White Male Privilege

zeffabelli wrote: »

Im still waiting for proof of this, especially for short men who are bald, fat and ugly.

Dude, I can give you so many examples it's not even funny. Seen it so many times it's practically a cliche.

strobe wrote: »

Everyone's attractiveness is for the most part earned. If Jessica Elba sat on her arse eating cheesecakes all the time and made no effort with her physical appearance very few men would find her attractive. If Brad Pitt looked like Danny Devito no amount of social standing or success would have lead to him entering a relationship with Angelina Jolie.

Women can't reverse the aging process. Neither can men. Women can't exercise their way to a perfect hip waist ratio, or attractive nose. Men can't earn themselves taller.

Men can improve their social standing and wealth. Women can improve their looks and personality.

How is not eating cheesecake earning something? And Danny Devito certainly could have success with angelina jolie.

Men don't have to reverse the aging process. Nor do they have to be tall.

zeffabelli wrote: »

Please don't call me dude first of all.

You said that you could prove it empirically, so prove it.

Just because you can give me examples, does not mean it has any epistemological stability. Your views are clearly PARTIAL, in both senses of that word, so your prejudicial theories, that you have married your hypothesis, means that you are going to see what you want to see, and selectively abstract to support your perspective.

Empirical proof is proof that is observed. So examples, as in observations, are the only way I can. If you can't be bothered to stop with twisting my words to come to your own conclusions, then why should I continue debating with you? So, you know what Zeffabelli? I'm done with you.

tritium wrote: »

No you've actually fundamentally misunderstood the concept you're trying to explain.


As has already been noted, its not a statistical fallacy. Women have a lower mortality rate at every age. Life expectancy is higher for women than men.

No it means that men have a higher chance of dying at any age, not that they are guaranteed to die younger than women.

tritium wrote: »

There are a range of reasons postulated for this both genetic and social. What is certain is that a significant proportion can be attributed to causes that could be lessened with suitable interventions.

Exactly my point. That that mortality rate is preventable, and not biologically guaranteed.

tritium wrote: »

It does seem rather convenient that anything mentioned as going against men having it easier is a choice, whereas women seem to have no agency in the things that oppress them. Are we to believe women don't choose to wear makeup for example, or that somehow they have less control of the factors they use to compete for a mate in life than men do?

You know I could hurl the same accusations at the posters in here, don't you? And you do not seem to understand the point I am making about biological privileges versus societal privileges.

The only reason I made that post in the way that I did against Hatrick was because I was aping is illogicality.

While we're trying to outdo each other with feats of tolerance, sensitivity and understanding, the insects will win. Oh well! :pac::pac::pac:

strobe wrote: »

Sexually attractive aren't sexually attractive dye to gypsy magic. They earn it by putting the effort into their physical appearance, if they didn't they wouldn't look the way they look.

Men don't have to be tall or under 60 but it certainly helps. Women don't have to be 26 with a perfect hip - waist ratio but it certainly helps.

Well, according to some posters who find young pretty women attractive, and can't help it, then being pretty and young is the only way.

NI24 wrote: »

No it means that men have a higher chance of dying at any age, not that they are guaranteed to die younger than women.

Nobody actually made that (quite ridiculous) assertion. You did however claim something was a statistical fallacy when its demonstratably not (as you've actually conceded above)

Exactly my point. That that mortality rate is preventable, and not biologically guaranteed.

Some may be some may not be, and some parts may satisfy both elements. The jury's still out on some of this, however its existence is well established. So, taking each in turn (biological vs societal)..

How is the preventable (but not prevented) component consistent with male social privilege?

How is the genetic component consistent with male genetic privilege?

NI24 wrote: »

Hold on there cowboy. Where did I say I was interested in fairness and equality? I don't believe in fairness and I certainly won't fight for it. Hatrickpatrick said that boys grow up in a country where male privilege doesn't exist. And that is untrue. And I was giving an argument as to why.

