Privileged Backlash: Myth and Reality

[Battenburgia]

Doesn't imply that at all

For example, take mineworking. Women in Great Britain were not excluded from the mines because people thought it was unacceptable for them to die alongside the men, they were excluded when prim Victorians found out that they were working in trousers and topless, which apparently, "made girls unsuitable for marriage and unfit to be mothers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_and_Collieries_Act_1842

Historically that may have been the case. I don't think it is the case any longer.

well that's probably because there are no mines left here , but when there was, I wasn't able to get work in them because, as a woman, i apparently wouldn't have been strong enough...although whether compared to men or victorian women was never made clear.

[Neo Art]

Historically that may have been the case. I don't think it is the case any longer.

well that's probably because there are no mines left here , but when there was, I wasn't able to get work in them because, as a woman, i apparently wouldn't have been strong enough...although whether compared to men or victorian women was never made clear.

Them victorian chicks were kinda butchy.

[Tahar Joblis]

I wonder what it says for your position if the vast bulk of your ideological supporters are highschool boys.

People saying the whole Privilege^TM-so-shut-up-argument is bad are ... oh, wait, this "Dawkins" dude isn't a teenager, is he?

The thing you neglect in your perception that a majority of people agreeing with me on NSG are teenage males is that a majority of NSG's inhabitants are teenage males.

Is there a male-female difference in some of the issues you and I have heated disagreements over here on NSG, e.g., so-called "paper abortions," i.e., parental relinquishment being offered to men instead of just women? Yes, and understandably so. A number of people justify positions based on perceived self-interest, or have difficulty empathizing with the opposite sex.

[Cannot think of a name]

Also, as a fully functioning adult member of society I am able to hold multiple things in my mind at the same time and consider them separately or together in certain points of juxtaposition without having to disregard one for the other.

Get your own material.

Hey now, your adult rant was about absolutes, my adult rant is about being able to consider many things at once without the necessity of ranking systems...you can't like own adulthood, man...

[Diopolis]

Arguing on the NSG to change people's minds is largely an exercise in futility. True Generalite Zen comes from arguing solely for the amusement/diversion/satisfaction you derive from arguing itself.

Hear, Hear

[Aurora Novus]

I agree. So why the focus on women?

Because they've been subjected to some of the worst of it. They've only recently gotten into many of the areas of society previously closed off to them. It's like asking why the Freedman's Bureau focused mostly on black people.

Tell me, is a woman suffering from a crime any worse than a man suffering from a crime?

If not, why does any woman deserve more attention for being a woman, than any man?

[Ensiferum]

"Check your privilege" is tumblr speak for, "I don't have a legitimate argument so I'm going to blame all the stereotypes and cultural issues I face on you even though you are too young to really have had a chance to further these issues or prevent them but it is obviously your fault because I have no other way to refute you." It's a strawman but there is a kernel of truth behind it.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The day Joblis discovered Tumblr. That sort of anguished back-and-forth grinding is how beaches are formed.

[Stanisburg]

OP is correct that "appeal to motive" is a very weak form of argument. Regardless of what position you're arguing for, 'calling out' your opposition for benefitting from what they support is generally not persuasive or insightful.

Try flipping it around and this becomes clear--"well, obviously women don't like male privilege; they're just trying to make their own lives easier."

Well, duh. So what

The observation that systems of social privilege exist is hardly an earth-shattering revelation to most people, except maybe college freshmen in intro sociology classes. Obviously, it's impossible to wish a society into existence where everyone has exactly the same set of opportunities available at exactly the same "difficulty setting." So pointing out that the society we have is 'not that' really isn't much of an argument in and of itself. It doesn't really do anything to convince people to act differently or vote differently, because it doesn't offer any specific suggestion for what they should support instead of the status quo. It's just a statement about something everyone is more or less aware of already.

You'll get a lot more mileage out of proposing something that aims to reduce a specific form of inequality, and explaining the benefits of doing that. If people disagree with you about the costs vs benefits of what you're proposing, then explain why you think they're wrong about that. Dissecting their motives for disagreeing with you isn't a refutation of what they're saying--it's basically a refusal to even address their arguments at all by referring to the source of the arguments rather than their substance. (An ad hominem fallacy.) It doesn't do anything to make your case more persuasive, because it doesn't actually refute anything that's been raised as a reason not to support what you're proposing.

