Male Privilege

I am not redefining the meaning of fair or unfair nor am I using it to try and frustrate you, I am also not calling transitive law irrational. The basis for my argument is that the cause of death in your scenario is false, the events cannot be correlated in the way given. That your argument is irrational and unfair is simply an observation and not part of my argument.



My argument never questioned what someone should and should not be able to do. It was only about the specific scenario you provided and whether or not a correlation could be made between not paying your taxes and death.



I could argue that but I am not, even though I really, really want to. Unfortunately I am not debating whether or not potential damages is viable to use as the basis for a law right now. Though as a digression, I would really like to see some evidence and your reasoning to support that modern ethics is somehow mostly void of Utilitarianism; however, I would prefer to deal with this after.

You have not addressed the issue that resisting arrest, not paying your taxes and assault are separate crimes, are charged for separately and that they each have separate penalties. The penalty for failing to pay your taxes is not death and the cause in your scenario is false.

There should be no misunderstanding now, please put forth some decent reasoning to prove the cause is legitimate.

.

We kinda do when it comes down to military wise. Women doesnt get the same benefits as men do when they're discharged.

In America.

An argument based solely on potential damages is no argument at all; an argument based on potential damages, likelihood of occurrence and benefit analysis, however, is.

What are the extreme potential damages of driving? You could end up being the cause of multiple fatalities.

What are the extreme potential damages of jaywalking? You could end up being the cause of multiple fatalities.

What is the likelihood of an accident occurring while driving?

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp3322-2009-1173.htm
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade14a-eng.htm

According to statistics provided by the Government of Canada, at the end of 2009 there were in total 29,697,797 registered vehicles, 23,197,572 registered drivers and 2,209 people that died. 0.00745% of the driving populace dies each year, for every 13444 vehicles or 10501 drivers one person will die. The number of people that die due to vehicular accidents seems to be decreasing at a steady rate.

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick-choisir?lang=eng&p2=33&id=1020540

The above statistic shows a slightly higher number, but incorporates all types of transportation accidents (including flight). According to that statistic, 3,885 people died in 2009 due to self-inflicted harm, so you are literally more likely to kill yourself than wind up dead due to a transportation incident. This doesn't surprise me.

What is the likelihood of an accident being caused by a Jaywalker?

Actually, from the study I've done it seems to be pretty low. I have not found any hard evidence to support this though, but I'll take it as true for now.

So the potential damages in extreme cases for both activities are quite high, but both have a relatively low chance of those damages ever occurring. That only leaves the benefit analysis.

What are the benefits of being able to drive a car?

Is this really a question I have to answer?

What are the benefits of Jaywalking?

You save up to a few minutes off your commute.

Simply put, driving a vehicle is much more beneficial overall in comparison to Jaywalking and the chances of being in a fatal accident is actually quite low. Driving a vehicle is mandatory for most and the potential harm cannot be avoided, meanwhile the potential harm of Jaywalking can be avoided completely with little benefit lost.

Also, I'm just going to note that if a building's electrical is lawfully maintained and put together, and an appliance meets safety standards, it is impossible to either start a fire or electrocute someone by plugging one in.

Yes, a product's quality or buildings electrical degrades over time and thus it can no longer meet safety standards, thus a situation like that would become possible. However, I was quite clear in saying that the pre-requisite of meeting safety standards must be met in order for it to be a impossibility. Of course, I wouldn't be using the safety standards defined in the 50's or 60's, but the contemporary standards. The reason I say lawfully maintained is because there are countries that do require regular property maintenance, I was in no way saying that every single country out there requires it under law.




It is a physical impossibility, so long as everything meets contemporary safety standards there is zero chance of an appliance being plugged in and bursting into flames or providing a shock. I am not going to sit here and give a course on electrical engineering and how various materials and objects prevent such an action from occurring. Feel free to leave a rebuttal, I will likely read it and if you make a valid point I will say something, but I am not going to debate this any further.

Ah, not to be condescending, but I understand why privilege is such a hard thing for people to grasp, not just men. There's also racial privilege along with sex/gender privilege.

Privilege is something (in this example) men have that women otherwise have to earn.
Walking in the street alone at night.
Wage gap.
Etc.

I'll be happy to explain some more in a nice debate, but insulting and being rude gets you no where if you really want to understand, not shout your viewpoint on whether you believe it or not.

while I could be motivated to believe the wage gap if given proper and solid proof of it

I think your incorrect about the walking the street alone at night

two of my friends about 6 years back were in a car they just parked it and then right before the driver got out he was shot 6 times point blank range I heard about what happened from the passanger he just ran because he did not have a gun on him he couldn't retaliate

4 years ago a guy got stabbed about 3 blocks from my house at from what I heard people said police reports said he died about 12:30 at night

about a year and a half ago my last living friend in the gangs was just heading home got out of his car to walk to his front door when some people drove up shooting him in the back then driving off

there is a lot of danger out there regardless of what you think it is not a privilege of anyone to "walk in the street at night alone"
it is a right of everyone to choose to do so if you wish it however you have to be prepared to accept the responsiblility for a bad choice streets are safe for no one at night regardless of gender unless you pack a big gun and are prepared to use it

Women have to earn? You do realize in the US, most men weren't allowed to vote only in elections till only a few years before women? And even then they were still drafted in a war and couldn't do much about it since the drafted group weren't allowed to vote.

