White Male Privilege

tritium · 23-05-2015 2:49pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

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.

But you're also ignoring advances in technology which have given women an historically unprecedented level of control over their fertility as well as safer and less painful pregnancy than any previous generation. And sure its not perfect, any more than the drones you mention will eliminate young predominantly male cannon fodder, but both these technological aspects are only going to improve (though I'd wager we'll be able to remove all risk of pregnancy long we stop throwing soldiers into machine gun fire)

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 2:56pm

tritium wrote: »

But you're also ignoring advances in technology which have given women an historically unprecedented level of control over their fertility as well as safer and less painful pregnancy than any previous generation. And sure its not perfect, any more than the drones you mention will eliminate young predominantly male cannon fodder, but both these technological aspects are only going to improve (though I'd wager we'll be able to remove all risk of pregnancy long we stop throwing soldiers into machine gun fire)

Im disputing the fantasy that we will have another draft.

DeadHand · 23-05-2015 3:11pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

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.

*Fewer men. (Stannis moment couldn't resist sorry)

What hasn't changed in centuries of human warfare is the fact that infantry wins wars. While it has evolved into a massive element, no war in history has been won yet by air power alone. Therefore, until the technology advances to the point of being capable of fulfilling the role of infantry flesh, blood and boots will always be needed on the ground. These boots are filled, have always been filled and will always be filled overwhelmingly by young men.

This isn't an accident.

Military technology has advanced frighteningly throughout history. The advent of gunpowder slowly removed much of the need for brute strength in a soldier. Yet, women still weren't conscripted or used as soldiers to any large degree even in crises of manpower. Only one constant remains- males do the fighting.

Young men are biologically most suited to warfare and socially most acceptable to sacrifice in it.

DeadHand · 23-05-2015 3:13pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Im disputing the fantasy that we will have another draft.

It's unlikely, yes, but do you accept that if there were young men would be called up first and women would quite likely enjoy an exemption?

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 3:14pm

DeadHand wrote: »

It's unlikely, yes, but do you accept that if there were young men would be called up first and women would quite likely enjoy an exemption?

No I do not accept that the draft would be reactivated in the first place.

DeadHand · 23-05-2015 3:20pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

No I do not accept that the draft would be reactivated in the first place.

Reactivated? When was it first activated?

Anyway, that wasn't the question. If a draft were imposed on the nation who do you imagine would be drafted and who do you imagine would enjoy exemptions?

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 4:27pm

DeadHand wrote: »

Reactivated? When was it first activated?

Anyway, that wasn't the question. If a draft were imposed on the nation who do you imagine would be drafted and who do you imagine would enjoy exemptions?

You are asking me to speculate. Answer is I am not a prophet or a lady with a purple bandana and a crystal ball.

Are you?

NI24 · 23-05-2015 7:07pm

In the style of tritium here's a quick summary

NO camp: No, it doesn't, for the following reasons
Yes camp: Yes it does, for the following reasons
NO camp:No it doesn't, because video games are criticized
Yes camp: Yes it does, because women are subject to just as many double standards
NO camp: But men are judged on looks too!
Yes camp:Uhhh, no they're not
NO camp:But men are judged on success!
Yes camp:How is something genetic and superficial comparable to success?
NO camp:Men have conscription!
Yes camp:Women are at a distinct disadvantage that men are immune from.
NO camp:Men die younger!
Yes camp:That is due to several factors that change throughout culture and time
NO camp:Men have weaker immune systems!
Yes camp: Women have weaker bodies, and, in addition, have a distinct disadvantage that men are immune from
NO camp:How is that mens' fault? It's not because of patriarchy! Stop whining!
Yes camp: What does that have to do with privilege?
No camp:......................................................Did we mention conscription?

hatrickpatrick · 23-05-2015 7:34pm

NI24 wrote: »

NO camp:Men die younger!
Yes camp:That is due to several factors that change throughout culture and time

This bit summarises one of my fundamental issues with feminism, and this ties into what I said about education, young women earning more, double standards against men, etc etc etc.

When women have a disadvantage, it's blamed on sexism, which is seen as artificial. When men suffer an equivalent disadvantage, a lot of feminists shout "ah, but context / biological factors / macro-cultural factors / other 'legitimate' causes". So in other words, any double standards men suffer from, some feminists will always defend as being caused on "legitimate" grounds and there for not being wrong, immoral, or unjust.

This I have a huge problem. In particular, the violence against women double standard - "when women commit domestic violence, it's for different reasons / context / whatever". This basically amounts to saying "domestic violence is ok under some circumstances, and those circumstances just happen to coincide with the circumstances under which women do it. If a man does it though, he's automatically an asshole, no questions asked."