People are generally aware that they enjoy privileges which not everyone enjoys (otherwise they wouldn't be privileges). Most people just aren't inclined to "give up" these privileges (or don't see how they're supposed to) purely for the sake of being less privileged. Not seeing how anyone would benefit from you giving up a privilege is a pretty valid reason to "defend" it. A persuasive argument for giving it up does more than just point out that the privilege exists--it convincingly proposes a way that society would be improved by a specific action that counteracts or negates that privilege.

Unless you're suggesting that a person is lying or otherwise offering objectively false information as a key element of their argument, theirargument personal motives for choosing one side or the other in a debate are completely irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of the argument they're making.

Anyone hoping to actually advance a cause by persuading people to support it makes better use of their time and energy by developing arguments that are actually persuasive. Detailing all the ways you see your opponents as evil bastards really doesn't help you beat them in any practical way.

[Xsyne]

This seems a little desperate, kind of just throwing out the first reaction, can you make this a bit more concise?

Hey pal, if you were a woman, and this was 1937, you'd have first dibs on any lifeboat you wanted on the steamship!

No, no. You get to pretend to have first dibs on the lifeboats.

[Gravlen]

Hey pal, if you were a woman, and this was 1937, you'd have first dibs on any lifeboat you wanted on the steamship!

Well to be fair if you were
a) old
2) Disabled
3) Pregnant
4) A woman
5) A child

You probably wouldn't be on the list of casualties in an accident at sea.

This idea of chivalry at sea has gained mythological status, but you're the first person to examine if it's true for many other maritime disasters. What did you find?
We went through a list of over 100 major maritime disasters spanning three centuries to see if we could find data on survival rates of men and women. We ended up with data on 18 shipwrecks, involving 15,000 passengers. In contrast to the Titanic, we found that the survival rate for men is basically double that for women. We only have data on children for a limited number of shipwrecks, but it is evident that they have really bad survival prospects: just 15 per cent.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth.html

[Benuty]

Well to be fair if you were
a) old
2) Disabled
3) Pregnant
4) A woman
5) A child

You probably wouldn't be on the list of casualties in an accident at sea.

This idea of chivalry at sea has gained mythological status, but you're the first person to examine if it's true for many other maritime disasters. What did you find?
We went through a list of over 100 major maritime disasters spanning three centuries to see if we could find data on survival rates of men and women. We ended up with data on 18 shipwrecks, involving 15,000 passengers. In contrast to the Titanic, we found that the survival rate for men is basically double that for women. We only have data on children for a limited number of shipwrecks, but it is evident that they have really bad survival prospects: just 15 per cent.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth.html

I said probably not definitively.

[Des-Bal]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth.html

I said probably not definitively.[/quote]

Then it sounds like you don't know what probably means.

[Gravlen]

This idea of chivalry at sea has gained mythological status, but you're the first person to examine if it's true for many other maritime disasters. What did you find?
We went through a list of over 100 major maritime disasters spanning three centuries to see if we could find data on survival rates of men and women. We ended up with data on 18 shipwrecks, involving 15,000 passengers. In contrast to the Titanic, we found that the survival rate for men is basically double that for women. We only have data on children for a limited number of shipwrecks, but it is evident that they have really bad survival prospects: just 15 per cent.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth.html

I said probably not definitively.

And the research disputes your assertion.

[Tahar Joblis]

Well to be fair if you were
a) old
2) Disabled
3) Pregnant
4) A woman
5) A child

You probably wouldn't be on the list of casualties in an accident at sea.

