pulled form an inspirational gym poster, won't help them. A kid who has the good luck to be born into a family wealthy enough to afford him the time to pursue an education? Is he more worthy of life?
I'm afraid poverty is a generational trap, as wealth is further concentrated across a globalized world, so is opportunity. Education is becoming a commodity, I'm afraid you're ideas may have held up 50 years ago before market economics where applied to education and social improvement programs, but now they are empty platitudes.
Why should someone have to overcome additional challenges just to have "equal status" in comparison to you & I. Morally and legally they should be granted that equal status. It should be theirs to lose. If you would spend some time outside your enclave you'd get to confront the reality of the unequal nature of opportunity and how the prevalent global economic and social system persists this model to the benefit of the great minority of people alive today...the same twits who hide behind dogsh1t statements about having to strive and overcome what are quite frankly impossible odds just to claw they way onto a level playing field.
I'd have more respect for you if you were honest, you don't want a level playing field because it jeopardises your share of the spoils.
You miss the meaning of my post but anyway.
No. You're theory of what causes and keeps poverty is actually the source of poverty. When you make people depended on being given equality you take away their power, that's what keeps them trapped.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »And again you change the goalposts. First of all, you reject any argument that does not focus on biological advantages or disadvantages, now you've narrowed it further and unless it's related to fertility. As a result, your claim of male privilege has frankly lost all meaning or credibility.
No, you seem to think I'm talking about pregnancy and motherhood, but I'm not. I'm talking about fertility. Do you get what I'm saying? Fertility. I do not want to get into the nitty gritty of what I'm saying. Just think about fertility and only that and maybe you'll get what I'm saying. And go ahead and list the biological advantages and disadvantages--I'm all ears and I am more than happy to debate that. But right out of the starting gate, and biologically speaking, who is at an inherent disadvantage? Not what gender society values more than the other one; I'm trying to narrow it down and I'm looking for a very specific answer.The Corinthian wrote: »Even where it comes to fertility, it's not as black and white as you seem to think. Post conception it has been women and not men that have had the only control over fertility. Abortion and infanticide has been carried out since prehistoric times, by women, because they are carrying and giving birth to the offspring, and that's only from a biological standpoint.
That's not what I'm talking about. Just think about what fertility implies for a woman. I'm not trying to be evasive, I'm just very uncomfortable talking about what I'm thinking of, OK?The Corinthian wrote: »But even if you reject this, your position has become ridiculous; it would be like arguing female privilege on the basis that male mortality rates are much higher - and no other factors may be allowed.
I'm talking about a man and a woman who are complete equals--who has to inherently suffer for their biology right at the start?The Corinthian wrote: »Then your own argument collapses; older women also have a choice. It may not be as good as it was in their twenties, they may have to lower their expectations more than men might, but it's still there.
You knew what I was saying Corinthian. No woman gets to "pick and choose" as you say. And by the way, there is a significant portion of older women out there, who, no matter how much they lower their standards, do not have a choice, simply because of the ratios involved.The Corinthian wrote: »So arguing that men, who are disadvantaged when younger, compared to women, have a choice and then ignoring that the same is true of older women, when the tables turn to a degree, is just arguing against yourself.
No, I'm saying that men are not disadvantaged when younger--I'm saying that men can peak at any age they choose, depending on life circumstances, which is why they are able to father children at any age. Isn't this why they are biologically able to do so? Why would "mother nature" make it so men can father children at any age, if men's attractiveness peaks at only a certain age?The Corinthian wrote: »If that's the case, given you also have given nothing but anecdotal evidence, who cares what you think? Or is your experience worth more than hers, or anyone else's?
You expect me to take a social experiment that concludes that women treat men "like dirt" seriously? Come on. If it had been your own experiment, maybe I would take it into consideration.The Corinthian wrote: »You know, you're going to have to decide if we're discussing biological advantage or social. You can't rule the latter out of the discussion and then dip in whenever it suits.
You brought up social advantages in your argument and I addressed them--you want to take it out, then go ahead by all means.The Corinthian wrote: »It's a statistic. It means that in all probability a man will live a shorter life than a woman. That doesn't mean that all men will, but to dismiss it as if it is bull is pretty disingenuous too.
