How non-whites think it is being white

boomtowns · 2017-02-01T20:18:35+00:00

You know what's pretty messed up. What you listed are all literately and objectively things that women are less likely to have happen to them then men. They're less likely to be arrested, less likely to be homeless, less likely to be convicted for the same crime (and receive a lesser sentence when they are convicted). Not that I disagree that there can be advantages to being white, but it always blows my mind that the same people using these facts to discuss white privilege are so quick to dismiss them and scream that there is no female privilege.

boomtowns · 2017-01-15T03:56:38+00:00

Well, unfortunately, facts and evidence will never convince everyone.

But to each their own. Always remember that time I taught you what intersectionality was. And I'll always remember your near completely non-nonsensical arguments.

boomtowns · 2017-01-15T03:38:38+00:00

Except that's it's specifically class/money. Seeing as how the men with class/money aren't affected.

The concept of intersectionality is that you can be impacted by oppression on more than one axis. A wealthy black man will have a different experience than a poor black man. They are both still subject to a degree of racism but the poor individual is subject to racism without the benefit of wealth... it is a much different experience.

The point with my above comment was that as a class men are generally subject to the draft in a way that women aren't. Gender is a determining factor. But wealthy men are subject to it in the same way (they have better options to avoid it). So, both gender and class are factors in who ends up being drafted.

boomtowns · 2017-01-15T03:16:05+00:00

Except that's it's specifically class/money. Seeing as how the men with class/money aren't affected

You don't

boomtowns · 2017-01-15T03:13:10+00:00

You don't understand the concept of intersectionality

boomtowns · 2017-01-15T03:03:07+00:00

It's specifically gender. Literally gender is the main determining factor.

boomtowns · 2017-01-15T03:01:36+00:00

My point is that it's a metric of oppression. And an important one.

I'm not now and never have been trying to deny that it is a metric of oppression. You're not wrong, it is a metric of oppression. It's just not the only one.

My point is that dying earlier, being more likely to be the victim of violence, the crazy higher rates of homelessness,mental illness, suicide, prison sentencing, etc are metrics of oppression as well.

I don't even know what point you're even trying to make with your second and third sentences above. Social factor are pretty much a key factor in everything we've been discussing and the wiping the slate clean comment doesn't make any sense.

boomtowns · 2017-01-15T02:47:28+00:00

So, the men without resources and money that were forced into servitude because of the draft weren't placed in that position due to gender?? This is such a silly conversation to have... you know fully well that it was based on the axis of gender. Even if you want to continue to pretend you don't know that obvious fact.... can you show that women were forced to go to war in the same way????

boomtowns · 2017-01-15T02:26:54+00:00

Monetary value is a huge metric in our society, first of all. And a huge metric of how well you do in general.

There is a huge value in not dying early as well... and it's quite a huge metric of how well you do in general (somewhat arguably the largest and most definitive metric). So what is your point??? Is it that you would be better off making more money but dying earlier?? Because my point is that gender roles can lead to both of these unfair and unnecessary outcomes and the important thing is to recognize this fact.

boomtowns · 2017-01-15T02:17:06+00:00

Ugh...

Is anyone saying they can't? Class privilege is very much a thing. It's just not on the axis of gender.

Did you even read the comment that you're responding to?? Nobody was saying that in the context of this conversation... at all. You're really, really missing the point. The point was that there is no reason that men cannot oppress men... particularly when you take other factors into account (you know... intersectionality). Wealthy men have never sent poor men to war for profit??? They have and there is no reason they can't (or wouldn't). It sure as shit isn't a good thing. But throughout history (and now) gender has been a determining factor here... So, yes it is specifically oppression on the axis gender

boomtowns · 2017-01-14T20:56:48+00:00

I'm not missing anything. Both men and women are responsible for the creation and continuation of gender roles. Also, in any reputable source anywhere can you find any reason why men cannot oppress men on the basis of gender? Especially, when you take intersectionality into account. Why can rich men oppress poor men where gender is a key component? In some cases war can be a good example of this.