This idea of chivalry at sea has gained mythological status, but you're the first person to examine if it's true for many other maritime disasters. What did you find?
We went through a list of over 100 major maritime disasters spanning three centuries to see if we could find data on survival rates of men and women. We ended up with data on 18 shipwrecks, involving 15,000 passengers. In contrast to the Titanic, we found that the survival rate for men is basically double that for women. We only have data on children for a limited number of shipwrecks, but it is evident that they have really bad survival prospects: just 15 per cent.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth.html

The basic logic of that paper (aside from some interesting quibbling about when and why survival rates differ substantially by sex, and how much this is a small noisy data set with large numbers of confounding factors, such as the location of steerage rate accommodations on the ship) is this:

1. Men are more physically able, and therefore better able to swim, break down doors, et cetera to escape a sinking ship. Crew members are particularly likely to have knowledge and abilities. (+X survival rate, X unknown)
2. Men, and especially crew members, will lower their survival rate if they engage in risky (self-sacrificing) behavior to rescue women and children. (-Y survival rate relative to women, Y unknown)
3. The observed survival rate is lower. (Data: +X-Y is a positive number on aggregate, though negative for some ship crashes, famously including the Titanic.)
4. Men must not engage in risky (self-sacrificing) behavior to rescue women and children. (I.e., Y is typically around 0).

So. Spot the math error in this proof:

1. X > 0
2. Y > 0
3. X-Y > 0
4. Y = 0

See it? You can conclude that women have the disadvantage on the whole, in that particular data set, though the data from that set of shipwrecks is very noisy and there are clearly a large number of confounding factors. This disadvantage is almost certainly due to physical disparity. But that does not actually mean that women have a social disadvantage as well as an individual (and mainly physical) disadvantage contributing to lack of survival, or that men do not engage in self-sacrificing risky behavior to save women and children.

Dusting the rust off my lifeguarding background, I would suggest that lifeguards are engaging, in many cases, in risky activity, particularly lifeguards working ocean fronts. And that an untrained person trying to make a rescue is at a substantial risk. Drowning people will reflexively thrash in a particular way that means they are very likely to push you down in the water if you don't know what you're doing. However, even an untrained strong but non-distressed swimmer trying to rescue a drowning person seems to me to be very much more likely to survive than the drowning person. Even though they may be putting themselves at risk by diving in and trying to engage with the drowning person; it's highly unlikely the drowning person will make it to safety without their rescuer also doing so, but the opposite is not true.

Men surviving more doesn't mean that men were not putting their lives on the line to rescue women; it simply means that it wasn't enough to make up for the difference in physical survival capabilities between a man and a woman. We are not speaking so much of shoving women off lifeboats as breaking open the door to your steerage cabin and getting through a dark and partly or fully flooded compartment. It is worth noting that the "women and children first!" order was given in five of the eighteen shipwrecks of the sample; its existence and use is not mythological; and that it did indeed improve women's survival rate where it was given.

For example, four particularly woman-unfriendly wrecks - I sorted them on the regression coefficients:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Atlantic <= Survivors had to swim to shore, climb ropes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Princess_Victoria <= Lifeboat full of women and children was sighted but reportedly smashed by rough seas. Very rough sea conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Princess_of_the_Stars <= Capsized during a typhoon, survivors were those who then swam to a nearby island. During a typhoon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Empress_of_Ireland <= Passengers who died did so because the ship violently flipped partway through sinking, flinging a large number of people directly into the water.

Then there are some where the crew took off and left the passengers to drown - i.e., the reason women didn't survive the SS Arctic wreck is because those few passengers who survived are those who managed to swim their way to safety:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Arctic

I didn't get to one in which passengers got on boats until the sixth one I looked at - people running around panicked in the dark, women and children not prioritized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northfleet_(ship)

Then it's back to 4-6 meter waves, hypothermia, and survival of the physically fit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia

Then eight days in lifeboats exposed to the elements, with some of the deaths apparently due to expose, drinking seawater, et cetera - and a "women and children first" order, with actually a fair number of children surviving:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Norge
http://home.online.no/~fndbadm/norge.htm#vill

Lifeboats filled with women and children - but two overloaded lifeboats full of women and children [out of three the ship had, total] getting swamped when the ship went down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Vestris

I mean, sure, women are at a survival disadvantage by the data, but I'm not buying the logic of X-Y being positive implying that Y is zero or negligible.