I didn't dismiss it as "bull"--I dismissed it as simplistic bull. I was looking for a more definitive answer to men's disadvantages.The Corinthian wrote: »Oh, that women had a sexual advantage only when younger didn't matter a moment ago, but suddenly it does when they become expendable when older. Cherry pick much?
You said men are expendable--I contend that women are too, so that societal disadvantage can apply to women too. You're giving off a list of male disadvantages, and I am countering them. And I could argue strongly that women are sexually expendable.The Corinthian wrote: »I said what you sound like, not what you are, so seriously get over yourself.
Yes, I understand you're talking in general terms to avoid a warning from the mods--so seriously, I knew exactly what you were implying.The Corinthian wrote: »But since you brought up age and have been happy to push your entire argument on the basis of your own experiences, I've got about twenty years on you, so I suspect my repository of anecdotal evidence is a bit larger than yours.
The entire argument on my own experiences? Yeah right.The Corinthian wrote: »And I can tell you that it's not as simple as that. Not losing your fertility as you grow older does not help if your a man, because it's not going to make it any easier to have children unless you have a woman to carry them to term for you. You may have a better chance of being 'more attractive' when you're older than a woman of the same age, but it doesn't mean you will - any more than most men would not still give their right arm to end up with Monica Bellucci. But apparently generalizations though are good in this case for you, unlike when we discuss areas where men are disadvantaged.
And just because a woman is young does not mean she can find a man to impregnate her. And I am perfectly aware of how difficult it is a for a man of any age to find a woman to carry a child to full term and then raise the child together or that an older man is not guaranteed to be attractive--and yet, despite this, young women find men to do so all the time, and old men father children all the time. And I'm not really sure where you're getting at with Monica Bellucci.The Corinthian wrote: »And any gender privilege isn't simply limited to some narrow biological definition that suits your own conclusions, but a far wider and more complex series of pros and cons that also involve age and other factors. So fundamentally, your entire argument is nonsense in the end.
Thank you for the lecture sir. I think you understand perfectly well that I'm generalizing about what men and women put at the top of the list when it comes to choosing a partner and that what's at the top of a man's is much more superficial. And now that we're narrowing it down, we're getting to the core of my argument, which is that male privilege is inherent or biological or genetic. The point you brought up earlier about testosterone weakening the immune system is highly debatable, but we know that women have to endure for their biology. All the male biological disadvantages that people have listed, I can counter.The Corinthian wrote: »But do come back in 5, 10, or better yet, 15 years time, and you might have a basis for your own biased World view, as your anecdotal evidence might be a bit more credible then
Do you really need me to come back then? Like you can't talk to middle-aged women in your peer group and conclude that men do not have to suffer intrinsically for their biology, and that they have a distinct privilege because of that? Maybe intrinsically isn't the right word. Maybe genetically is better. And I'm still going back to hatrick's argument that male privilege does not exist for the following reasons, and that those reasons do not, in any way, prove that male privilege does not exist.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »The pros and cons are inherently incomparable - there is no objective way to compare them, to determine if 'on balance' one group is more privileged than another.
Different groups are privileged in different ways, depending on what specific issue you're looking at - it makes sense neither to hold these instances up as examples of privilege overall, nor to try and rebut them using incomparable counterexamples of how the group is less privileged in other ways.
And yet, historically, male "chivalry" existed to give women a helping hand. Why would that concept exist if women weren't at a distinct disadvantage? And I actually think this debate is great for giving different perspectives.0 -
Actually, pregnancy - the ability to carry a fetus to term - is very much part of fertility. Indeed, a large proportion of infertility issues are due to problems with this.No, you seem to think I'm talking about pregnancy and motherhood, but I'm not. I'm talking about fertility.
But what it comes down to now is that you've rarefied your argument into such a narrow scope that, as I already pointed out, it's lost all meaning. Your "very specific answer" cannot demonstrate male privilege, all it can do is, at most, demonstrate male advantage in a very specific area.
