The self-defeating nature of using "Privilege (Theory)" (in societal discourse)

[Ryika]

I don't know, I feel like if you were to source some actual research to support your claims, then the discussion would gain some ...uhh... usefulness, I guess. Not that it needs that, but... I don't know, I feel like focusing the discussion solely on "I think this is what humans are, therefor prehistoric humans acted that way." is a wasted opportunity, and a futile discussion. You're basically arguing about your ideologies by proxy, and diffusing the actual discussion by not focusing it directly on that topic.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't know, I feel like if you were to source some actual research to support your claims, then the discussion would gain some ...uhh... usefulness, I guess. Not that it needs that, but... I don't know, I feel like focusing the discussion solely on "I think this is what humans are, therefor prehistoric humans acted that way." is a wasted opportunity, and a futile discussion. You're basically arguing about your ideologies by proxy, and diffusing the actual discussion by not focusing it directly on that topic.

"Sourcing actual research" is a pointless embellishment. This is the internet. I can source research that will support a claim that real penguins aren't black and white. Heck, I could source some research that will support a claim that penguins are space aliens slowly siphoning earth's water to a ship in polar orbit. Sourcing research doesn't make a claim any more or less useful, it just obfuscates the fact that it is a claim, not an established pillar supporting the great structure of reality.

 

[sophie]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. People are using their ideological biases and common sense to reverse-engineer what ancient human societies must have been like. What could possibly go wrong?

Oh man is the irony delicious here.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It doesn't really strike me as an 'advantage of being female" that they can abuse men in public without people being too worried about it, even if this is generally true. You also can't really put too much weight into a video like this which has the potential for so much selection bias.

I did find it kind of funny though that some people just joined in with her, assuming that she was justified in whatever she was doing. Hey, maybe that is a fair assumption. Like honestly I was right there with the people in terms of my emotional responses. I was actually disturbed seeing the women thrown around in the first half, even knowing it was staged, and I actually found it mildly amusing the other way around.

Totally agree that you can't put too much weight in that one video. But if you did for the sake of argument I really can't fathom how you can't see it as an obvious advantage. The reactions you describe in the second paragraph surely illustrate why, unless you think those reactions are freakishly unique to yourself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But if you did for the sake of argument I really can't fathom how you can't see it as an obvious advantage.

Because the "obvious advantage" is a dependent outgrowth from an equally obvious disadvantage. Social programming protects women from men and not vice versa because physically men can defend themselves from women far more effectively than women can defend themselves from men.

I had this friend who was married to a female competition body-builder. This chick was rock solid muscle, head to toe. She was also five three and a buck twenty, and wasn't shy about how frustrating it was that a two hundred pound lazy lout of a man, if he could pull her down and get his weight on her, would have her in a position she really had no way out of.

So, yeah, society protects women from men, and that's an "advantage" if men are looking for something to cry about. But it's really just an offset, and a weak one at that.

 

[Ryika]

Because the "obvious advantage" is a dependent outgrowth from an equally obvious disadvantage. Social programming protects women from men and not vice versa because physically men can defend themselves from women far more effectively than women can defend themselves from men.

I had this friend who was married to a female competition body-builder. This chick was rock solid muscle, head to toe. She was also five three and a buck twenty, and wasn't shy about how frustrating it was that a two hundred pound lazy lout of a man, if he could pull her down and get his weight on her, would have her in a position she really had no way out of.

So, yeah, society protects women from men, and that's an "advantage" if men are looking for something to cry about. But it's really just an offset, and a weak one at that.

What about psychological abuse? Society protects women more than men in that area, too, even though women have the advantage here.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What about psychological abuse? Society protects women more than men in that area, too, even though women have the advantage here.

For the moment I'm going to go with that being a false premise.

 

[Ryika]

How so?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How so?

Because I don't think it is true and it's going to take more than your assumption to convince me otherwise. If you have an argument to support that, make it, but I think women are subjected to far more psychological abuse than men and get very little protection.

 

[Ryika]

As far as I know, you do buy into the general idea that men are told not to be emotional, and to "just deal with it", which you would describe as part of what you'd call "toxic masculinity", while women are raised to deal with their feelings. I don't see how you can get around the conclusion that therefor, men in general get no protection from psychological abuse at all in that ideological framework. Even if I buy that women get "very little protection", that's still more than men get then, right?

As for the idea of women being subjected to far more psychological abuse than men... I mean, nagging is literally the weapon of the wife, eh?

 

[Senethro]

Now Ryika-chan, are you sure you are posting with your best self?

 

[bernie14]

Because the "obvious advantage" is a dependent outgrowth from an equally obvious disadvantage. Social programming protects women from men and not vice versa because physically men can defend themselves from women far more effectively than women can defend themselves from men.

I had this friend who was married to a female competition body-builder. This chick was rock solid muscle, head to toe. She was also five three and a buck twenty, and wasn't shy about how frustrating it was that a two hundred pound lazy lout of a man, if he could pull her down and get his weight on her, would have her in a position she really had no way out of.