Now I fully agree with the latter statement - if a man commits domestic violence, he's automatically an asshole no questions asked. But I apply exactly the same standard to women, and this is where I seem to part company with most modern feminists. Double standards, sexism, and both misogyny and misandry are 100%, unconditionally unacceptable - no amount of context can justify either. Whereas a lot of feminists, if you strip down the rhetoric to its basic elements, seem to say "well women face disadvantages because of unacceptable sexism, but men face disadvantages because of legitimate reasons."

That argument in and of itself is fundamentally sexist and discriminatory.

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 7:41pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This I have a huge problem. In particular, the violence against women double standard - "when women commit domestic violence, it's for different reasons / context / whatever". This basically amounts to saying "domestic violence is ok under some circumstances, and those circumstances just happen to coincide with the circumstances under which women do it. If a man does it though, he's automatically an asshole, no questions asked."

Now I fully agree with the latter statement - if a man commits domestic violence, he's automatically an asshole no questions asked. But I apply exactly the same standard to women, and this is where I seem to part company with most modern feminists. Double standards, sexism, and both misogyny and misandry are 100%, unconditionally unacceptable - no amount of context can justify either. Whereas a lot of feminists, if you strip down the rhetoric to its basic elements, seem to say "well women face disadvantages because of unacceptable sexism, but men face disadvantages because of legitimate reasons."

That argument in and of itself is fundamentally sexist and discriminatory.

I don't agree with any of your views on domestic violence, I think its complicated, sometimes the couple is sado masochistic, sometimes there is depression, some times there is abuse by proxy, somtimes there are subtle collusions. I don't think anyone is automatically an asshole, sometimes they are yeah, but sometimes they are flawed or stressed or damaged.

Your statement here is entirely reductive of human nature and the complexity of domestic abuse and absolutely laden with moralising. You are allowing yourself to get brainwashed by politically correct nonsense from both the femnists and the mens rights groups.

NI24 · 23-05-2015 7:45pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This bit summarises one of my fundamental issues with feminism, and this ties into what I said about education, young women earning more, double standards against men, etc etc etc.

When women have a disadvantage, it's blamed on sexism, which is seen as artificial. When men suffer an equivalent disadvantage, a lot of feminists shout "ah, but context / biological factors / macro-cultural factors / other 'legitimate' causes". So in other words, any double standards men suffer from, some feminists will always defend as being caused on "legitimate" grounds and there for not being wrong, immoral, or unjust.

This I have a huge problem. In particular, the violence against women double standard - "when women commit domestic violence, it's for different reasons / context / whatever". This basically amounts to saying "domestic violence is ok under some circumstances, and those circumstances just happen to coincide with the circumstances under which women do it. If a man does it though, he's automatically an asshole, no questions asked."

Now I fully agree with the latter statement - if a man commits domestic violence, he's automatically an asshole no questions asked. But I apply exactly the same standard to women, and this is where I seem to part company with most modern feminists. Double standards, sexism, and both misogyny and misandry are 100%, unconditionally unacceptable - no amount of context can justify either. Whereas a lot of feminists, if you strip down the rhetoric to its basic elements, seem to say "well women face disadvantages because of unacceptable sexism, but men face disadvantages because of legitimate reasons."

That argument in and of itself is fundamentally sexist and discriminatory.

And you could say the same about the disadvantages against women hatrick. How many in here were dismissing the fertility issues women face with, well, in ireland you don't have to worry, or if you don't like it, change your gender. Both sides are equally guilty of trivializing, however, most in here turn a blind eye to the trivializing of the Yes Male Privilege side.

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 8:09pm

DeadHand wrote: »

*Fewer men. (Stannis moment couldn't resist sorry)

What hasn't changed in centuries of human warfare is the fact that infantry wins wars. While it has evolved into a massive element, no war in history has been won yet by air power alone. Therefore, until the technology advances to the point of being capable of fulfilling the role of infantry flesh, blood and boots will always be needed on the ground. These boots are filled, have always been filled and will always be filled overwhelmingly by young men.

This isn't an accident.

Military technology has advanced frighteningly throughout history. The advent of gunpowder slowly removed much of the need for brute strength in a soldier. Yet, women still weren't conscripted or used as soldiers to any large degree even in crises of manpower. Only one constant remains- males do the fighting.

Young men are biologically most suited to warfare and socially most acceptable to sacrifice in it.

They are not going to want to limit that possibility with the threat of annihilation because you wont be able to replace the lives you lose if you draft young women. You will also have to deal with pregnancies and babies if you draft them in there.

There will never be another draft. They will nuke before they have to do that again.

Also if you look at the history of the draft, at least in British and US military, it is very tied up with class, and who was sent to shed their blood.

How many leaders now actually have military experience. Not many.

Do you know why the draft protests started in the US? When the college exemption was lifted and young men were being forced out of college...it wasn't until the privalaged classes were feeling it that any one gave a crap.

Don't worry though, all you have to do now is say you are gay.:P Oh wait....no you can't even do that anymore thanks to the egalitarianists....