That's not true. If a younger woman goes out with the intention of finding a man to have sex will, she will. She may not have much of a choice, in some cases, but she will still have a choice to end the evening with sex or not. A man, may, but his options are a fraction of those of a woman.No woman gets to "pick and choose" as you say. And by the way, there is a significant portion of older women out there, who, no matter how much they lower their standards, do not have a choice, simply because of the ratios involved.
This imbalance begins to reverse with age, but you would have to be in serious denial to believe that certainly in youth, and even potentially later, that the options for choice for a woman far outweigh mens'.
Really? How many 65-year olds have you dated?No, I'm saying that men are not disadvantaged when younger--I'm saying that men can peak at any age they choose, depending on life circumstances, which is why they are able to father children at any age.
I never said it peaks. I said that the imbalance in relative attractiveness begins to reverse with age, I never said why, let alone suggest a peak.Isn't this why they are biologically able to do so? Why would "mother nature" make it so men can father children at any age, if men's attractiveness peaks at only a certain age?
Why would my own experience be worth more? Why is her experience worth less than yours? 'Come on' is not a valid reason.You expect me to take a social experiment that concludes that women treat men "like dirt" seriously? Come on. If it had been your own experiment, maybe I would take it into consideration.
You said older women are also expendable. But for men, we're expendable at all ages.You said men are expendable--I contend that women are too, so that societal disadvantage can apply to women too.
No, now you're speculating to suit your agenda. I tend to be very specific with my language, not just here, so I think not.Yes, I understand you're talking in general terms to avoid a warning from the mods--so seriously, I knew exactly what you were implying.
Did you present any other evidence?The entire argument on my own experiences? Yeah right.
That we live shorter lives on average is superficial? That vast areas of law, especially family law, are biased against us is superficial? That we take up almost all of the most unpleasant and dangerous roles, account for over 90% of work related deaths, is superficial? Now you're just being offensive.Thank you for the lecture sir. I think you understand perfectly well that I'm generalizing about what men and women put at the top of the list when it comes to choosing a partner and that what's at the top of a man's is much more superficial.
Oh, we have an advantage there, no doubt, but that does not suddenly make us privileged and that's where your logic falls short.Do you really need me to come back then? Like you can't talk to middle-aged women in your peer group and conclude that men do not have to suffer intrinsically for their biology, and that they have a distinct privilege because of that?
Male, or female or any other, privilege is not having one advantage over another. I could argue that the ability to carry a child to term or a longer average lifespan is a biological advantage for women, or the biases in family law are social ones - and conclude that female privilege is alive an well.
But that would be nonsense because it does not prove anything at all except for that advantage, not that women are 'privileged' or not.
Most middle-aged women in my peer group realize this. That sure, they get the short end of the stick on some things, but men get the short end on many others. That privilege cannot simply be defined in biological terms, but social, legal, economic and political ones. That just because their gender has lucked out in one area, that the grass is magically greener for the other.
So maybe, if you do come back in 10, 15 or 20 years time, you'll have realized this. Built up a greater store of anecdotal evidence and will not focus on one thing and conclude how life's unfair for you because of it.
Life's unfair for everyone.0 -
Advertisement
-
On the fretility arguement, cant women freeze their eggs and then get a surrogate just like a man?0
-
Potatoeman wrote: »On the fretility arguement, cant women freeze their eggs and then get a surrogate just like a man?
Millionaires can.0 -
-
Potatoeman wrote: »Is it that expensive?
Yep its expensive....and then what follows is expensive...IVF- sperm donation...it adds up. Surrogacy.0 -
It's expensive, but a lot less than you'd think. Eggs cost about 5k (Spain or Russia), IVF about 7k, but the surrogacy will come to around 35k - 60k I believe. So one could do it for under 100k.Potatoeman wrote: »Is it that expensive?
Probably cheaper than 18 years in family court.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »It's expensive, but a lot less than you'd think. Eggs cost about 5k (Spain or Russia), IVF about 7k, but the surrogacy will come to around 35k - 60k I believe. So one could do it for under 100k.
Probably cheaper than 18 years in family court.
But how much is it to freeze your eggs?