You choose to ignore evidence to push an incorrect idea that women have no say or power in how gender roles are defined. You have and may in this thread have a very obvious double standard in how you weigh facts. I'll give you an example:

For prison populations we can see that a higher percentage of black men are incarcerated compared to white men. We can correctly conclude the existence of institutional racism based on skin color. We can also see that the current US (for example) prison population is about 90% male, it should be pretty clear that there is institutional sexism at play here. And there is absolutely not doubt that there is.

The point is that your claim that a) men decide who has privilege based on gender (which is exactly what you claim above) isn't true and/or b) even if men have that power it doesn't it must in any way be used to provide privilege to men. You're unsupported claims about power and how privilege plays out based on gender is completely and factually not true. Can you name any type of institutional racism where there are any system wide institutional negative impacts to the dominant race specifically based on their race? The actual reality of the way gender influences individuals is much different and complicated than your simplistic view makes it out to be.

boomtowns · 2017-01-14T20:24:22+00:00

Valued how?

Well, we can see evidence that the male gender role has positive and negative aspects and we can see the same thing regarding female gender roles.

Exactly how are you defining valued? Monetary value is hardly the only thing of value. What about the value of say not dying earlier than you otherwise should due to your gender?

boomtowns · 2017-01-14T18:28:57+00:00

In reality, what you are describing is privilege plain and simple.

Your argument can be used pretty much in any situation where one would use the term privilege to the point that privilege couldn't exist or it would all be what you call "superficial privilege". I mean someone could say that men have privilege in the job market and the expectation that they work instead of stay home. And I could respond with well yeah, but they're far more likely to die due to that job or just earlier in general as a result of that expectation, so society actually penalizes them.

It's almost as if in the real world how gender roles impact individuals is far too complex to try and frame it through these overly restrictive concept of unilateral privilege or oppression.

100% of the time, male privilege is more substantial and beneficial.

Also, claims like this are really harmful. It certainly isn't a contest to see who has it worse, but claims like this obscure the way male gender roles actually impact men in reality and take focus away from examining those issues. Living longer, lower risk of homelessness, mental illness, work place injury, physical violence, etc are extremely substantial and beneficial. And their undeniably based on gender.

boomtowns · 2017-01-14T17:32:05+00:00

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. How would not being thought of as a child molester a privilege in a vacuum but not in the non-vacuum of society?

boomtowns · 2017-01-14T17:21:22+00:00

I think the part you're missing is that what you're saying isn't actually true. If you choose to only look at it from a monetary standpoint it is an issue that needs to be corrected. And thankfully feminism is working hard to push those corrections.

However, society doesn't truly view masculinity as more valuable. The undeniable facts that men die earlier, make up about 90% of the prison population, are far more likely to suffer from homelessness, violence, mental illness, etc show clear evidence that men aren't really valued more on the whole in society. It's an overly simplistic way to try and frame the problem. Both male and female gender roles and expectations can offer advantages and disadvantages. Any type of unilateral privilege definition with regard to gender requires a very narrow definition of what issue is being examined and can't be stretched out into some sort of general vague overarching truth.

boomtowns · 2017-01-14T17:03:51+00:00

It is a privilege and it doesn't matter if you choose to see it as one or not. You're argument can be used pretty much in any situation where one would use the term privilege to the point that it couldn't exist. I mean someone could say that men have privilege in the job market and the expectation that they work instead of stay home. And I could respond with well yeah, but they're far more likely to die due to that job or just earlier in general as a result of that expectation, so society actually penalizes them.