[Neo Art]

Holy shit. I thought the chart was creepy.

[Phocidaea]

When you have feminists who are anti-sex telling people who aren't black transsexual women
"You are just afraid of losing your privilege, that's why you disagree with us." as essentially the entire substance of their argument, and then you have pro-sex feminists, some of whom actually are black transsexual women, making the same arguments we do that get ignored entirely, you can see why the "It's privilege." thing is just completely fucking ridiculous.

Especially when it goes both ways. Pro-Sex feminists also use the privelege argument, and anti-sex feminists make the same arguments we do sometimes.

Somehow I never expected you to be an anti-feminist, anti-"privilege" guy...

[Tahar Joblis]

OP is correct that "appeal to motive" is a very weak form of argument. Regardless of what position you're arguing for, 'calling out' your opposition for benefitting from what they support is generally not persuasive or insightful.

Try flipping it around and this becomes clear--"well, obviously women don't like male privilege; they're just trying to make their own lives easier."

Well, duh. So what

The observation that systems of social privilege exist is hardly an earth-shattering revelation to most people, except maybe college freshmen in intro sociology classes.

The idea that there is a system of male privileges and a system of female privileges is, apparently, an earth-shattering revelation to some people with graduate degrees in sociology.

Obviously, it's impossible to wish a society into existence where everyone has exactly the same set of opportunities available at exactly the same "difficulty setting." So pointing out that the society we have is 'not that' really isn't much of an argument in and of itself.

It's not a situation with unilateral benefits when we're talking about gender. For example, women/girls are protected by bystanders; men/boys are not. This is a real female privilege / male disadvantage. Observe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=-57-i1S95Kk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8HyitefBZQ

This is what the simplified sloppy logic of "Privilege^TM" is used to deny when someone claims being a man is "easy mode." That's what I mean by "it's not." If you take a long hard look at male privileges and female privileges, which are more important depends on what your values are. It's not so much that men or women have it worse in the oppression olympics; it's that they have it different.

For some women, being assumed to be bad at math is more important than being able to play with children without being labeled a pedophile. For others, it isn't.

It doesn't really do anything to convince people to act differently or vote differently, because it doesn't offer any specific suggestion for what they should support instead of the status quo. It's just a statement about something everyone is more or less aware of already.

You'll get a lot more mileage out of proposing something that aims to reduce a specific form of inequality, and explaining the benefits of doing that. If people disagree with you about the costs vs benefits of what you're proposing, then explain why you think they're wrong about that. Dissecting their motives for disagreeing with you isn't a refutation of what they're saying--it's basically a refusal to even address their arguments at all by referring to the source of the arguments rather than their substance. (An ad hominem fallacy.) It doesn't do anything to make your case more persuasive, because it doesn't actually refute anything that's been raised as a reason not to support what you're proposing.

People are generally aware that they enjoy privileges which not everyone enjoys (otherwise they wouldn't be privileges). Most people just aren't inclined to "give up" these privileges (or don't see how they're supposed to) purely for the sake of being less privileged. Not seeing how anyone would benefit from you giving up a privilege is a pretty valid reason to "defend" it. A persuasive argument for giving it up does more than just point out that the privilege exists--it convincingly proposes a way that society would be improved by a specific action that counteracts or negates that privilege.

Yup. 2-A,B,C in the OP. If someone's aware they enjoy a privilege and that the defense of it is what's motivating their objection, you're not likely to make headway by saying they are what they're aware they are.

And I'd like to repeat something implied in what you've said, for emphasis: If you want anything to change for the better, the argument I'm complaining about is not the way to get results. Even in cases where your opposition really is motivated by the fear of losing their privileges, and you can back up that claim, it's just plain not persuading them of anything.

Unless you're suggesting that a person is lying or otherwise offering objectively false information as a key element of their argument, their argument personal motives for choosing one side or the other in a debate are completely irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of the argument they're making.

Anyone hoping to actually advance a cause by persuading people to support it makes better use of their time and energy by developing arguments that are actually persuasive. Detailing all the ways you see your opponents as evil bastards really doesn't help you beat them in any practical way.