DeadHand · 23-05-2015 10:08pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

dancing around the actual question

So, you accept that in the event of a draft young men would be called first?

It's a hypothetical.

It's also a simple yes or no you are knotting yourself to avoid.

C'mon. Answer it. While you still have a shred of credibility.

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 10:13pm

DeadHand wrote: »

So, you accept that in the event of a draft young men would be called first?

It's a hypothetical.

It's also a simple yes or no you are knotting yourself to avoid.

C'mon. Answer it. While you still have a shred of credibility.

No I don't know, especially with today's referendum. I have no idea what cultural climate would be in this theoretical future.

Is lean towards women also being drafted, if there was a draft which I think there is no chance in hell would ever happen.

DeadHand · 23-05-2015 10:28pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

No I don't know, especially with today's referendum. I have no idea what cultural climate would be in this theoretical future.

Is lean towards women also being drafted, if there was a draft which I think there is no chance in hell would ever happen.

Today's referendum has exactly zero to do with the relative disposability of the genders.

If you believe women would also be drafted you are the one indulging in fantasy.

Grand, you can't really be reasoned with. You refuse to answer directly the most simple questions if the evident answer doesn't conform to your own, narrow view.

hatrickpatrick · 23-05-2015 10:32pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

I don't agree with any of your views on domestic violence, I think its complicated, sometimes the couple is sado masochistic,

If it's consensual then it isn't abuse.

sometimes there is depression,

This does nto and never will excuse abusive behaviour.

some times there is abuse by proxy,

Elaborate?

somtimes there are subtle collusions. I don't think anyone is automatically an asshole, sometimes they are yeah, but sometimes they are flawed or stressed or damaged.

If you are abusive to your partner for any of the aforementioned reasons, in my view you're a jerk. That's just me though.

Do you agree that there is a gendered double standard here?

Your statement here is entirely reductive of human nature and the complexity of domestic abuse and absolutely laden with moralising. You are allowing yourself to get brainwashed by politically correct nonsense from both the femnists and the mens rights groups.

I don't think regarding intimate partner abuse as inexcusable regardless of gender is in any way flawed thinking. Human nature and complexity can also lead to murder, theft, any number of crimes - yet none make those crimes acceptable.

kowloon · 23-05-2015 10:47pm

DeadHand wrote: »

If you believe women would also be drafted you are the one indulging in fantasy.

I doubt any kind of draft is likely in this day and age, masses of poorly trained draftees serve little purpose. But if it was to happen I can believe a western power would extend it to both sexes. You don't want to waste people in vital industries by drafting them, makes sense to widen the pool. It's not without precedent.

DeadHand · 23-05-2015 11:00pm

kowloon wrote: »

I doubt any kind of draft is likely in this day and age, masses of poorly trained draftees serve little purpose. But if it was to happen I can believe a western power would extend it to both sexes. You don't want to waste people in vital industries by drafting them, makes sense to widen the pool. It's not without precedent.

Nonsense.

Name one Western country that extended conscription to females in war time.

Women tend to work predominately in services or bureaucracies. Hardly vital industries in times of desperation.

PhlegmyMoses · 23-05-2015 11:21pm

kowloon wrote: »

I doubt any kind of draft is likely in this day and age, masses of poorly trained draftees serve little purpose. But if it was to happen I can believe a western power would extend it to both sexes. You don't want to waste people in vital industries by drafting them, makes sense to widen the pool. It's not without precedent.

I don't know much about this male privilege thing, - It probably exists, but is not nearly as significant as people think - but conscription for males still exists in loads of western and westernised countries

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 11:23pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If it's consensual then it isn't abuse.

This does nto and never will excuse abusive behaviour.

Elaborate?

If you are abusive to your partner for any of the aforementioned reasons, in my view you're a jerk. That's just me though.

Do you agree that there is a gendered double standard here?

I don't think regarding intimate partner abuse as inexcusable regardless of gender is in any way flawed thinking. Human nature and complexity can also lead to murder, theft, any number of crimes - yet none make those crimes acceptable.

YEah I just don't see it as cut and dried like that.

kowloon · 23-05-2015 11:30pm

DeadHand wrote: »

Nonsense.

Name one Western country that extended conscription to females in war time.

Women tend to work predominately in services or bureaucracies. Hardly vital industries in times of desperation.

Precedent in regards to women in combat, should have made that clear. But some countries do have conscripted women, but not in a war afaik. Unless you Israel.

As for vital industries: You have to make sure people in vital industries don't end up being drafted (or even volunteering) for obvious reasons. Hence a good way to open up your recruitment pool would be to also conscript women.

