White Male Privilege

DoYouEvenLift

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I would say femininity is just as much in crisis,what feminism did as well as free women from traditional roles it also freed men from theirs.sexual liberation meant "why buy the cow,when the milk is for free" and I think a lot of women are finding themselves on the wrong side of thirty that were probably expecting prince charming to come riding into town the day after they turned thirty and marry them.

Don't forget the 'baggage', aka bastards. Lol.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

The concept has clearly been explained on numerous occasions but there are still posters saying 'Well there are rich black people, aren't they more privileged than poor whites?' Well yes, financially, but they will still suffer more racism in their lives than a white person. That´s white privilege.

hatrickpatrick

the evasion_kid wrote: »

"why buy the cow,when the milk is for free"

Personally I find the whole ideology behind that concept incredibly toxic, as it condones the use of sex as a currency. I wholeheartedly agree with the feminist argument that a man is not "owed" sex because he buys dinner or anything like that, but conversely the idea that sex is something from a woman which a man has to "repay" somehow is equally toxic.

To be honest, I think that in this context everyone is in crisis for one simple reason: Economic meltdown combined with increased life expectancy has meant that starting a family at a young age is neither an attractive nor financially viable option for many people, but medicine hasn't made enough advances yet that longer fertility can match increased life expectancy.

However… This gets into another area which as a man very much angers and dismays me, and that is that it's apparently ok for women to write ranty "news" articles about how they can't exercise their "right" to have kids because "men won't co-operate", as if the idea of a man as a sperm back is somehow a responsibility every man has, that a man not wanting to do that is somehow not a valid life choice. Reverse the genders and there would be uproar - "I want to have kids but I can't find a woman willing to do that with me, so my conclusion is that women suck". Feminists would rightly respond that no woman owes any man anything sexually or relationship wise, which is true.

I posted a thread not too long ago about Rosana Davison writing a column condoning paternity fraud. There's a case going on at the moment in the US in which a man wants access to some frozen embryos from a past relationship, the woman doesn't want him to, and there's a huge court battle around it. What's striking to me is that the official women's forum on Reddit is full of people justifying, on biological grounds, why different standards should be applied (a man shouldn't be able to veto the use of his embryos by a woman because she only has a limited amount of time to have kids, but in this case the man should just grow up and find someone else) - I find such arguments abhorrent as a man, as they again suggest that my role is to, whether I like it or not, provide certain functions - but women can opt to provide their gendered functions or not, and either choice is to be commended. So a woman who decides not to do any of these things is strong and independent, but a man who opts out of his gender expectations is "childish", "immature", "peter pan syndrome'd", etc.

In the context of the "privilege" argument, this is why I find it toxic. Men, at the moment, are being widely villified from every angle by society and the media. Growing up as a man, you're surrounded by the message that there's something wrong with you, or that you're a villain who just hasn't committed his crimes yet. And then, when you try to object to any of this, you have to put up with people saying "ah, you have male privilege unlike women, they're clearly the ones who are discriminated against in our society so get over yourself and shut up".

In short - "privilege" is used to invalidate a person's concerns about discrimination against their social group, and shame them into not talking about them. And in any context, that is wrong. I'm sure that wasn't what was originally intended by those who invented the concept of privilege, but that is certainly what it has become, to the point at which hearing the phrase "male privilege" simple means "Ah yes, another person trying to ram the idea down my throat that any discrimination I face is either irrelevant or somehow deserved".

DoYouEvenLift

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I find the whole ideology behind that concept incredibly toxic, as it condones the use of sex as a currency. I wholeheartedly agree with the feminist argument that a man is not "owed" sex because he buys dinner or anything like that, but conversely the idea that sex is something from a woman which a man has to "repay" somehow is equally toxic.

To be honest, I think that in this context everyone is in crisis for one simple reason: Economic meltdown combined with increased life expectancy has meant that starting a family at a young age is neither an attractive nor financially viable option for many people, but medicine hasn't made enough advances yet that longer fertility can match increased life expectancy.