>walking in the street alone at night.
What does this mean? That men can do this and women can't? That's ridiculous. The probability of men being physically assaulted is higher, and everyone who doesn't attempt to minimize their risk in dangerous places is at risk. Not just women. This isn't privilege.

>wage gap
Different choices among different people.

Women who have never been married and don't have kids tend to make a lot more money then other groups.

You can't just break down data in one that doesn't tell us much and claim sexism.


What makes you think you have the right to act condescending? You've only thrown around popular slogans while claiming superiority. That doesn't like you want to have an honest debate.

Thanks for replying respectfully!
I'm not talking about shooting in this case, but rape. Men don't have to fear. I'm not saying men don't get raped.
Ah, and I don't believe that it's anyone (both genders, all genders)'s "responsibility" to walk out at night.
The analogy often used is a mansion with open windows and all things to see and easy to steal. I don't think analogy is really correct because first of all, women aren't houses (an object) and their virginity, pride, etc. aren't things to be taken. It's a dehumanizing analogy.

Here's a couple sources for wage gap.
http://faculty.uml.edu/mduffy/48.240/Petersen%20and%20Morgan%20Gender%20Wage%20Gap.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2013/09/19/the-geography-of-the-gender-pay-gap-womens-earnings-by-state/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/women-wage-gap




Hey, I'm really sorry if I sounded condescending. I didn't mean to. I do want to honestly debate and I want to earn your respect as a debater, so I'm sorry for sounding condescending, it wasn't my intention.

The women's suffrage really only applied to white women as well, so the right for black women, native american, asian, etc. was given way later as well! So you're right about that.

Your wage gap argument is saying, in my interpretation, that based on the life choices you make, you can really have a strong class mobility. Sadly, most people (and that's a small number) only move two classes up from their parents. I don't think as an Asian girl born in downtown LA that I would have the same opportunities to move up as a white girl. Now you're getting into racism. But let's move it to sex. Women are less likely to get promotions then men, that's a fact. Because when when a woman wants things, she's bitching and whining. Men, that's an assertion of power. It's actually really early and I have to be getting to school, but here's a link. Now, not all these people WORKED to where they're at, some have INHERITED it. Please pay attention to the women's vs men's figures!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/03/04/the-worlds-richest-women-203/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2013/09/16/inside-the-2013-forbes-400-facts-and-figures-on-americas-richest/


Thanks for replying guys!

you know honestly I don't see why walking alone at night is suddenly a privilege
there are laws that protect people
it is illegal to rape it is illegal to rob someone it is illegal to attack someone it is illegal to kill someone and yet im hearing more and more about making it safer for women yet no one is taking in the logic that it doesn't matter what rules we make to protect people there are always gonna be some psychos that don't care and will do as they please
raping as they please stealing as they please killing as they please
and their victims? I don't think they really care if its a guy or girl I doubt some crazy murderer is thinking to himself he will only target women for some unknown reason
its like your asking us to change human nature at its very core to alter all human thought process when even the top line scientists cant even change or alter one human mind without drug usage or risking severe complications
to change the whole world is just impossible

if there was a possibility of this perfect world existing there would be no wars there would be no adultery there would be no violence of any kind there would be no rape men could choose to be stay at home dads(such as the same choice that women have had for many years) there would be no divorce(or atleast peaceful and civil ones without people trying to steal eachothers resources or bank accounts) no child abuse and both men and women are made to take responsibility for their actions

its a part of being individuals you can find one person who can be purely good very nice very protective and on the next side you can find another who is pure evil doesn't care for you for anyone just wants to get what he/she wants and is perfectly willing and ready to kill wound or just completely destroy another human being without a second thought

Now you're just using general stereotypes and dodging arguments. Just because a woman has to worry about rape and men don't is not a privilege for men. Rape is one of the fewest committed violent crimes in our country, and since it primarily happens to women, it's suddenly an issue and men have privilege? Suddenly every other crime out there is invalid because women have to deal with rape?

You need to get your priorities straight.

And the mansion analogy still works. Just because it's an object does not mean it cannot be applied to our own bodies(which, technically, are objects to begin with. It is a body of mass which can be acted upon. Being an object is not synonymous to being an inanimate object). The point of the analogy is that you need to take care of yourself, to ensure your own safety, not sit by, do every dangerous thing, leave yourself open, and merely assume that people won't do bad thing because they shouldn't, is just plain ignorance or stupidity.

As for your sources, I found the first to be a scientific observation rather than studying to find if there was a wage gap or segregation.