Those 'times of desperation' are the times when old fashioned BS gets thrown aside. Men abandoning industry in large numbers, often to be wiped out (see pals Btns) got women into male dominated jobs in both world wars.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I don't know much about this male privilege thing, - It probably exists, but is not nearly as significant as people think - but conscription for males still exists in loads of western and westernised countries

Not disputing that. Just saying should a major draft happen again it's not that unlikely that it would extend to women.

Sand · 23-05-2015 11:33pm

kowloon wrote: »

I doubt any kind of draft is likely in this day and age, masses of poorly trained draftees serve little purpose. But if it was to happen I can believe a western power would extend it to both sexes. You don't want to waste people in vital industries by drafting them, makes sense to widen the pool. It's not without precedent.

That's why military training exists. Poorly trained draftees are not much use, but WW2 was won by well trained draftees. Of course, you prefer having high quality, highly motived volunteers, but in a total war scenario quantity has a quality all of its own. Even outside direct military service, drafts ensure people are assigned where their skills or experience are needed in a national struggle. But given their natural physical advantages and the reinforced "Don't hit girls" meme, men would be most likely to be assigned to the areas with white hot metal fragments flying around.

No successful tribe has sent its women to do the fighting whilst keeping its men at home to raise the next generation of the tribe.

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 11:40pm

Sand wrote: »

No successful tribe has sent its women to do the fighting whilst keeping its men at home to raise the next generation of the tribe.

This is true.

Yet I don't think it would stop the egalitarian sense of "justice and equality" pursue women for a draft, even if it did mean losing a war or a significant drop in a birth rate.

DeadHand · 23-05-2015 11:42pm

kowloon wrote: »

Precedent in regards to women in combat, should have made that clear. But some countries do have conscripted women, but not in a war afaik. Unless you Israel.

As for vital industries: You have to make sure people in vital industries don't end up being drafted (or even volunteering) for obvious reasons. Hence a good way to open up your recruitment pool would be to also conscript women.

Those 'times of desperation' are the times when old fashioned BS gets thrown aside. Men abandoning industry in large numbers, often to be wiped out (see pals Btns) got women into male dominated jobs in both world wars.

Israel isn't a Western country and is one that happens to be suffering a manpower shortage in comparison to her rivals and a constant existential crisis and so is irrelevant to the argument of conscription in the West and how it pertains to the myth of "white male privilege".

Women have never and won't ever be conscripted in the West.

Because males are biologically fitted to make, generally, superior soldiers. And, more pertinently, are, far from being the privileged sex, the disposable one.

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 11:46pm

DeadHand wrote: »

Israel isn't a Western country and is one that happens to be suffering a manpower shortage in comparison to her rivals and a constant existential crisis and so is irrelevant to the argument of conscription in the West and how it pertains to the myth of "white male privilege".

Women have never and won't ever be conscripted in the West.

Because males are biologically fitted to make, generally, superior soldiers. And, more pertinently, are, far from being the privileged sex, the disposable one.

Huh? Norway has voted females into conscription.

The remaining countries are Austria and Switzerland....

No other western country practises it...so you have three countries in total, two of which are Germanic, and one of them does conscript women also.

Seriously.....you are not convincing.

DeadHand · 24-05-2015 12:01am

zeffabelli wrote: »

Huh? Norway has voted females into conscription.

The remaining countries are Austria and Switzerland....

No other western country practises it...so you have three countries in total, two of which are Germanic, and one of them does conscript women also.

Seriously.....you are not convincing.

I'm not sure what being loosely Germanic has to do with anything.

I've looked it up and still don't see where the three Western countries mentioned conscript females. Can you produce links to support your unconvincing assertions?

Irregardless, it still doesn't disprove my argument as all three countries are, thankfully, at peace.

kowloon · 24-05-2015 12:14am

DeadHand wrote: »

Israel isn't a Western country and is one that happens to be suffering a manpower shortage in comparison to her rivals.

Tell the OECD and the people running the Eurovision. Lets say 'Westernised nations', that way Oz and NZ don't feel left out either. The comparative manpower shortage is exactly the condition I expect would bring about conscription for women anywhere else in the west, so Israel is a great example.

Women have never and won't ever be conscripted in the West.

Women were conscripted in the Second World War in Britain, limited in role and with exemptions, but conscription nonetheless.

Sand wrote: »

No successful tribe has sent its women to do the fighting whilst keeping its men at home to raise the next generation of the tribe.

When did I suggest that?

Countries are abandoning conscription these days, it's too expensive to train in peacetime. WW2 was not won by 'well trained' draftees, even the countries that could afford it didn't train anywhere near adequately.

Things have moved on in 70 years, rushing a recruit through a few weeks training and handing them a rifle doesn't cut it, hence countries dropping conscription as it serves little military purpose. You'll see people arguing in favour of it for social (societal?) reasons and military officials argue against it as it takes away funds that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is true.

Yet I don't think it would stop the egalitarian sense of "justice and equality" pursue women for a draft, even if it did mean losing a war or a significant drop in a birth rate.