However… This gets into another area which as a man very much angers and dismays me, and that is that it's apparently ok for women to write ranty "news" articles about how they can't exercise their "right" to have kids because "men won't co-operate", as if the idea of a man as a sperm back is somehow a responsibility every man has, that a man not wanting to do that is somehow not a valid life choice. Reverse the genders and there would be uproar - "I want to have kids but I can't find a woman willing to do that with me, so my conclusion is that women suck". Feminists would rightly respond that no woman owes any man anything sexually or relationship wise, which is true.

I posted a thread not too long ago about Rosana Davison writing a column condoning paternity fraud. There's a case going on at the moment in the US in which a man wants access to some frozen embryos from a past relationship, the woman doesn't want him to, and there's a huge court battle around it. What's striking to me is that the official women's forum on Reddit is full of people justifying, on biological grounds, why different standards should be applied (a man shouldn't be able to veto the use of his embryos by a woman because she only has a limited amount of time to have kids, but in this case the man should just grow up and find someone else) - I find such arguments abhorrent as a man, as they again suggest that my role is to, whether I like it or not, provide certain functions - but women can opt to provide their gendered functions or not, and either choice is to be commended. So a woman who decides not to do any of these things is strong and independent, but a man who opts out of his gender expectations is "childish", "immature", "peter pan syndrome'd", etc.

In the context of the "privilege" argument, this is why I find it toxic. Men, at the moment, are being widely villified from every angle by society and the media. Growing up as a man, you're surrounded by the message that there's something wrong with you, or that you're a villain who just hasn't committed his crimes yet. And then, when you try to object to any of this, you have to put up with people saying "ah, you have male privilege unlike women, they're clearly the ones who are discriminated against in our society so get over yourself and shut up".

In short - "privilege" is used to invalidate a person's concerns about discrimination against their social group, and shame them into not talking about them. And in any context, that is wrong. I'm sure that wasn't what was originally intended by those who invented the concept of privilege, but that is certainly what it has become, to the point at which hearing the phrase "male privilege" simple means "Ah yes, another person trying to ram the idea down my throat that any discrimination I face is either irrelevant or somehow deserved".

the evasion_kid

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I find the whole ideology behind that concept incredibly toxic, as it condones the use of sex as a currency. I wholeheartedly agree with the feminist argument that a man is not "owed" sex because he buys dinner or anything like that, but conversely the idea that sex is something from a woman which a man has to "repay" somehow is equally toxic.

To be honest, I think that in this context everyone is in crisis for one simple reason: Economic meltdown combined with increased life expectancy has meant that starting a family at a young age is neither an attractive nor financially viable option for many people, but medicine hasn't made enough advances yet that longer fertility can match increased life expectancy.

However… This gets into another area which as a man very much angers and dismays me, and that is that it's apparently ok for women to write ranty "news" articles about how they can't exercise their "right" to have kids because "men won't co-operate", as if the idea of a man as a sperm back is somehow a responsibility every man has, that a man not wanting to do that is somehow not a valid life choice. Reverse the genders and there would be uproar - "I want to have kids but I can't find a woman willing to do that with me, so my conclusion is that women suck". Feminists would rightly respond that no woman owes any man anything sexually or relationship wise, which is true.

I posted a thread not too long ago about Rosana Davison writing a column condoning paternity fraud. There's a case going on at the moment in the US in which a man wants access to some frozen embryos from a past relationship, the woman doesn't want him to, and there's a huge court battle around it. What's striking to me is that the official women's forum on Reddit is full of people justifying, on biological grounds, why different standards should be applied (a man shouldn't be able to veto the use of his embryos by a woman because she only has a limited amount of time to have kids, but in this case the man should just grow up and find someone else) - I find such arguments abhorrent as a man, as they again suggest that my role is to, whether I like it or not, provide certain functions - but women can opt to provide their gendered functions or not, and either choice is to be commended. So a woman who decides not to do any of these things is strong and independent, but a man who opts out of his gender expectations is "childish", "immature", "peter pan syndrome'd", etc.

In the context of the "privilege" argument, this is why I find it toxic. Men, at the moment, are being widely villified from every angle by society and the media. Growing up as a man, you're surrounded by the message that there's something wrong with you, or that you're a villain who just hasn't committed his crimes yet. And then, when you try to object to any of this, you have to put up with people saying "ah, you have male privilege unlike women, they're clearly the ones who are discriminated against in our society so get over yourself and shut up".