The down side to all this of course is no natural selection. Petri dish people.0 -
About 100.- p.a. Varies, just as eggs will cost 5k in one country and 25k in another.zeffabelli wrote: »But how much is it to freeze your eggs?
No, the selection process would be more akin to OKCupid people, from what I gather.The down side to all this of course is no natural selection. Petri dish people.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »About 100.- p.a. Varies, just as eggs will cost 5k in one country and 25k in another.
No, the selection process would be more akin to OKCupid people, from what I gather.
YEah....that still seems eh....I don't know what to say about that......
It's E 100 a year to freeze your eggs?
What's the cost of extraction in the first place?
Either way, this is not male or female privalege, this is people who have money privalage but produce humans that are not the products of natural selection, which would seem to me to be biologically underprivaleged.
Every silver lining has a cloud.
...and then there's of course the amnio after all that money and hope....0 -
I'd imagine so. It seems to be something like that to freeze eggs, sperm, stem cells, etc.zeffabelli wrote: »It's E 100 a year to freeze your eggs?
No idea.What's the cost of extraction in the first place?
I don't know. If we choose simply based upon inheritable traits and are not clouded by concerns of amicability or emotion, it may be closer to the ruthless Darwinian ideal than conventional reproduction.Either way, this is not male or female privalege, this is people who have money privalage but produce humans that are not the products of natural selection, which would seem to me to be biologically underprivaleged.
After all, we can hardly say that the species is getting smarter given the popularity of reality TV.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I'd imagine so. It seems to be something like that to freeze eggs, sperm, stem cells, etc.
No idea.
I don't know. If we choose simply based upon inheritable traits and are not clouded by concerns of amicability or emotion, it may be closer to the ruthless Darwinian ideal than conventional reproduction.
After all, we can hardly say that the species is getting smarter given the popularity of reality TV.
Well I don't know what happens in the lab...does it simulate the competition of the sperm and the egg's practise of selection...I genuinely don't know...
Amicability and emotion are part of the ruthless Darwinian ideal....not at all seperate from it..but that may be another thread.0 -
Advertisement
-
The costs are in the below article. Surrogacy would seem to be the real cost.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/healthandlife/yourhealth/is-egg-freezing-birth-of-new-worker-right-295648.html
Egg freezing is available in Ireland and costs €3,000 for the initial removal of the eggs. There is a further annual charge of €300 for storage.
Here’s how it works: Highly potent fertility drugs are administered over a two-week period in order to stimulate the ovaries to produce multiple and healthy eggs. There is regular medical supervision during this time as well as ultrasounds to monitor the safe development of the eggs.
Steps are also taken to minimise side effects such as hot flushes, restlessness, headaches and irritation.
The eggs are collected in a surgical procedure which takes place under sedation and lasts for approximately 20 minutes. During the procedure, an embryologist inserts a fine needle into the ovaries via the vagina and lifts out the eggs.
The eggs are then rapidly frozen and stored. Theoretically, they can be stored for as long as the women wish.0 -
Potatoeman wrote: »The costs are in the below article. Surrogacy would seem to be the real cost.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/healthandlife/yourhealth/is-egg-freezing-birth-of-new-worker-right-295648.html
Egg freezing is available in Ireland and costs €3,000 for the initial removal of the eggs. There is a further annual charge of €300 for storage.
Here’s how it works: Highly potent fertility drugs are administered over a two-week period in order to stimulate the ovaries to produce multiple and healthy eggs. There is regular medical supervision during this time as well as ultrasounds to monitor the safe development of the eggs.
Steps are also taken to minimise side effects such as hot flushes, restlessness, headaches and irritation.
The eggs are collected in a surgical procedure which takes place under sedation and lasts for approximately 20 minutes. During the procedure, an embryologist inserts a fine needle into the ovaries via the vagina and lifts out the eggs.
The eggs are then rapidly frozen and stored. Theoretically, they can be stored for as long as the women wish.
9% success rate.0 -
[quote="The Corinthi
556644"]It's expensive, but a lot less than you'd think. Eggs cost about 5k (Spain or Russia), IVF about 7k, but the surrogacy will come to around 35k - 60k I believe. So one could do it for under 100k.