I'm not sure a nation would impose conscription on women to make some sort of point about social justice. It would be a casting aside of tradition.
People being drafted and wars in general aren't good, but as far as women's lib is concerned desperate times have pushed resulted in a more equal society in the past. Rosie the mechanic is something peacetime couldn't replicate so easily.

DeadHand · 24-05-2015 1:58am

kowloon wrote: »

Tell the OECD and the people running the Eurovision. Lets say 'Westernised nations', that way Oz and NZ don't feel left out either. The comparative manpower shortage is exactly the condition I expect would bring about conscription for women anywhere else in the west, so Israel is a great example.

Women were conscripted in the Second World War in Britain, limited in role and with exemptions, but conscription nonetheless.

Israel is an exceptional case. Being, as it is, surrounded by oceans of Islamic barbarism it needs all the bodies it can summon in order to survive.

Only in desperation does a nation risk its females.

Always the burden of fighting and dying will fall first on the males. There's your "privilege".

MathDebater · 24-05-2015 3:15am

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is true.

Yet I don't think it would stop the egalitarian sense of "justice and equality" pursue women for a draft, even if it did mean losing a war or a significant drop in a birth rate.

You think a country would keep their sense of "egalitarianism" and that they would draft equally from the sexes, even if it meant them losing a war?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 24-05-2015 3:25am

In the Human race War is for Men. It's one of these biological facts that's impossible to refute. When you break us down we're like many mammal animal species, the males fight and protect, the womans major function is to reproduce.

hatrickpatrick · 24-05-2015 4:58am

zeffabelli wrote: »

YEah I just don't see it as cut and dried like that.

Well then let me ask you a hypothetical question: if you were in an abusive relationship yourself, under what circumstances do you imagine yourself saying "s/he's not that bad really"? Because I've done the whole "manipulative and abusive because of depression" thing and I've been severely depressed myself as well without hurting a partner. At the end of the day, relationship abuse is disgusting.

Now aside from that, do you at least accept the current cultural paradigm that if any man hits any women, once, he's a vile pig who "will definitely do it again, dump him NOW", while if a woman does it, in most cases those same people will say "God, I wonder what he did to her to make her so angry?!"

zeffabelli · 24-05-2015 10:07am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well then let me ask you a hypothetical question: if you were in an abusive relationship yourself, under what circumstances do you imagine yourself saying "s/he's not that bad really"? Because I've done the whole "manipulative and abusive because of depression" thing and I've been severely depressed myself as well without hurting a partner. At the end of the day, relationship abuse is disgusting.

Now aside from that, do you at least accept the current cultural paradigm that if any man hits any women, once, he's a vile pig who "will definitely do it again, dump him NOW", while if a woman does it, in most cases those same people will say "God, I wonder what he did to her to make her so angry?!"

For me, it would all be context dependent.

Some would consider bad language abusive, others wouldn't.

I know a man, not violent, who had both his son and his wife at different times hold a knife up to him. I know both the wife and the son too. None of these people are bad people. They are flawed and all made mistakes. After tolerating years of affairs, not coming home, arrogance, immaturity, in the wider context of a stable family, limits were reached.

You could call her a jerk if you want. But then I could give you another picture of the same woman who loved him so much she consoled him through the heartbreak of his mistress leaving him.

So for me it's not black and white based on an odd incident or two, but of the whole story. It's very hard to judge other people's relationships.

hatrickpatrick · 24-05-2015 4:12pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

For me, it would all be context dependent.

Some would consider bad language abusive, others wouldn't.

I know a man, not violent, who had both his son and his wife at different times hold a knife up to him. I know both the wife and the son too. None of these people are bad people. They are flawed and all made mistakes. After tolerating years of affairs, not coming home, arrogance, immaturity, in the wider context of a stable family, limits were reached.

You could call her a jerk if you want. But then I could give you another picture of the same woman who loved him so much she consoled him through the heartbreak of his mistress leaving him.

So for me it's not black and white based on an odd incident or two, but of the whole story. It's very hard to judge other people's relationships.

Fair enough, that's your opinion. I have a lower threshold for this kind of stuff after going through it previously tbh, the minute anything like that starts happening in a relationship for me I'm gone.

Again though, do you accept that wider society holds a gendered double standard on this issue? We're surrounded by messages regarding "abuse against women by men" even though it's well documented that women are perfectly capable of being just as abusive in relationships. And certainly from reading online columns, blogs, hell even Boards, people tend to adopt a much sterner tone when it's man on woman abuse rather than vice versa. A woman who goes to a support form about an abusive relationship is likely to be told "leave him immediately, if he did it once he'll do it again" whereas guys (including myself all those years ago) are likely to be told "talk to her, find out what's wrong, if you did anything, what's happening in her life etc".