In short - "privilege" is used to invalidate a person's concerns about discrimination against their social group, and shame them into not talking about them. And in any context, that is wrong. I'm sure that wasn't what was originally intended by those who invented the concept of privilege, but that is certainly what it has become, to the point at which hearing the phrase "male privilege" simple means "Ah yes, another person trying to ram the idea down my throat that any discrimination I face is either irrelevant or somehow deserved".

Meh I could go on and on about this but I'll leave this here its hits on a number of points

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1ifNaNABY

Lyaiera

bb1234567 wrote: »

Spoken like a true meninist!

Is that sarcasm?

I really don't think saying that women have found freedom in fighting patriarchy while men are lost and confused because they're starting to realise their privileged identity is no longer tolerable in a modern society is a very meninist thing to say.

tritium

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The concept has clearly been explained on numerous occasions but there are still posters saying 'Well there are rich black people, aren't they more privileged than poor whites?' Well yes, financially, but they will still suffer more racism in their lives than a white person. That´s white privilege.

So white privilege is racism now? I think youd struggle to have such a simplistic definition accepted even by proponents of the concept. As is standard when people defend a nonsense concept like white privilege, its assumed that all the adversity a group faces can be distilled down to race. Similarly male privilege assumes some sort of patriarchal oppression and the heart of the world. Yet clearly wealth and class are hugely significant denoters of social status, I'd argue to a far greater degree than race or gender

Dangerous Man

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The concept has clearly been explained on numerous occasions but there are still posters saying 'Well there are rich black people, aren't they more privileged than poor whites?' Well yes, financially, but they will still suffer more racism in their lives than a white person. That´s white privilege.

Here's why the theory is nonsense. By this measure, a white man living on the street has it better than a black lawyer because you assume that racism, or the lack thereof is a better indicator of privilege. You have also hardwired the erroneous assumption into your argument that racism is the worst form of discrimination or hardship a person can face. That's not been established by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, let's take a look at homelessness, it's a social malady that affects all ethnicities.

In any case, if you're living on the street you likely have:

1: No education
2: A history of violence
3: A mental illness caused by traumatic head injury (recent studies show that most homeless men - I say men deliberately because homelessness is overwhelmingly a male problem - have been concussed in the past leading to undiagnosed mental conditions)
4: ZERO access to the power structures that whites are alleged to have in abundance over other ethnicities
5: Very little money
6: Very little food
7: No shelter
8: An incredibly high chance of being physically attacked - often for no reason at all
9: Substance abuse issues / alcoholism / drug dependency
10: Criminal record
11: No immediate access to healthcare, or none at all depending on the country you're in


I could go on with this but I'm sure you get the point. Now, if you try to tell me - or anybody with a functioning brain that a white homeless man has privilege, well, I don't think you're honestly evaluating the situation. You have to admit that a white homeless man doesn't enjoy any sort of privilege. The only possible privilege he could enjoy would be a privilege over other members of the same group and even that's a stretch. The conditions of homelessness are so dehumanizing and so awful that it's exceptionally difficult to see how a white homeless person could benefit in any meaningful way ahead of any other homeless ethnicity. But if that were true, it actually serves to show another reason why the theory is absolute bollocks - privilege is not strong enough to leapfrog social groups and that white people only enjoy privilege among their peers, those of an equal social standing. (Nudderwords, it's not nearly as pervasive as some would like to think and it only confers advantages in limited circumstances. And even that is still amazingly unlikely.)

After you do that you can start going to other groups of people and you'll soon see that once you start actually EXAMINING people's lives - privilege, a nice neat theory put together by academics, is pretty much removed from reality.