I hear that phrase a lot too!

Ok, so you're not interested in fairness and equality. We might actually be more similar then than I'd originally thought, because fairness and equality doesn't interest me either. I'm more interested in helping people exploit their own potential that I see in them. The whole political posturing of the various ideological positions doesn't interest me. Don't get me wrong, of course men have advantages, and women have advantages too, but it does nobody any good to say they must not only recognise those advantages, but they must disadvantage themselves to have the same lack of opportunities as each other (you mentioned mandatory male sterilisation to leave men with the same lack of opportunities as women). Can you understand just how backwards a step in social progression that would be, not just for men, but for everyone in society?

I don't think you gave that example much thought, but I'm beginning to get the impression that reason is something you seem to have completely abandoned, and so I'm purposely making allowances for preposterous notions in this discussion. You have the privilege that you're able to come out with this sort of nonsense and I'm willing to entertain it just to see what else you come up with.

I think it's grossly unfair to expect business owners to provide leave to new mothers. That's what I'm saying.

Well that doesn't sound very socially progressive? Hillary won't be rolling back on that one any time soon. Business owners are familiar with employment legislation before they ever set up in business, before they ever employ women, and so you can hardly claim it's unfair to business owners that they have to account for their employees welfare. If it hadn't been for those pesky Quakers, employers could still exploit their employees and the social and industrial revolution would never have happened.

You're wrong. And I can't even begin to counter my way through that muddle of a mess you call an argument.

Ok, I'm wrong. But it's not much use to tell me I'm wrong if you're not going to tell me where I'm going wrong? I'm not arguing with you. I'm genuinely making an effort here to try and understand you and understand what this idea of privilege is all about, because as far as I can see, all that's been put forward so far is that people should acknowledge that they won the biological lottery and they should be grateful for that.

Well that knowledge isn't much good if you're not going to use it, as in use those advantages that you have in order to make your life and the lives of other people better. You don't seem to want people to make their lives better though, you seem to only want them to recognise how hard you have it and how much better their life is than yours simply on the basis of their gender?

I still can't see how men acknowledging that they have even massive biological advantages over women, is actually supposed to do anything to help women though? You present mandatory male sterilisation as one of the ways in which men should be disadvantaged in order to take their privilege away from them, but I'm still not seeing how that actually helps anyone? Women are still going to experience menstruation and at some point in their lives menopause.

Where did I even begin to insinuate that something should be done about it? Or at the very least, legally. I don't believe women's issues, are, in fact, an issue any more. And they haven't been for a very long time.

Ok, so you don't want anything done about the idea that women are biologically inferior to men then? You want people to acknowledge your perspective, but you don't want anything done about it? Well that's just revelling in your own victimhood complex then. That's not very useful. It certainly doesn't help women, and you don't want women given opportunities to make their lives better...

I'm very confused again - you seem to be putting forward this idea that women have shíttier lives because of their gender, and you want men to have shítty lives too because according to you they have it so good?

That's not the meaning of privilege. And if you are a man born in Ireland, and to a lesser extent, a woman, you are privileged. And you should count yourself lucky.

I don't believe in luck, of any sort. Maybe that's why I'm not getting this whole concept of privilege? I believe in making the most of what you've got, in order to create opportunities for yourself and for other people. I believe in helping those people who are less fortunate in life to create opportunities for themselves to make their lives better. I don't believe the concept of privilege serves any useful purpose in that philosophy.

I don't feel guilty, I feel grateful. I'm wondering where you're getting these words from. Are you just making them up? Cause I sure as sh*t didn't say them.

You sure as sh*t don't sound very grateful either, but that's understandable because you haven't received anything to be grateful for, and being grateful for nothing is about as useful as people who feel better about themselves for having given you nothing. I know plenty of those sort of people too, who think that paying lip service to an idea is equally as valuable as actually doing something about it. If paying lip service to an idea makes you feel like you're making a valued effort to change what you see as discrimination, then you're way off the mark I'm afraid. That's what happens when you take a word like "privilege" and assign to it a meaning that nobody else understands.