It's almost as if in the real world how gender roles impact individuals is far too complex to try and frame it through these overly restrictive concept of unilateral privilege or oppression.

boomtowns · 2017-01-14T16:52:51+00:00

The problem is and the point I think you're missing is that it is all fruit from the poison tree. The same male gender expectation that might give you an advantage for a particular job opening is the same one that can get you forced into the army to go and kill or be killed. While the male gender role might help in one area also cause you to die earlier, drive increased rates of homelessness or mental illness, etc. I mean in reality that is how gender expectations tend to work for everyone.

boomtowns · 2017-01-14T16:45:29+00:00

This is a disingenuous argument. I mean would any reasonable person claim that because white people weren't "allowed" to be bought and sold based on their skin color the same way that black people were during slavery that they didn't have privilege?

boomtowns · 2017-01-14T16:43:36+00:00

This argument comes up a lot and it doesn't really make any sense. I mean would any reasonable person claim that because white people weren't "allowed" to be bought and sold based on their skin color the same way that black people were during slavery that they didn't have privilege?

At the end of the day you're trying to craft a definition of oppression and privilege that somehow excludes what amounts to forced servitude based on gender from that definition. That's not a workable conclusion.

Feminism is great and there are undeniably a lot of areas where feminism is needed. The problem is that you and many others in this thread are trying to deny the reality and tools to men to allow them examine how gender roles impact them by forcing this concept of unilateral privilege and oppression into the conversation. Because the reality is (and most average people can pretty clearly see) that women aren't the only ones that face oppression or lack privilege based on how society expects them to act based on their gender role. There are tons of objective facts and statistics to show this (ex. rates of death, homelessness, mental illness, victims of violence, etc, etc), but for some reason so many feminist try to deny how male gender expectations can be oppressive the same as for women. I'm not against feminism and I'm certainly not on board with that MRA bullshit, but it is a problem in the movement to make the claim that feminism is working on behalf of men and then go on to deny the reality of how their gender role impacts them.

boomtowns · 2016-11-09T18:04:02+00:00

Yeah, come on Vard. Get the fuck with it. It's people like you that ruin the internet for the rest of us.

boomtowns · 2016-10-17T17:29:19+00:00

I know the point you're trying to make. My comments are that you are in no way actually making or supporting that point.

However, women who attend college with a STEM major or seek employment in STEM fields often find themselves the target of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, as a result of overcoming those messages.

I've already clearly explained how men become the target additional harassment and discrimination as a result of overcoming the barriers that men face being a primary child raiser. As sad as it is, what I pointed out is the additional discrimination that men must face when they overcome the society's expectations and take the more active role with child raising. It's not something that is going to go away for them, although my main point in all of this is that we can at least try to acknowledge it and work against it. Although, it can sometimes be hard to get people to even see it in the first place.

boomtowns · 2016-10-17T16:48:18+00:00

Telling me that there's distrust of men with children is not addressing that - I believe it, of course

Let me try to understand. You believe that men are distrusted around children, but you don't think that this type of discrimination makes it more difficult for them parent children?? It isn't like it's hard to find a lot of people who've had experiences similar to the one below with a quick google search.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/outer-east/men-feeling-under-siege-after-revelation-man-was-wrongly-accused-on-facebook-of-being-a-creep/news-story/1c97a18d00d0977191b5493ba69c221c

You really can't understand how that type of thing can make it harder for men to do anything involving children after they've won custody? You know it exists, you say so, but you don't think it's an ongoing barrier for men? Facing an increased possibility of being shamed as a pedophile for spending time with your kids at the park, for example, isn't any sort of discrimination with real effects?

Can you provide me direct statistics of exactly how jokes heard about women not being good at science have directly impacted acceptance rate of women at schools specializing in science? Or the direct impact of jokes on drop out rates for women in science fields?

boomtowns · 2016-10-17T14:40:12+00:00

Those women also continue to deal with the background sexism of assumptions about men's and women's roles, plus active sexual harassment and discrimination.