It's also an incredibly dangerous theory, because it creates division and breeds resentment - the exact kind of conditions where racists, such as this one, are encouraged to flourish openly http://socawlege.com/boston-university-assistant-professor-saida-grundy-attacks-whites-makes-false-statements-on-twitter/

Another problem with the theory is more general, but still applicable; that is, once you start making statements about any ethnicity, you annihilate the individual experiences of human beings living as part of that group. When you start thinking of people as elements of a demographic, as units in an equation, you rob them of their humanity. Once that's achieved, it becomes much easier to take things one step further. Look at what Grundy says in the article I linked to - imagine studying at Boston University and imagine that a paid professor there is saying these things about you. Imagine that there are others, her students, who agree with her. Imagine what those people think of you. They resent you now - because of the colour of your skin.

The theory of white privilege isn't just wrong - it's incredibly dangerous. Some people get on board due to guilt, or because they have good intentions. But others are downright racist and are looking to stoke divisions. Some of them just happen to be university professors.

hatrickpatrick

Bergzwei wrote: »

Masculinity is not in crisis whatever that even means. Anyone who doesn't "know who they are" is an idiot. You are a human being, simple as that, don't try to define yourself.

Masculinity is in crisis because boys are growing up seeing their gender villified and demonized everywhere, from school to the media, while girls are held up as some kind of gold standard.

Have a read of my post above about family planning for instance. The number of articles condemning men for refusing to fulfil their "biological obligations to women" is absolutely insane. If it was reversed, there would (rightfully!) be uproar.

hatrickpatrick

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The concept has clearly been explained on numerous occasions but there are still posters saying 'Well there are rich black people, aren't they more privileged than poor whites?' Well yes, financially, but they will still suffer more racism in their lives than a white person. That´s white privilege.

And the reason this is bullsh!t and causes controversy when applied to "male privilege" is because it suggests that men will suffer less sexism in their lives than women. And this is blatantly untrue.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tritium wrote: »

So white privilege is racism now? As is standard when people defend a nonsense concept like white privilege, its assumed that all the adversity a group faces can be distilled down to race. Similarly male privilege assumes some sort of patriarchal oppression and the heart of the world. Yet clearly wealth and class are hugely significant denoters of social status, I'd argue to a far greater degree than race or gender

Race and gender are the most visible things, and the things that people can most easily hook on to and shout about without having to think too much, and without have to do boring things like read books and build consistent arguments. Also most of the people shouting those arguments tend to be have wealth and class in common rather than race or gender. As a group they can claim victim status and shout oppression about race and gender, and it suits them to deflect attention from wealth and class.

Foxtrol

Shenshen wrote: »

My particular agenda would be to further equality, male and female, white and non-white, old and young.

In order to be effective at that, it's necessary to recognise that inequality exist, and then find out exactly where and why.

The whole "white male privilege" is very much centered around financial achievement and power. So when you're looking at how to level the playing field in those areas, acknowledging the fact that white males get dealt the better hand isn't about guilt, it's just recognising reality.

With all other things being equal this just isn't the case.

White men don't inherently get a better deal in our society (or most Western societies for that matter) when everything else is equal.

the evasion_kid

Bergzwei wrote: »

Men are being unfairly discriminated and treated as second class citizens in the western world, that does not mean masculinity is in crisis, feminine men are also treated unfairly.

Feminised men are a side effect of feminism,its men that listen to feminists version of what a man should be,which gets them.....yup you guessed it STEAMROLLED, if there is a lesson to be learnt from this its don't look to feminism for dating advice.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Here's why the theory is nonsense. By this measure, a white man living on the street has it better than a black lawyer because you assume that racism, or the lack thereof is a better indicator of privilege. You have also hardwired the erroneous assumption into your argument that racism is the worst form of discrimination or hardship a person can face. That's not been established by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, let's take a look at homelessness, it's a social malady that affects all ethnicities.

Well, in most countries with large black populations, such as the US or Brazil, black people are disproportionately affected by homelessness, something you seem to have overlooked.

Anyway, I never said that racism is the best indicator of privilege, so stop putting words in my mouth.There are clearly other forms of privilege, race being just one. What I do believe is that being white opens doors that are often closed to other races and makes life that bit easier. Hence the increased poverty and homelessness I already mentioned.

Your post is actually a prime example of what I previously complained about. You either completely lack any kind of reading comprehension ability or you are wilfully ignoring the points made.

Cuban Pete

Bergzwei wrote: »

Men are being unfairly discriminated and treated as second class citizens in the western world, that does not mean masculinity is in crisis, feminine men are also treated unfairly.

