We agree on the best person getting the job, but what fun is that ?
Hey, think of it....you're trading one set of privileges for another.
See if you can have it all !
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Female Privilege Checklist
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Hey, think of it....you're trading one set of privileges for another.
See if you can have it all !
Not just feeling condescended, but also being denied the ability to volunteer (for those who do want to do so).
I guess we're seeing things differently, because I factor intent into the equation when deciding whether or not something is a privilege. Giving someone money because you think they're an idiot and can't work despite being completely healthy wouldn't be a privilege to the person receiving the money, but being given money because you had green eyes or olive skin would be a privilege.
Someone I've heard about got conscripted despite having attempted suicide seven times and having severe mental illness.
Does that clarify what I meant?
Interesting info. Thanks.
It's good to know that the U.S. did away with a law because it outlived its usefulness. A lot of countries don't do the same.
Inability to volunteer is also discrimination.
One could call the right to volunteer a privilege.
But this still leaves exemption from the draft a female privilege.
Intent doesn't change the indisputable fact that men were drafted because they were men,
& women were exempted from this terrible burden simply because they were women.
The analogy isn't working for me.
Could you state it in more direct terms?
I can't speak to that.
But I don't favor having unfit people serve in the military.
I don't see how this relates to female privilege regarding the draft?
It's not entirely done away with. Men are still forced to register for the draft.
If one doesn't, there are financial & other sanctions.
I refused my draft physical, & they sanctioned me by classifying me as 1A.
(I'm really more of a Group W type....but I even refused to sit on the bench.)
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Are you... not familiar with what I was referencing?
Back in 2015, Rebecca Wax failed a crucial fitness test. She failed because she was physically unable to perform the required actions of a firefighter. Despite the fitness test mirroring the actual demands of being a firefighter, the United Women Firefighters of New York raised enough hell for Wax's failure, and she was admitted as a firefighter. Potentially putting lives at risk because she can't do the job.
That's what's wrong with crying when you fail a test.
Wow, that is a shocking lack of data, and from a three year old study.
Hmm. Right on the first page: "However, the universal validity of the “feminization of poverty” is being empirically challenged. Although the idea that there are gender differences in experiences of poverty is not abandoned, a more nuanced and complex analysis of poverty and gender inequalities is emerging. This, in turn, is giving rise to a more gender-aware approach to poverty elimination strategies."
It also notes that these studies focused on "Female Head-of-Households", or when women make more money than their husbands. Which, in turn, would narrow the study range to a specific target population. In other words, not an accurate national representation.
Furthermore, in reading the article I came across this gem: "Recently, the concept of poverty and the discussion of its causal explanations have been broadened. As the consumption/income approach to defining poverty has come under increased criticism, it has been suggested that in the analysis of poverty common property resources and state-provision of commodities should be taken into account and the concept of poverty should be broadened to include lack of dignity and autonomy."
So are women truly the face of poverty? (defined as the state of being poor) Or are they the face of victimhood? Society sure does like to push the later, it seems, and yet in all my years and the various cultural and regional experiences I've had, I have never seen this to be the case on such a large scale as to where it is common and ignored. If anything, female coworkers in my experiences have gotten away with far more than they should have thanks to their gender.
Then the paper tosses in this golden lens: "In these increasingly multidimensional conceptualizations, poverty is being viewed as a process, rather than as a static concept. For example, the poor, rather than being viewed as passive victims of society in need of handouts, are viewed as agents who struggle to cope with poverty with whatever assets they may posses."
Next you're going to parrot Ben Carson and tell me that poverty is a state of mind, right? As someone who is technically impoverished, and struggles daily against a system hell-bent on keeping the poor poor and guilty, I find this study that you've given to be insipid and atrociously manipulated. It's not a study on poverty, it's a study on social comfort that has co-opted the word "poverty" to make it sound more urgent.
Wow, that's... really sexist.
Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but I don't put stock in apologies - though I do appreciate the acknowledgement. I find that actions help things along much better, so let's compromise; if the lack of encountering the harpies is not a symptom of "female privilege", then neither is the lack of encountering the orcs a symptom of "male privilege." Both are the presence of rotten people, however commonplace it might be. Savvy?
Mmm no. Nowhere in anything I said hinted at the draft being the fault of women. But if we're going to be assigning "privileges" - something I am honestly wholly against - then it is most certainly a female privilege to not have the worry of being shipped off to die loom above your head for 8+ years.
Y'know, I've never actually witnessed this? Even in the case of the traitor Chelsea Manning, no blame is assigned on transgender soldiers as a whole. All the ire and hatred are focused to that individual--and not even because she's transgendered, but because of her actions. When the Lt. Colonel screwed up at the base that I worked at, no blame was assigned to every female soldier. It was just the LtCol. So I really don't see any validity in this claim at all.
Yet something that we do hear quite common - and we've even seen in this thread - are sweeping generalization about men. Men are pigs. Men won't hold doors. Men only want sex. Generalization after generalization. Double standards?
What exactly is she talking about in the modern age? You do realize that every soldier has to constantly prove their fitness? Men and women. PT drills are quite common, especially for the reserves, and if you can't hack it - male or female - you don't make it. The standard is set for a reason. Just like with the New York Fire Department. Neither are a game, they're not some desk-jockey competition. There are lives at stake, and participation medals make for a [REDACTED] shield.