Yup.

[Ifreann]

The day Joblis discovered Tumblr. That sort of anguished back-and-forth grinding is how beaches are formed.

I think you mean "babies".

[Tahar Joblis]

Holy shit. I thought the chart was creepy.

Are you going to reply with anything material, or are you just going to run around making vague attacks that aren't arguments?

And have you come up with an excuse for being sexist yet?

So why do you feel it's ok to treat grown ass women as children, in your own turn of phrase?

[Vetalia]

Wait, do Slavs have privilege or do we get to claim oppression? I mean, we got a really shitty deal during the 19th century as immigrants in the US working in the coal mines and steel mills, and those of us who didn't emigrate got a really, really shitty deal outside the US that mostly involved killing us in concentration camps, ditches, or wherever the hell the Nazis felt like during the 20th century until 1945 or so...what's the exchange rate for non-privileged status?

[Trotskylvania]

Male privilege. (Female versions added by me to point out how fucking stupid their argument is.)
http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf

Second result for "male privilege" which lists off exactly what male privilege entails.

1m. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants,
are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the
odds are skewed.
1f. My odds of receiving a prison sentence comparable to a man's is skewed in my favor. The higher the sentence, the more the odds are skewed.

2m. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark
against my entire sex’s capabilities.
2f. If I fail in my job or career, I can claim it was due to sexism and be taken seriously even if i'm completely incompetent.

3m. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female coworkers are.
3f. I am far less likely to face violence or injury or death at work than my male coworkers.

4m. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective,
chances are people will think I did a better job.
4f. If I do the same task as a man, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
(Note: This ENTIRELY depends on the task assigned. An example would be childraising.)

5m. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
5f. If I choose not to like sports, my femininity will not be called into question.

6m. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at
home.
6f. If I have children and a career, no one will think i'm strange for staying at home.

7m. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more
prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
7f. I can run for office in many areas and be assured of a place due to gender quota's even if I am an inferior candidate.

8m. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my
own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
8f. This is simply a restated version of the politics one.

9m. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than
my sisters.
9f. As a child, chances are the education system did not fail me.

10m. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised
their hands just as often.
10f. As a child, chances are I got more attention than males who were subject to violence.


11m. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
11f. If I'm violent it won't be attributed to my sex.

12m. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
12f. If I'm careless with my parenting it won't be attributed to my sex.

13m. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously
labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”
13f. Even if I choose not to sleep with men, there is no chance I will be seriously labeled a homosexual, nor will my femininity be called into question.

14m. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my
sexual availability or my gender conformity.
14f. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my masculinity or my worth as a human.

15m. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s
clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will
probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.
15f. My clothing is typically more expressive and more varied than men's clothing for the same social status. While they have less durability, my clothes will probably attract more attention than a man's without tailoring.

16m. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little
time.
16f. I am allowed to groom myself and not be considered odd or strange, nor will my masculinity be called into question.

17m. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and
easy to ignore.
17f. If I'm not conventionally attractive, it is unlikely that this will present a serious roadblock to finding a partner of the opposite sex.

18m. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with
no fear of being called a bitch.
18f. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called violent. I can be loud with no fear of people assuming violent intention.

19m. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will
always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman,
freshman, etc.
19f. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will not place responsibilities on me.

20m. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never
be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
20f. My ability to express emotions will never be curtailed dependent on my genitals.

21m. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I
don’t change my name.
21f. I will never be expected to propose marriage.

22m. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or
not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
22f. The decision to hire me may be based on a need to fulfill government quotas, even if I am a less capable candidate.

23m. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household
chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive
and unrewarding tasks. (bullshit.)
23f. If I have a husband or live-in-boyfriend, chances are if we divorce I will leave the relationship with alemony payments and a biased court system will likely ensure custody should I request it.

24m. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the
childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of
childrearing.
24f. If I have children with a husband or boyfriend, chances are I will be allowed to do most of the childrearing without discrimination.

25m. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs
to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the
career sacrificed should be hers.
25f. If I have children with a husband or boyfriend, I will receive longer maternity leave even if it is agreed he should be the one to stay at home. (In many countries.)