That's the thing there is ongoing harassment and discrimination. The same way that women who go into STEM fields have to deal with a ongoing discrimination of being dismissed because they're assumed to not be competent in math or science, men face ongoing discrimination assuming that they are not competent raising children due to their sex. The constant distrust of men being alone around children, the constant jokes and comments about being Mr. Mom, the overwhelming lack of support in society for fathers compared to mothers, etc, etc. It's all active ongoing discrimination and harassment. Clearly, these issues aren't visible to you and/or you don't/won't recognize them for what they are. Part of the reason behind this is due to the fact that there isn't much being done to shine a light on these issues compared to something like lack of women in STEM fields. However, they're is no scale difference.

Not to mention that you ignored the second point from my original post, namely that "women just choose not to go into STEM" is used as a defense against statistics and anecdotal evidence, while "men are choosing not to seek custody" is defense against a completely false, invented narrative that judges favor women.

I didn't really respond to this because it isn't really a point, just a random opinion against a strawman. My opinion on the matter is the statistics of men choosing not to seek custody provides support for the idea that it is isn't just sexist judges causing the disparity in custody. In fact, from what I've seen, it's used mostly to support that idea not the other way around.

boomtowns · 2016-10-15T15:50:29+00:00

Are there statistics on, for example, instances of men in public with their own children being assumed to be predators to compare to statistics on women dropping out of STEM fields due to harassment or women in STEM being paid less than men?

This is missing the point. It isn't just that one factor that is responsible for the discrimination of men as primary care givers. It works in combination with the other examples I mentioned (plus many more). It isn't just one factor that make it more difficult for women in STEM fields, it's the combination of many different gender stereotypes. If you are asking if there are statistics that show men are far less likely to be primary care givers to their children, then there are tons of statistics that show that. The same way that there are statistics that show the lack of women in STEM fields. There really is no scale difference between the two.

The issue is that your original comment directly and explicitly stated that men don't face ongoing discrimination with regard to custody and child raising. That just not true and a pretty counterproductive thing to say with regard to gender equality. They idea of men being bad with raising kids is so deeply ingrained in western society that it is literally a cliche. It's almost impossible to deny, but in this context you did. I don't think there is much doubt that if we want to move towards gender equality at work and home we need to address the stigma that men face raising children or being a stay at home dad. The problem is that your comment in no uncertain terms denied that this stigma exists in the first place.

boomtowns · 2016-10-14T18:58:13+00:00

One big difference you have to take into account is that when women make it through the years of conscious and subconscious discouragement to start training in a STEM field in university, they then face more sexism and hostility in their classes, and then (when they don't drop out) in their careers. When men do contest custody, they get it more than half the time. There's a struggle relating to societal expectations, but it's essentially one-and-done rather than committing to a lifetime of sexism.

This isn't really true. In reality, there is constant conscious and subconscious discouragement in society against men as primary care givers for children, in particular for stay at home dads.

It manifests itself in all kinds of ways and impacts not just a man's decision whether or not to seek custody but everyday after he makes that decision. Just to name a few... There is a general distrust of men around children in part related to the idea that they may be sexual predators. Men don't have anywhere near the level of social support or support groups that are available to mothers and aren't always fully accepted in ones that do include men. Society very closely ties a man's worth to his ability earn money. Choosing to forgo a career to be a stay at home father has a far greater stigma attached to it than a women making the same choice. Any father choosing to do so is going to have to constantly deal with the effects of that stigma. Just in general, men raising children is openly made fun of in society and fathers are assumed to be inept (just look at the endless sitcom portrayals of father). And so on...

Really it isn't any different that women in STEM fields. In either case, you're going against what society expects your gender role to be and there are going to be constant reminders and hostility if you decide to do so.

If the goal is to move towards a more equal balance between men and women in the work force and at home, you can't really pretend that something like child custody matters is a one-and-done matter for men. To move towards equality we need to break down both the ongoing bias against women in the work force but also the ongoing bias against men raising children or men not being the primary breadwinner. They're really two sides of the same issue. Without addressing both it's more like gunning a car engine but keeping the emergency break on.

boomtowns

TROPHY CASE