By other men, typically.

osarusan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Masculinity is in crisis

Mine isn't.

I doubt I'm the only one either.

desertcircus

I see the poisonous use of the term SJW as an epithet is spreading. Good. More names to add to the ignore list.

desertcircus

I'm a straight white man. I have never been assaulted as a result of my sexuality, race or gender. I have never seriously feared being assaulted as a result of my race, sexuality or gender. I have never had my abilities questioned on the basis of my race, sexuality or gender.

There are problems that come down heavier on men than on women, but they're vastly outnumbered by the reverse. Same for heterosexuals and homosexuals, same for white people and nonwhite people. Being a straight white man affords privileges and advantages other people simply don't get.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

desertcircus wrote: »

I see the poisonous use of the term SJW as an epithet is spreading. Good. More names to add to the ignore list.

I use and I'm a liberal feminist, I don't see any problem with it. It's an apt term to distinguish a certain brand of entitled attention-seeking nonsense from legitimate activism and commentary.

the evasion_kid

Bergzwei wrote: »

If they are listening to feminists as to how they should be then they weren't masculine to begin with, masculine men can think for themselves and won't be brainwashed.

The funniest part is feminists tend to treat these men with contempt or view them as weak,talk about reaping what you sow.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm a straight white man. I have never been assaulted as a result of my sexuality, race or gender. I have never seriously feared being assaulted as a result of my race, sexuality or gender. I have never had my abilities questioned on the basis of my race, sexuality or gender.

There are problems that come down heavier on men than on women, but they're vastly outnumbered by the reverse. Same for heterosexuals and homosexuals, same for white people and nonwhite people. Being a straight white man affords privileges and advantages other people simply don't get.

But see, in a western context the things that come down heavily on men tend to be pretty serious things. Take Ireland, I'm a woman and I'd like to see more female representation in the Oireachtas, in University staff, and in other areas of public life*. I see that as a legitimate feminist concern, and I don't agree that it can be dismissed because men also face discrimination in this country. But, if I were a man, I'd be potentially facing issues like inequal access to cancer screening, access to my children, higher risk of dying from mental health issues, almost total lack of support if I'm raped or domestically abused.

*probably best not to open the abortion can of worms

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

the evasion_kid wrote: »

The funniest part is feminists tend to treat these men with contempt or view them as weak,talk about reaping what you sow.

What are you basing that observation on? Or are you just going on a general slagging rant against feminists?

Foxtrol

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm a straight white man. I have never been assaulted as a result of my sexuality, race or gender. I have never seriously feared being assaulted as a result of my race, sexuality or gender. I have never had my abilities questioned on the basis of my race, sexuality or gender.

There are problems that come down heavier on men than on women, but they're vastly outnumbered by the reverse. Same for heterosexuals and homosexuals, same for white people and nonwhite people. Being a straight white man affords privileges and advantages other people simply don't get.

They really aren't.

From your examples there, white men regularly get assaulted due to their skin colour in UK/US and there are plenty of men in female populated employment that have their abilities questioned due to their gender.

On the contrary I've yet to see a case where there is AA towards hiring/promoting/access to university/electoral positions for white men as there is towards women and other races. Whereas there are issues for all races and genders, white men seem to be the only ones where there is never an attempt to counteract it.

the evasion_kid

Clyde Strong Anger wrote: »

What are you basing that observation on? Or are you just going on a general slagging rant against feminists?

Just my observation,women like masculine men not doormats don't think that's a state secret

Nate--IRL--

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm a straight white man. I have never been assaulted as a result of my sexuality, race or gender. I have never seriously feared being assaulted as a result of my race, sexuality or gender. I have never had my abilities questioned on the basis of my race, sexuality or gender.

There are problems that come down heavier on men than on women, but they're vastly outnumbered by the reverse. Same for heterosexuals and homosexuals, same for white people and nonwhite people. Being a straight white man affords privileges and advantages other people simply don't get.

So the fact that you've never been assaulted, feared being assaulted, or had your abilities questioned is because you are a white straight male? There are no other possible reasons for this?