Probably cheaper than 18 years in family court.[/quote]
If it works. My boyfriend's sister ( spanish) recently had 3 rounds of IVF. 15k each round. Pregnant now on third go.
Depends how reputable the set up is, I assume like all private treatment here.0 -
TheBeardedLady wrote: »If it works. My boyfriend's sister ( spanish) recently had 3 rounds of IVF. 15k each round. Pregnant now on third go.
A friend of mine lost her toddler to a drowning in the family pool, and she was 43 at the time. The grief broke up the marriage. She was desperately seeking IVF to have another child, but the laws of France forbid a woman of that age to get reproductive assistance, I imagine Spain is not dissimilar.
I actually agree with the French on that....0 -
No, actually much more liberal although 40 tends to be the cut-off age in general as the clinics have averages to keep up.zeffabelli wrote: »I imagine Spain is not dissimilar.0 -
zeffabelli wrote: »A friend of mine lost her toddler to a drowning in the family pool, and she was 43 at the time. The grief broke up the marriage. She was desperately seeking IVF to have another child, but the laws of France forbid a woman of that age to get reproductive assistance, I imagine Spain is not dissimilar.
I actually agree with the French on that....
The boyfriend's sister is 43 (and a half).0 -
TheBeardedLady wrote: »If it works. My boyfriend's sister ( spanish) recently had 3 rounds of IVF. 15k each round. Pregnant now on third go.
Depends how reputable the set up is, I assume like all private treatment here.
Mistake I made on my phone above. Not 15k but 5k.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, pregnancy - the ability to carry a fetus to term - is very much part of fertility. Indeed, a large proportion of infertility issues are due to problems with this.
Yes, I understand that pregnancy falls under the umbrella of fertility. But I'm not talking about that. I am speaking of two sexually mature adults who are both physically capable of producing children, but, for whatever reason, decide not to. Who has to intrinsically endure for their fertility, whether or not they decide to use it? And what is comparable for men?The Corinthian wrote: »But what it comes down to now is that you've rarefied your argument into such a narrow scope that, as I already pointed out, it's lost all meaning. Your "very specific answer" cannot demonstrate male privilege, all it can do is, at most, demonstrate male advantage in a very specific area.
Privilege is defined as a right or immunity. Men are immune from intrinsically enduring for their fertility. All the other biological advantages/disadvantages you mention, I can counter.The Corinthian wrote: »That's not true. If a younger woman goes out with the intention of finding a man to have sex will, she will. She may not have much of a choice, in some cases, but she will still have a choice to end the evening with sex or not. A man, may, but his options are a fraction of those of a woman.
You seem to be harboring under the illusion (or delusion) that women are the gatekeepers to sex. Up until a short while ago, I would have agreed. But now, I realize that men hold ultimate control when it comes to sex. At the end of the evening, if a man wants sex, he can get it. Not legally, but there are countries in this world where men are free to do so.The Corinthian wrote: »This imbalance begins to reverse with age, but you would have to be in serious denial to believe that certainly in youth, and even potentially later, that the options for choice for a woman far outweigh mens'.
And yet you agree with the post that stated that "age is unattractive and that women do not find middle-aged men attractive". Are you telling me that women who date men who are older than them do not find those men attractive? So that imbalance does not reverse with age, that imbalance can occur at any time in a man's life--it's just usually while he's young.The Corinthian wrote: »Really? How many 65-year olds have you dated?
And what is this supposed to prove? I know girls who have dated much older men, if that helps you--in fact, every woman I know has, by the time she's reached a certain age, dated a man significantly older than her. I have no idea of their specific ages.The Corinthian wrote: »Why would my own experience be worth more? Why is her experience worth less than yours? 'Come on' is not a valid reason.
Her experience is worth less because she came to the ridiculous conclusion that women treat men like dirt; it's not a conclusion, it's an opinion (and a totally wrong one).The Corinthian wrote: »You said older women are also expendable. But for men, we're expendable at all ages.
Actually, men are not expendable at all ages. Men are needed just as much to propagate the species. We have to get the sperm from someone.The Corinthian wrote: »No, now you're speculating to suit your agenda. I tend to be very specific with my language, not just here, so I think not.