26m. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of
media are filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me
sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
26f. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media are filled with images of my gender. I am likely to be able to build a career off merely being attractive. Such careers exist for men, but are rarer.

27m. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female
counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic
consequences for being fat than fat women do.
27f. In general, I am under much less pressure to obtain money than my male counterparts are. If I am poor, I probably suffer fewer social, romantic, and economic consequences for being poor than poor males do.

28m. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are
interrupted by men.
28f. On average, I am not interrupted by men as often as men are interrupted by women. (Yes, this is true also. Good job for being complete fuckups mit.edu.)

29m. I have the privilege of being unaware of my privilege. <- Bullshit.
29f. I have the privilege of being unaware of my privilege.


30f. Rape against my gender is not considered acceptable humor by most media outlets.

31f. If I suffer domestic violence, I will not be demeaned or ignored by society.

32f. If I commit domestic violence, I am unlikely to be prosecuted.

33f. My gender politics will never be dismissed based purely on my gender.

34f. My gender currently dominates the gender equality discussion.

Sexism hurts everyone, you say? Fascinating.

His female "equivalents" aren't necessarily equivalents, and many of them simply aren't true.

Just because we are paying attention to gaps in privilege doesn't mean they are solved.

[Neo Art]

His female "equivalents" aren't necessarily equivalents, and many of them simply aren't true.

What? Being afraid the man you met might rape you is TOTALLY the same as being afraid that the woman you just met, and will never see again, might think not nice things about you in her head. Fear of violence perpetrated against you is EXACTLY like fear that someone might not like you!

[Forsher]

When you have feminists who are anti-sex telling people who aren't black transsexual women
"You are just afraid of losing your privelige, that's why you disagree with us." as essentially the entire substance of their argument, and then you have pro-sex feminists, some of whom actually are black transsexual women, making the same arguments we do that get ignored entirely, you can see why the "It's privelige." thing is just completely fucking ridiculous.

Especially when it goes both ways. Pro-Sex feminists also use the privelege argument, and anti-sex feminists make the same arguments we do sometimes.

Are you implying that white men don't have an easier time of it?

Here's the way really works... it's about money. Rich people have an easier time of it than poor people. Richer people have an easier time of it than poorer people. This is not a particularly revolutionary thought.

That said, the browner parts of society don't get called skin-heads if they want to have short hair... and I'm not talking about skin-head short hair either, just short hair. And that's why "check your privilege" is a nonsense argument... because it works both ways and it always has done. It's incredibly hypocritical in many cases. That is to say there's things that bring disadvantages to being anyone... not that there are no disadvantages or that it all balances.

What about Israeli settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank?

I'd say one group is pretty clearly privileged over the other.

Wrong kind of privilege I'm afraid. You can tell because it's demonstratably real. It's not the disconnect you get from (to use NERVUN's helpful example, not understanding what it's like to be a minority properly when you're a majority -- in case you don't know what I'm talking about see here), which is an actual thing but it's not this really cool totally awesome argument.

Male privilege. (Female versions added by me to point out how fucking stupid their argument is.)
http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf

Second result for "male privilege" which lists off exactly what male privilege entails.

1m. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants,
are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the
odds are skewed.
1f. My odds of receiving a prison sentence comparable to a man's is skewed in my favor. The higher the sentence, the more the odds are skewed.

2m. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark
against my entire sex’s capabilities.
2f. If I fail in my job or career, I can claim it was due to sexism and be taken seriously even if i'm completely incompetent.

3m. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female coworkers are.
3f. I am far less likely to face violence or injury or death at work than my male coworkers.

4m. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective,
chances are people will think I did a better job.
4f. If I do the same task as a man, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
(Note: This ENTIRELY depends on the task assigned. An example would be childraising.)

5m. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
5f. If I choose not to like sports, my femininity will not be called into question.

6m. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at
home.
6f. If I have children and a career, no one will think i'm strange for staying at home.

7m. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more
prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
7f. I can run for office in many areas and be assured of a place due to gender quota's even if I am an inferior candidate.