Just because you attribute the above to being a white straight male, doesn't make it so.

Nate

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Just my observation,women like masculine men not doormats don't think that's a state secret

Why is masculine on one end of the scale and doormat on the other? What traits are you referring to when you say masculine?

Please try not to use the word feminism or feminists in your answer

Lyaiera

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Masculinity is in crisis because boys are growing up seeing their gender villified and demonized everywhere, from school to the media, while girls are held up as some kind of gold standard.

This thread is the perfect example of masculinity in crisis. And it's not because men are vilified, it's because archaic notions of what it means to be a man are vilified. Women have been given freedom because they fought against what women were defined as. A lot of men are struggling to hold on to an idea of what it means to be a man, what makes them men, rather than looking at what makes them a good person.

I think the perfect example of this is parental rights. Women are still expected to be the primary care givers, that they are natural carers, and this puts down women. But it equally puts down men. Because the idea of a man looking after a young child is looked down on. Woman don't want the presumption that they are just baby machines, and some man (and I would say a lot of men) don't want the presumption that they're just thers to provide. But still a lot of people would strongly hold to the notion that men do exist to provide. There's even been people talking in AH's threads about biologically differences in the sexes to assert as much.

Where the crises comes in is that women broadly agree that they are not primarily destined to be mothers (at least within certain social groups) or destined for anything. That they have the right to choose. Men often aren't given the basic freedom to choose to be a primary care giver. If you go back to a thread a few months ago about men working in Creches a lot of other men said they'd be suspicious of them, only a few women said that. Women know that woman can and should choose what they want, to be a mother, carer, nurse, doctor, etc. Men don't have that freedom. And I think a lot of people in this thread see that men choosing to reject stereotypical notions of masculinity as an attack on masculinity, and something the evil feminists are bringing about. They're not respecting the decision these men have made.

Eugene Norman

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm a straight white man. I have never been assaulted as a result of my sexuality, race or gender. I have never seriously feared being assaulted as a result of my race, sexuality or gender. I have never had my abilities questioned on the basis of my race, sexuality or gender.

There are problems that come down heavier on men than on women, but they're vastly outnumbered by the reverse. Same for heterosexuals and homosexuals, same for white people and nonwhite people. Being a straight white man affords privileges and advantages other people simply don't get.

Yawn. Class dominates over all of this but is routinely ignored. In parts of Dublin 100% of kids go to university. In other parts 17% do. The gays and the wimmins in the rich parts are vastly more privileged than the poor males.

And people can be beaten up by thugs for any number of reasons. Red hair. Being tall. Being short. And so on.

Your middle class existence isn't "white existence".

Lyaiera

Clyde Strong Anger wrote: »

Why is masculine on one end of the scale and doormat on the other? What traits are you referring to when you say masculine?

Please try not to use the word feminism or feminists in your answer

The opposite of masculine is feminine, and feminine people are for cleaning your boots on!

hatrickpatrick

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm a straight white man. I have never been assaulted as a result of my sexuality, race or gender. I have never seriously feared being assaulted as a result of my race, sexuality or gender. I have never had my abilities questioned on the basis of my race, sexuality or gender.

Speak for yourself. As a man, I am constantly equated in the media with dishonesty, irresponsibility, carelessness, violence, academic inferiority, and hyper sexuality (not a negative trait in women, only in men apparently).

I am also, more seriously, given absolutely no messages by society that I have rights in a relationship and that those rights are as important as those of women.

I don't know if you've ever been in an abusive relationship, but have you any idea what it's like to be stuck in one through blackmail and to come home every day to ads on TV saying "don't be that guy" and teaching men to be ashamed of what they might do, but no equivalent whatsoever for women?

There are problems that come down heavier on men than on women, but they're vastly outnumbered by the reverse.

[citation needed]
This is bull, pure and simple.

Same for heterosexuals and homosexuals, same for white people and nonwhite people.

Both of those categories involve demographic minorities. Gender balance is more or less even, so you cannot apply the same criteria to men and women.

Being a straight white man affords privileges and advantages other people simply don't get.

Being a straight white woman affords privileges and advantages that straight white men simply don't get, which suggests that being female in and of itself infers privilege.