Oh, well, in that case, you seem like the type of middle-aged guy who got screwed over by an ex and now spends his days in front of a computer preaching to people half his age in an attempt to assert some type of power in his life. No, no, not you specifically, just seemingly.The Corinthian wrote: »Did you present any other evidence?
To what, specifically?The Corinthian wrote: »That we live shorter lives on average is superficial? That vast areas of law, especially family law, are biased against us is superficial? That we take up almost all of the most unpleasant and dangerous roles, account for over 90% of work related deaths, is superficial? Now you're just being offensive.
I wasn't speaking of advantages/disadvantages. I was speaking of what men and women find most attractive in the opposite sex--and what is at the top of men's lists is superficial.The Corinthian wrote: »Oh, we have an advantage there, no doubt, but that does not suddenly make us privileged and that's where your logic falls short.
Privilege is an immunity. Men are immune from enduring for their fertility, so, yes, that makes you privileged.The Corinthian wrote: »Male, or female or any other, privilege is not having one advantage over another. I could argue that the ability to carry a child to term or a longer average lifespan is a biological advantage for women, or the biases in family law are social ones - and conclude that female privilege is alive an well.
And for those two things you mention, I can counter. Can you give one specific example for the thing I mentioned above?The Corinthian wrote: »Most middle-aged women in my peer group realize this. That sure, they get the short end of the stick on some things, but men get the short end on many others. That privilege cannot simply be defined in biological terms, but social, legal, economic and political ones. That just because their gender has lucked out in one area, that the grass is magically greener for the other.
You sure about that? I know some older women who have been single for a long time, they are doing nothing wrong, and there is nothing they can do, and yes, they conclude how much easier it is for men than it is for women--not all of them do, but some.
And all those things you mention in the second bolded part? Those are completely up to the society people live in and change throughout history, so they are never constant. Biology, however, is constant. For now.The Corinthian wrote: »So maybe, if you do come back in 10, 15 or 20 years time, you'll have realized this. Built up a greater store of anecdotal evidence and will not focus on one thing and conclude how life's unfair for you because of it.
Why thank you wise guru. You have enlightened me beyond all measure. But you really have no idea what I will conclude and nor do I. But I don't say life is unfair for me specifically--I say men are inherently privileged, and that there is no comparison for that privilege.The Corinthian wrote: »Life's unfair for everyone.
Agree that life is unfair for everyone at some point in everyone's life-- but it's more unfair to women, and no, I do not think anything should be done about it.
You know, Corinthian, you've mentioned a couple of times that I have a black and white view of life--but did it ever occur to you that you may have it? The very black and white view of life that says, "In the end, everything equals out, and no one person has it inherently easier than the other"? This idea of equality, while noble, does not necessarily work out in the real world. Why does it pain you so much to admit that one gender may, when all is said and done, have more privilege? Or that evolution may not have worked itself out yet? After all, some species of animals on Earth are inherently weaker, and have inherently more difficult lives than other species. What makes you think this doesn't apply to gender? I'm looking for a genuine answer, no sarcasm please.0 -
You seem to be harboring under the illusion (or delusion) that women are the gatekeepers to sex. Up until a short while ago, I would have agreed. But now, I realize that men hold ultimate control when it comes to sex. At the end of the evening, if a man wants sex, he can get it. Not legally, but there are countries in this world where men are free to do so.
This is a good thing, no real fakeness and games to have sex, the men don't face rape charges if the woman regrets it the next morning. Also in the end the woman has the power she is the one selling her body she chooses that sex will happen or not.0 -
Advertisement
-
At the end of the evening in what ways can men guarantee that they get set without paying for it? Most women could guarantee tee they get set for free.
I disagree that "life is more unfair for women". Perhaps in the third world, not in the first world. You say women "have to endure" for their fertility, men have to endure to become more atractive. For all that enduring women do, they get the joy of having their baby grow inside them and the joy of the bond that comes with that, a "privilege" men don't have.
This joy is also a significant health risk, even to this day, and used to be the number one killer of women.
It also compromised your job security, your mobility, your finances, and your body.
So let's not get too sentimental about it.0
Advertisement