8m. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my
own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
8f. This is simply a restated version of the politics one.

9m. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than
my sisters.
9f. As a child, chances are the education system did not fail me.

10m. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised
their hands just as often.
10f. As a child, chances are I got more attention than males who were subject to violence.


11m. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
11f. If I'm violent it won't be attributed to my sex.

12m. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
12f. If I'm careless with my parenting it won't be attributed to my sex.

13m. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously
labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”
13f. Even if I choose not to sleep with men, there is no chance I will be seriously labeled a homosexual, nor will my femininity be called into question.

14m. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my
sexual availability or my gender conformity.
14f. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my masculinity or my worth as a human.

15m. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s
clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will
probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.
15f. My clothing is typically more expressive and more varied than men's clothing for the same social status. While they have less durability, my clothes will probably attract more attention than a man's without tailoring.

16m. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little
time.
16f. I am allowed to groom myself and not be considered odd or strange, nor will my masculinity be called into question.

17m. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and
easy to ignore.
17f. If I'm not conventionally attractive, it is unlikely that this will present a serious roadblock to finding a partner of the opposite sex.

18m. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with
no fear of being called a bitch.
18f. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called violent. I can be loud with no fear of people assuming violent intention.

19m. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will
always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman,
freshman, etc.
19f. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will not place responsibilities on me.

20m. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never
be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
20f. My ability to express emotions will never be curtailed dependent on my genitals.

21m. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I
don’t change my name.
21f. I will never be expected to propose marriage.

22m. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or
not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
22f. The decision to hire me may be based on a need to fulfill government quotas, even if I am a less capable candidate.

23m. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household
chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive
and unrewarding tasks. (bullshit.)
23f. If I have a husband or live-in-boyfriend, chances are if we divorce I will leave the relationship with alemony payments and a biased court system will likely ensure custody should I request it.

24m. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the
childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of
childrearing.
24f. If I have children with a husband or boyfriend, chances are I will be allowed to do most of the childrearing without discrimination.

25m. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs
to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the
career sacrificed should be hers.
25f. If I have children with a husband or boyfriend, I will receive longer maternity leave even if it is agreed he should be the one to stay at home. (In many countries.)

26m. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of
media are filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me
sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
26f. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media are filled with images of my gender. I am likely to be able to build a career off merely being attractive. Such careers exist for men, but are rarer.

27m. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female
counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic
consequences for being fat than fat women do.
27f. In general, I am under much less pressure to obtain money than my male counterparts are. If I am poor, I probably suffer fewer social, romantic, and economic consequences for being poor than poor males do.

28m. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are
interrupted by men.
28f. On average, I am not interrupted by men as often as men are interrupted by women. (Yes, this is true also. Good job for being complete fuckups mit.edu.)

29m. I have the privilege of being unaware of my privilege. <- Bullshit.
29f. I have the privilege of being unaware of my privilege.


30f. Rape against my gender is not considered acceptable humor by most media outlets.

31f. If I suffer domestic violence, I will not be demeaned or ignored by society.

32f. If I commit domestic violence, I am unlikely to be prosecuted.

33f. My gender politics will never be dismissed based purely on my gender.

34f. My gender currently dominates the gender equality discussion.

Sexism hurts everyone, you say? Fascinating.

It gets fascinating when you get to the nitty-gritty question -- does sexism against men matter? Apparently, not so much. That last one is generally speaking the justification for that argument -- the counter-argument is probably best summarised as "all sexism matters because it all contributes to a sexist society".

Dodge what. You're not saying anything meaningful. Your eyes have glazed over and you're just spouting feminist verse.
I've seen you specifically disbelieve my gender identity because you think it'd remove your argument of privilege. Don't bullshit me about you not being a supporter of it.

Nah, because you're doing it as a political statement.

Is this not an appeal to motive? You know, one of the things mentioned in the OP.

In this post-NERVUN world, would I agree with my understanding of the 16th of April? Yes, I would.

It refers to male privilege and specifically the idea that certain posters are blinded to reality because of it.