That double standard was backed up by the UK home office which endorsed entirely one sided TV ad campaigns regarding teenage relationships and potential abuse therein.

Are you honestly saying that you haven't noticed this double standard? Hell, the fact that America's domestic abuse law is called the "violence against women act" is discrimination in and of itself. It should be gender neutral, as the potential for abuse is gender neutral.

zeffabelli · 24-05-2015 5:01pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you honestly saying that you haven't noticed this double standard? Hell, the fact that America's domestic abuse law is called the "violence against women act" is discrimination in and of itself. It should be gender neutral, as the potential for abuse is gender neutral.

Don't get me started on this Act.... seriously a civil liberties nightmare and typical of the victim climate of the 1990s. I wouldn't agree with this legislation for either gender.

Remember it came out of when Oprah was in her hayday, the memory wars scandals, OJ Simpson, and Clinton having to compensate for his sex harassment scandals by pretending to give a crap about women. Clinton also made these crazy sex offendor laws, and is primarly the reason the US has the incarceration rate it has today.

As for advice forums, well people are responding to decontextualised information. I would question alot of what I read there. Thing is is I have no idea if there is any objective reality to what you are saying or if you are letting personal experience cloud a larger perception?

ThinkProgress · 24-05-2015 5:15pm

Bill Maher says it better than I could... we live in a feminized/female biased culture.

But that's not to say it's all bad - personally I quite like many aspects of modern culture. And also, men have largely been responsible for helping create this shift. So it would be foolish to act like we're victims! lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64cy3Bcr98

hatrickpatrick · 24-05-2015 5:43pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Don't get me started on this Act.... seriously a civil liberties nightmare and typical of the victim climate of the 1990s. I wouldn't agree with this legislation for either gender.

Remember it came out of when Oprah was in her hayday, the memory wars scandals, OJ Simpson, and Clinton having to compensate for his sex harassment scandals by pretending to give a crap about women. Clinton also made these crazy sex offendor laws, and is primarly the reason the US has the incarceration rate it has today.

As for advice forums, well people are responding to decontextualised information. I would question alot of what I read there. Thing is is I have no idea if there is any objective reality to what you are saying or if you are letting personal experience cloud a larger perception?

That's why I'm genuinely asking you have you not noticed a cultural double standard. Most guys I know, not just myself, have noticed it. And you agree that VAWA is a clusterf*ck - if feminists genuinely care about equality, why do so many of them defend it, and indeed the existence of the expression "violence against women"? Implying that violence is more or less acceptable based on the gender (or any other demographic attribute, indeed) of the victim is unnecessarily divisive and discriminatory, yet those who claim to be the only legitimate voice for gender equality are deafeningly silent about it.

zeffabelli · 24-05-2015 9:46pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's why I'm genuinely asking you have you not noticed a cultural double standard. Most guys I know, not just myself, have noticed it. And you agree that VAWA is a clusterf*ck - if feminists genuinely care about equality, why do so many of them defend it, and indeed the existence of the expression "violence against women"? Implying that violence is more or less acceptable based on the gender (or any other demographic attribute, indeed) of the victim is unnecessarily divisive and discriminatory, yet those who claim to be the only legitimate voice for gender equality are deafeningly silent about it.

I cannot speak for feminists any more than I can speak for environmentalists, Isis, or lobster rights activists. Ask them because I don't know.

Potatoeman · 25-05-2015 9:27am

zeffabelli wrote: »

For me, it would all be context dependent.

Some would consider bad language abusive, others wouldn't.

I know a man, not violent, who had both his son and his wife at different times hold a knife up to him. I know both the wife and the son too. None of these people are bad people. They are flawed and all made mistakes. After tolerating years of affairs, not coming home, arrogance, immaturity, in the wider context of a stable family, limits were reached.

You could call her a jerk if you want. But then I could give you another picture of the same woman who loved him so much she consoled him through the heartbreak of his mistress leaving him.

So for me it's not black and white based on an odd incident or two, but of the whole story. It's very hard to judge other people's relationships.

By those low standards no one is bad. Holding a knife to someone. Is bad.

orubiru · 25-05-2015 10:51am

NI24 wrote: »

In the style of tritium here's a quick summary

NO camp: No, it doesn't, for the following reasons
Yes camp: Yes it does, for the following reasons
NO camp:No it doesn't, because video games are criticized
Yes camp: Yes it does, because women are subject to just as many double standards
NO camp: But men are judged on looks too!
Yes camp:Uhhh, no they're not
NO camp:But men are judged on success!
Yes camp:How is something genetic and superficial comparable to success?
NO camp:Men have conscription!
Yes camp:Women are at a distinct disadvantage that men are immune from.
NO camp:Men die younger!
Yes camp:That is due to several factors that change throughout culture and time
NO camp:Men have weaker immune systems!
Yes camp: Women have weaker bodies, and, in addition, have a distinct disadvantage that men are immune from
NO camp:How is that mens' fault? It's not because of patriarchy! Stop whining!
Yes camp: What does that have to do with privilege?
No camp:......................................................Did we mention conscription?