So, yeah, society protects women from men, and that's an "advantage" if men are looking for something to cry about. But it's really just an offset, and a weak one at that.

Maybe she's working out the wrong muscles?

 

[Ryika]

Now Ryika-chan, are you sure you are posting with your best self?

I don't even know what that means! But it's certainly not true.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Because the "obvious advantage" is a dependent outgrowth from an equally obvious disadvantage. Social programming protects women from men and not vice versa because physically men can defend themselves from women far more effectively than women can defend themselves from men.

I had this friend who was married to a female competition body-builder. This chick was rock solid muscle, head to toe. She was also five three and a buck twenty, and wasn't shy about how frustrating it was that a two hundred pound lazy lout of a man, if he could pull her down and get his weight on her, would have her in a position she really had no way out of.

So, yeah, society protects women from men, and that's an "advantage" if men are looking for something to cry about. But it's really just an offset, and a weak one at that.

Hmm. Well that's kind of a nonsense reply. Oh well.

Edit: Oh okay let's reply properly. Your reasoning only makes sense if you envisage abusive relationships to always take the form of toe-to-toe UFC-style physical brawls where the participant with the weight advantage "wins". Given that this is pretty much not how it ever goes in reality, this is a silly argument. Abusive relationships go on for extended periods of time and largely revolve around physical intimidation and psychological bullying, not all-out physical battles. You obviously know this of course.

I suppose you could argue that that sort of intimidation and bullying works when it's man-on-woman because she has the knowledge he could physically overpower her if it came to it. But it's easy to dismiss that because again that doesn't match to reality. As it goes on over an extended period (and hey, the guy's got to sleep sometime), there are always going to plenty of opportunities to get the physical upper hand over him without resorting to direct confrontation - brain him with a baseball bat while he's watching the game, slit his throat while he sleeps, or heck just walk out of the door when he's out. There are plenty of ways that someone who is only 60% the mass of someone else can very much hurt them. But often that doesn't happen. And even more so in the cases where it's woman-on-man domestic abuse and the abuser doesn't have the weight advantage to begin with. The point being that obviously there's a lot more going on here than just a street brawl so acting like street brawl logic is all that applies is clearly not reasonable.

So yeah, it's an advantage.

 

[Narz]

Maybe she's working out the wrong muscles?

That's one girlfriend you really wouldn't want to make mad at you!

 

[metalhead]

As far as I know, you do buy into the general idea that men are told not to be emotional, and to "just deal with it", which you would describe as part of what you'd call "toxic masculinity", while women are raised to deal with their feelings. I don't see how you can get around the conclusion that therefor, men in general get no protection from psychological abuse at all in that ideological framework. Even if I buy that women get "very little protection", that's still more than men get then, right?

As for the idea of women being subjected to far more psychological abuse than men... I mean, nagging is literally the weapon of the wife, eh?

Yes, and there is a generally recognized and negative connotation associated with "nagging," to the point it is trivial for a man to weaponize a woman's complaints against her, whether they are valid or not. Nagging is not psychological abuse. It's annoying, certainly, but it's not abusive.

I could also say that women being raised more aware of feelings are therefore also more inclined to empathy and therefore less likely to be psychologically abusive than a man, who is less likely to have similar empathy under this framework. I think if there is a demonstrable empathy gap attributable to gender, the gender more inclined to empathy would be less likely to engage in partner abuse.

 

[Traitorfish]

When I put "including women" in parenthesis I didn't expect it to turn invisible.

When I said "excited by bloodshed" I wasn't talking about violent movies. Take a date to a boxing match.

More visceral, but the same principle. Very few boxing fans would have the nerve to step into the ring themselves. People punch you in the ring, and being punched hurts. Sometimes a lot! It takes a lot of conditioning for people to be okay with that.

People who say "not likely to live to reproduce" vastly overestimate the age where "wild" humans would reproduce.

What are you basing this on?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What are you basing this on?

The fact that wild anythings reproduce as soon as they are capable, and it is highly unlikely that humans would be an exception.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, and there is a generally recognized and negative connotation associated with "nagging," to the point it is trivial for a man to weaponize a woman's complaints against her, whether they are valid or not. Nagging is not psychological abuse. It's annoying, certainly, but it's not abusive.

So a man who nags his wife to have sex with him for hours until she finally gives in even though she's not really in the mood, is not emotionally abusing her in your opinion? He's not coercing her into a sexual act?

 

[Traitorfish]

The fact that wild anythings reproduce as soon as they are capable, and it is highly unlikely that humans would be an exception.

Women are fertile from, very roughly, fifteen to fifty, with the drop-off starting around thirty-five. Women very generally prefer partners of a similar age, or slightly older. In a time before effective family planning, it's not really a question of women start reproducing, but the window of reproduction. Most of a women's children will be conceived long after adolescent psychopaths ceased to impress her.