Fundamentally it means the same thing as, "it's amazing what you don't see when you're in it" but I think I was reaching the right answer from a slightly wrong direction.

Actually, there are no paths closed to my female peers in my experience. The reason being my experience is completely restricted to school.

And I'm pretty sure this is what NERVUN was getting at here.

I don't think you quite... get what I was talking about.

And that post, it's special... I remember it more than a month later. And this is the bit why.

Now I really AM in minority status. The things that we talked about in class now apply to ME, only not as a "Be careful how you teach" but more "You are now the target". I didn't really notice it until it was gone just, yeah, how much I did benefit from being part of the guys in charge, and it's not even that everyone in Japan is trying to keep the gaijin down (far from it), it's just that... not being Japanese, I'm marginalized, companies, governments, groups, they don't cater to me. I can't turn on the news and see people who look like me in positions of power or responsibility. My voice isn't heard and doesn't carry weight the way my wife's voice does now. It's automatically assumed that I don't understand (Possibly a safe bet) and thus even when my wife and I are out shopping together, even when we're shopping for something for me, and even when I am obviously the one asking questions, 9 times out of 10 the clerk will not talk to me directly, but my wife. Even if I asked the questions. I'm the one viewed with some suspicion, how I dress and what I do are fair game for comments (Sometimes very unwanted), and of course people in Japan seem to assume that if you're here and a foreigner, you MUST just WANT to talk to them, any time, to provide a free English lesson (This can get rather interesting, such as the time when a very nice old gentleman stopped me to talk in English... while we both were waiting for a urinal to open in the restroom).

I see it more or less as the idea that just being part of Group X means that there are subtleties to your life that you don't even notice, perhaps cannot notice, that Group Y doesn't get and you do. I don't think that "check your privilege" is a particularly convincing argument because I read these posts looking for things that disagree with my fundamental view of the central issues -- and that is the feminism is flawed.

Since January last year my positions have remained fundamentally the same. I still believe that "Feminism seeks to address gender equality from one side," and perhaps this is the "What about me?" sentiment that has been brought up in this thread. However, I've never thought that feminism is "bad," I just think it's flawed and just generally defended with too little in areas where it's actually off-centre. And I attribute those flaws not to some malign "cruch the menfolk" mentality within the thing but instead a propblem with its perspective (and I know about perspectives... the last three years I've been assessed on my ability to understand historical perspectives and done well all three times)... I guess you could say something very similar to the whole "privilege" thing as I understand it and as it was explained to me.

I've latched on to the idea that feminism is about equality and I think that's the issue -- there are inequalities being missed and (as it has ended up in reality) feminists are all too eager to defend that missing. That's why I don't like the privilege idea because it's a blunt tool, wielded poorly and used selectively... that is to say I think "privilege" goes both ways and it's contributing to the problem. I've actually adapted a feminist term to describe some of this - the Feminism Mystique.

[Stanisburg]

His female "equivalents" aren't necessarily equivalents, and many of them simply aren't true.

What? Being afraid the man you met might rape you is TOTALLY the same as being afraid that the woman you just met, and will never see again, might think not nice things about you in her head. Fear of violence perpetrated against you is EXACTLY like fear that someone might not like you!

Some are valid comparisons (cultural stigma on men's incomes vs women's physical appearance). Some are drawn from a "Fair and Balanced" version of reality (what country anywhere in the world imposes gender quotas on candidates for elected positions in government?). Some are frankly so bizarre I had trouble understanding them. (In my experience, no one is going to accuse you of being gay just because you're single, at least once you're past your teen years, and if this happens to men I'm fairly confident in assuming it happens to women just as frequently.)

I still think arguing about "who has more privilege" is a waste of energy altogether, as proving the point one way or the other accomplishes nothing. It's not a contest. I've heard "check your privilege" stupidly used as though it were a substantive rebuttal plenty of times, but every attempt I've ever seen at trying to rebut the rebuttal by trying to prove that there's a "female privilege" corresponding to each and every "male privilege" has been equally facepalm-worthy.

You're all doing it wrong. Have a nice day.