The actual situation is so complex that a simple concept such as "white male privilege" is not sufficient to describe the reality that we live in.

It's a catchphrase that certain people use so that they can feel a certain way. It does not reflect reality.

Are some white males privileged? Yes. Just as some white females are privileged or some non-white males are privileged.

You are making arguments about women being judged on looks but that's a good thing for attractive women. It sucks for the fatties and the uglies but the only way to avoid a situation like that is to never judge anyone by any criteria ever. If we were to suddenly start judging women based on intelligence then the smart girls would get all the attention and the dummies (or those that can't afford n education) would be shunned. How is that any fairer than judging them on looks?

I would say that this thread has demonstrated that there are clear advantages and disadvantages that come with being a man or a woman. We have also demonstrated that one persons privilege may be seen as a burden in the eyes of another.

I'm not sure why it's so hard for people like you to accept that? Your problem seems to be that you need to define the world in absolute black and white terms. Why is that?

Would you be so kind as to state exactly what you think "white male privilege" is? Could you give a more detailed description?

silverfeather · 01-06-2015 11:42pm

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/male-privilege-trans-men/

This is very interesting.

nokia69 · 01-06-2015 11:51pm

silverfeather wrote: »

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/male-privilege-trans-men/

This is very interesting.

yeah it really is

you can tell its written by a man and not some deluded feminist :rolleyes:

DoYouEvenLift · 01-06-2015 11:55pm

silverfeather wrote: »

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/male-privilege-trans-men/

This is very interesting.

Is there any proof of the 'journalist' being a genuine transexual? Haven't read the actual article, it's on everydayfeminism after all lol.

osarusan · 01-06-2015 11:55pm

silverfeather wrote: »

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/male-privilege-trans-men/

This is very interesting.

I thought and hoped and prayed we'd never see this thread on the first page of the forum again.

The Diabolical Monocle · 02-06-2015 1:44am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mzYKWDx6YI

just in case it hasn't been posted already

KomradeBishop · 02-06-2015 3:39am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mzYKWDx6YI

just in case it hasn't been posted already

Great! An hour and a half long YouTube video *rubs hands together* See you in a while.

Even though it was made by this twat, I'll make sure to watch it from start to finish (taking careful notes along the way) before responding, as otherwise I'd be committing the dreaded Ad Hominem - which has no valid uses in this circumstance.

The Diabolical Monocle · 02-06-2015 10:02am

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Great! An hour and a half long YouTube video *rubs hands together* See you in a while.

Even though it was made by this twat, I'll make sure to watch it from start to finish (taking careful notes along the way) before responding, as otherwise I'd be committing the dreaded Ad Hominem - which has no valid uses in this circumstance.

Well as you know, as with all online content, it is unfortunately mandatory viewing.

But I can give you at least some clue as to what its about.

Its a video about male privilege, some sharp eyed individuals might have already gathered that by the fact that it has a title with the words 'male' and 'privilege' and is on a thread about male privilege.

As for the individual who made the video, if reason and history has taught us anything its that we should dismiss the message based on the messenger.

orubiru · 02-06-2015 1:52pm

silverfeather wrote: »

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/male-privilege-trans-men/

This is very interesting.

I thought the current narrative was that trans people are even more oppressed and discriminated against than women?

The article makes no sense and it's point is 100% dependent on the writer passing as a man all of the time. Surely upon discovery that he used to identify as a woman people would revert back to treating him like a woman or treating him as a trans person?

Point 4 is "I get paid more" but Point 5 is "it's easier for me to be poor". Hm. How are we defining "poor" here?

I could go on but some of the points are absurd. Point 8 "I’m Not Held Accountable for Keeping Rape from Happening" and Point 9 "I’m Very Likely to Arrive Home Safely After Walking Alone at Night" are kind of weird things to say.

It's like one of those anecdotes you hear about a guy dressing up as a woman on a night out and the sexual harassment he receives all night long suddenly opens his eyes to the "reality" of being a woman in society.

In truth, I think that transgender and transsexual people probably have it much tougher making their way in this society than women do. So it seems rather odd to me that this person found himself gaining all of the privilege that comes with being a man and conveniently not experiencing any of the negativity that, apparently, comes with being a trans man.

Wibbs · 02-06-2015 2:11pm

orubiru wrote: »

Point 4 is "I get paid more" but Point 5 is "it's easier for me to be poor". Hm. How are we defining "poor" here?

It's the usual neohippie nonsense O. Ads for "self love" say it all. Precious snowflakes apparently too delicate to live in a modern, safe and long lived society without trigger warnings and fears of micro aggression.