You really stepped in it this time.
I'm inspired to start a new thread.
You have yourself to blame!
@Quetzal seems to have it handled.
He's dropping the ball, & needs your help.
No he doesn't. He's already said what I would have said. Though coming back to this thread, it takes a lot of privilege to say nobody should be concerned or complain when members of their oppressed group can have no presence in politics. In the sliding scale of people who will understand the oppressed and be best likely to judge their societal needs, wealthy CIS hetero white Christian men will be about the lowest.
That doesnt mean theyre innately bad people, privilege never has meant that. Nor has it meant that they've never had struggles of their own. What it does mean is that the greatest amount of power to affect change in a power system is that one group. And it's progressively harder for due to that system to more outside that group you are.
Because of the power structure in the US
It's hard to be an atheist.
It's harder to be a female atheist.
It's harder to be a female atheist of color.
It's harder to be a female atheist of color and gay.
It's harder to be a female atheist of color and Trans.
It's harder to be " and poor.
It's harder to be " and mentally or physically disabled.
Does that mean someone is fit for political leadership because they are a minority? No, nobody is suggesting that. But the fact of the matter is lack of diversity in power structure makes oppression easier. Women had no representation on women's issues during Nam because they weren't allowed to be represented by anyone but men. A vote means they had the ability to have any voice at all, but only what the more privileged group decided to bring to the table.
Nah.
Has someone said that?
This is where we disagree.
If women vote in large numbers, & determine who wins, it's hard to claim they're not represented.
Perhaps not as much as they'd like, but they have a large role in steering the ship of state.
They elected Johnson & Nixon, so they (as a group) had a say in the war.
Every woman who voted for Nixon had more representation than did I (a McGovern voter).
And every woman who voted for Johnson did so before I was even able to vote.
Their decision, which resulted in expanding the war, directly affected my future.
Complicated, eh?
Each of us wants more representation, but see different aspects of it.
This thread is now in General Debates.
Anyone have any idea why that happened?
As I recall, I put it in Men's Issues, which seemed appropriate because
I thought it a men's (not solely) issue, & the forum is open to all posters.
It's still open to all. I suppose it could've also been in a Women's Issues
forum, but we don't have one of those.
Mods work in mysterious ways.
Anyone have any idea why that happened?
As I recall, I put it in Men's Issues, which seemed appropriate because
I thought it a men's (not solely) issue, & the forum is open to all posters.
It's still open to all. I suppose it could've also been in a Women's Issues
forum, but we don't have one of those.
Mods work in mysterious ways.
It's odd to quote a post of all quotes....nothing shows.
Only if I hit <edit> do I see that I'm responding to DigiGal.
To vote upon the candidates presented to us is the situation of all voters.
But once presented, we can evaluate the candidates & their differences.
To choose between them is to exercise power, & if one votes in the winner,
then one has one's interests represented more so than voters for the loser.
Only if I hit <edit> do I see that I'm responding to DigiGal.
To vote upon the candidates presented to us is the situation of all voters.
But once presented, we can evaluate the candidates & their differences.
To choose between them is to exercise power, & if one votes in the winner,
then one has one's interests represented more so than voters for the loser.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
The quote is in blank because your last post contains only quotes.
Either way...
If the 'more privileged group' is the one that brings the candidates to the table then this group consist of a very small number of people compared to the general population. It's actually a minority.
It's only natural that most people won't have views that completely align with this minority. It's only natural that we won't feel properly represented by any given candidate.
I know.
Yes.
We're forced to deal with what's presented to us.
Agreed.
So we pick the best fit, & achieve somewhat mismatched representation.
You'd have to ask in a SF thread. Mods aren't allowed to discuss these things publicly.
That doesn't change that there exists an inequitable power dynamic. White men have the most power in government and the ability to choose more candidates which represent that power (cronyism, power families.)
Like it or not you were better represented than women were. We've gotten better since then but the disparity is still significant. One reason why the US is slower at progression in civil rights than many other first world nations.
I asked for a couple reasons....
- To let people know.
- To get opinions. It's interesting...what goes on in that secretive cabal?
As for the reason, it doesn't matter enuf to pursue with that much effort.
I agree with that.
I only disagree with the claim that you had no representation at all.
Again, no dispute.
It's fairly obvious....even to us knuckle walking malcontents.
Disagree here.
Women, as a group, determined the outcome of major elections.
I can't recall ever voting for a winning congressman or prez until Trump.
Women have a far more winning record than my less than 1%.
What percentage of candidates you vote for have been elected?
A rough guess is fine.
I say we're doing better than many.
But this might depend upon what rights we give most weight to.
Free speech, gun rights, economic liberty....those are things where we excel....
...although we're losing ground on economic liberty (no longer in the top 10).
I think you just like the sense of mystery.
I didn't say that, I said men had ALL the representation. And it's true. Women could vote on what men only put into power and on issues men only decided to put up to vote. That isn't representation. That's a facade. Women were only deciding what men allowed them to decide.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
This caught my eye, and to address it, very specific white men have power in government. This doesn't mean at all that life is roses and cakewalks for all white men everywhere (and while this may not have been your point, ADA, it's a sentiment that I see quite often in regards to this notion of "privilege.")
The rich never have anyone's back but their own.