Judging from this post and other posts you've written, I would say that coming from you I take that as a compliment.

Well that's the first time you've come out with something positive. I'll take that as a compliment too. I feel like we're getting somewhere now, how about you?

Despite the fact that women suffer from higher rates of depression than men, depression as a whole is still a minority, so yes, I think they are too.

Well if you were to introduce mandatory sterilisation for men, I have no doubt that would increase rates of depression among men too. I'm still not sure how introducing measures to increase the numbers of the population experiencing depression is actually helpful to the minority that do experience depression though?

Sounds like an inhumane thing to do to anyone really, to want them to suffer because other people are suffering. Wouldn't the more constructive approach be to actually assist people who experience depression, rather than introduce measures which would see an increase in people experiencing depression? People experiencing depression wouldn't be in a minority any more, but how useful is that?

You wouldn't happen to be selling a self-help book on late night tv, would you? Maybe something along the lines of Grab Life by the Horns or You, too, Can Exercise Your Way Out of Debt!.

I was going to go with "Life taking a dump on you? Here's some bog roll!", in paperback obviously, as hardback cover and e-book wouldn't be very useful.

Okay, I didn't say prostitution was legal in Ireland, in fact I didn't even know that it was. I was simply mentioning that prostitution became legalized in some countries at the height of this so-called "misandry", thereby countering Patrick's post that male sexuality is demonized. It's not. It's not even close.

Well I agree with you there, which is why I said I couldn't relate at all to Patrick's post. There was much more contained within it that I couldn't at all relate to, but that was his life, from his perspective, and that's why I said I could neither identify with his post, nor could I relate to yours. That's nothing new though for Patrick and I, we've always been fundamentally opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to addressing social issues, and if economics is your bag, then you really won't do any better than KomradeBishop - we're at fundamentally opposite ends of the spectrum too when it comes to economics, but there's no question the guy knows his stuff.

We've always been civil to each other though (and brutally honest with each other when discussions get heated), but so far in this discussion, well, you seem to have abandoned civility in favour of talking over people and expecting they should just listen to you complain and complain and complain. You haven't yet presented a single possibly viable solution to address discrimination other than that people should acknowledge that they aren't the victims of it like you are. Right. That information is about as useful as a chocolate teapot then.

Not anyone, but mostly just men.

You'll have to talk to Wibbs about that one, he's the guy who has a freakishly encyclopaedic knowledge of that sort of stuff. I was only giving you my perspective. Unless I were capable of mind control, I have absolutely no control whatsoever over how attractive (or indeed otherwise) anyone finds me. I will grant you though that I had absolute control over the fact that I chose to shave my nether regions the other night against my wife's advice, and now she won't go anywhere near there until it grows back! :pac:

Some women like it, some women don't.

Once again, you're not getting the point I'm trying to make. Men grow up with the privilege that they age better than women, and even if they didn't, it doesn't really matter.

I get the point you're trying to make. I'm just not sure how useful it is to anyone is all. As you say yourself - it doesn't really matter.

His whole argument was based on his assertion that male privilege doesn't exist. It absolutely does.

Of course it does, but you didn't actually refute any of his points, you just complained again that "women have it worse". I'm still not sure how useful that statement is?

There are many ways in which people can point out they are disadvantaged in relation to other people for all sorts of reasons. There are many ways in which people have advantages in relation to other people for all sorts of reasons. How useful is it to anyone though to be stating the obvious? What does it actually do for anyone and what issues does it aim to address?

The concept of "privilege" just doesn't serve any useful purpose.

How much does your book cost?

To you, I'll give it for free. I don't even expect you to be grateful. I'd consider it a privilege that it may help you change your perspective in some way. It's unlikely though, given that you seem so entrenched in your views, but at least you might understand the meaning of the word "grateful" if you run short of bog roll at some stage.