As for the easier to be poor nonsense, how come men vastly outnumber women among the homeless? Plus the paid more aspect is a crock and a provable one. In Ireland single women earn more than single men and that factoid came from an Irish women's group/taskforce who were complaining about the pay gap. You couldn't make this stuff up. It's obvious why too as more and more women go on to third level than men. Though little is mentioned about the boys and young men being left behind. Go way with your neohippie talk of "privilege"

orubiru · 02-06-2015 2:45pm

Wibbs wrote: »

It's the usual neohippie nonsense O. Ads for "self love" say it all. Precious snowflakes apparently too delicate to live in a modern, safe and long lived society without trigger warnings and fears of micro aggression.

As for the easier to be poor nonsense, how come men vastly outnumber women among the homeless? Plus the paid more aspect is a crock and a provable one. In Ireland single women earn more than single men and that factoid came from an Irish women's group/taskforce who were complaining about the pay gap. You couldn't make this stuff up. It's obvious why too as more and more women go on to third level than men. Though little is mentioned about the boys and young men being left behind. Go way with your neohippie talk of "privilege"

Surely, there must be poor families in Ireland that have been poor for generations?

I mean that the grandparents were poor, the parents were poor and now the children are being raised in an environment that does not provide opportunities for them to create a better life for themselves.

I see a lot of messed up people in Dublin city center, both men and women, and you have to wonder what kind of future there can be for these folks?

I can't even really figure out who these kinds of articles are for or what impact or change they are expecting to make.

The top earning men in the world probably don't have time to read stuff like this, so they don't care. Their daughters will reap the benefits of having a millionaire father so they wont care.

The really poor might not even have internet access and probably have more to worry about that the kind of issues mentioned in the article. So they don't care either.

Which leaves us with people, like myself, who I would describe as consumers. We want to buy things and we want to be entertained.

Should articles, like those on "Everyday Feminism", be seen as anything other than entertainment? To me, this particular article seemed like a sort of fictional read. Some people might get a kick out of imagining themselves as being oppressed by "The Man". This article allows them to indulge in the fantasy of fighting or social justice, or at least cheering from the sidelines. For people like myself, it makes me stop to think and I will weigh up in my mind how realistic I think this scenario might be. Then I'll move on. It's just a piece of entertainment.

If these articles are really exposing White Male Privilege then that's great. What happens next though? We pay women more? OK, I am happy with that. Do they get a flat "woman's rate" or can we find ourselves in a situation where two woman in the same job are getting paid different amounts? If so, then should that be allowed?

Samaris · 02-06-2015 2:52pm

OK, I hate the phrase "check your privilege" for a start. It'sa a bloody dumb argument technique that is basically shutting someone down.

There are some areas where women have a certain "female privilege". Father's rights when it comes to kids is a big one. Male suicide rates are another. Showing emotions is a third. Oddly enough, however, all of these issues DO ALSO come down to a gender disparity that it behooves us all to correct, male and female.

Fathers' rights - if a man and a woman produce a kid accidentally, it is generally ASSUMED that the woman is the one that will give up her life and career to raise the child. In many cases, the father wants the child and will have to fight for the right to his son or daughter. The mother may not even particularly want to raise the child, despite loving him/her, but Society Expects. Then again, both may want it, and the female tends to automatically win, because mothers. This is ridiculous on both mother and father. It should be down, in a case like that, to which is better equipped to raise the child in their home and the other parent certainly gets visiting rights and taking the sprog for X days, and the rest of the usual procedure. This situation would not be the problem it is but for ingrained gender roles, and it is indeed unfair on both parties.

Males are less encouraged to get help because gender roles once more. Society is harder on men seeking help and showing emotions. It's considered feminine and/or weak. That's again a major problem that both genders needs to consider, because a) there are men that need help, and b) there's an ingrained prejudice against appearing "weak and womanly" to use an old phrase.

White male privilege does indeed exist, but not in all sectors. I thoroughly dislike going into a hardware store or a computer shop and being treated like an imbecile. Or being asked what my partner plans to do with X piece of equipment. I'm the bloody technogeek between myself and my partner and certainly the computer expert! My partner also wouldn't know one end of a bike from another, so I don't need a dick condescendingly telling me what I should tell him about it.

Another one is being able to go out in whatever damned clothing I like without being threatened, intimidated, or treated as a sexual object for whoever the hell likes. Most men don't need to worry about what time it is walking home after sunset for fear of being raped. That very lack of needing to be concerned about it is a male privilege.

Basically, everyone faces issues and everyone will, at some stage, face a problem that is generally limited to their gender only. Everyone then gets irritated at it being suggested that these issues don't exist.

TL:DR - Everyone's got issues, some to do with what gender body they were born in. Historically, women have had many more issues and are still fighting away from them. But gender expectations and treatment affect men and women both, and are unhealthy for both, and that should be realised and dealt with.

White Male Privilege

Comments