As for the second, that is the common misconception of the wage gap myth. You saw on the map that they had the amount in cents they make to the dollar, right? That is based on the total average of all workers in that state. They add up the monthly/annual earnings based on gender, then they average it out. The difference is not that of a person making less, these are merely observations. One person is not making less than the other in the same field based on their gender. This is what the other guy mentioned, it's based on one's choices. Using the same method of observation, we can see that more women are graduating in fields of social services and art, where as men are graduating more often in fields of engineering and science, these of which leads to business positions that are higher paying than those which more women go to. This leads to a lower amount that will be added to their pool of cash for when the study comes.

As for the third, those articles are jokes, frankly. One that I read was talking about how women are working more days for free, based on the wage gap from the second article. Once again, no one is being pays less based on their gender, they are rather payed by their merits.

Now on to your other response of why women are not promoted more, that is nothing more than a stereotypical stigma. A woman demanding anything is viewed no more or less than a man demanding something. In corporate positions, demanding anything is a negative quality.

The reason why there are so few women who receive promotions in comparison to men is because there are not as many women in the same fields. Of course, upgrading in the corporate hierarchy is not based on fairness. It is based, once again, on merit and ability. Sure, the social position of your parents will give you an edge in the business world, and it's not really fair that the majority of us do not share the same advantages, it is still how the business world runs. It's all run by money.

You are not going to get a position or promotion based on your gender, but by the work you have done. Yes, it may be difficult, but it is not impossible if one puts enough effort and cunning into their work.

And the thing is, having a female employee in a higher position is actually a larger risk than a male. This is not based on merit, but rather their social life. A woman may or may not be in a relationship, but she will most likely get pregnant if she is. Her being pregnant will then cause her to leave work for months, and that costs the company money.

As an employee, we are investments. The company hired us to perform work to make them more money. If we are not working, we are costing them money. Is it fair or morally right to take that into account? No. But it's still a factor in a business, and they will do anything to maximize their profits.

And for your links, seriously? Look, being one of the richest people in the world is in no way a right, it is merely a goal or whatever you wanna call it. This includes incredible effort in some instances, but as you said, some inherit it.

Once again, these are merely observation, but people like you keep misconstrue it as some issue against women. Look at the victims of violent crimes. You will see that men are the vast majority of these crimes. Is there some subplot by this country to attack and kill of men? Fuck no, it's just an observation. Nothing in a society based on choices is going to be 50/50. You flip a coin 10 times, you're not gonna get the same results of 50/50 every time.

This is why I love Fakku, great hentai, greats topic to debate and challenge one's opinions. I want to say that what I write is ultimately MY OPINION and nothing more. Also shout out to gizgal, I love the way you stated your argument and agree with most of what you said, sorry late on the topic, Pandaispalis I love the respectul way you debate. I am a 22 year old male, Latino from Los Angeles, CA.
First and foremost, what is privilege? The answer is very complicated but from my reading of the already posted comments I think it is important to emphasize that many privileges are systematic and part of our sociel fabric. Many of the arguments, not all, seem to emphasize and cite individual merit, effort, and achievements as arguments to dissuade the notion of male privilege. The individual is important and there are always going to be people against the norm, but they are usually exceptions. Also, it is important to understand that Male privilege is perpuated by the actions of both Male and Female due in large part, in my opinion, to social expectations embedded in our culture (i.e. ideas/expectations of how males/females should look/act/like, etc.). From some of the previous posts, it seems females constitute the majority of the population, however, so what? South Africa was mostly black, however, a minority white population held the majority of the power, that how Apartheid came to be. African slaves constituted the majority of the population in the south during the 19th century, they held little to no power. A large percentage of the population does not ensure that that group will hold power. Yes, we live in a democracy, but the majority of individuals in power are white and male.
"Women who have never been married and don't have kids tend to make a lot more money then other groups."
That's an interesting statement, never heard of that. I don't doubt that it is true, but I don't know, where do you hear/see/read that? Anyways, my argument to this point after proving the accuracy of the statement would be to consider the how these women are perceived. Women in power are often critized for not being feminine enough (see Hillary Clinton) or to not know what they are doing (Sarah Palin) by both men and women, not just men.
Finally, I hate the term feminist. Are there some crazy women who probably want to be superior to men, Yeah, people are crazy. But to me feminist are just individuals who want women to enjoy equal rights as men or in other words civil rights activists.
"In regards to this "wage gap" thing, that really depends on the country you're referencing.

Is this essentially a "male privilege in America" thread? Because otherwise it really does come down to where you live."

To be frank, I do not know enough about wage gap statistics in the international community to be able to give you a good answer. However, when one considers that many cultures/societies are patriarchal in nature, it insinuates that the wage gap is not idiosyncratic to the United States. Also, other privileges such as white privilege, are observable across the international community.

My 2 cents:

"Privilege" exists for every person of every culture in a different way. But that's a stupid way of looking at the world, in my opinion.

For example, while it's pretty clear that an average white man, of sound mind and body, will have an easier time getting a normal job than an autistic black woman who is missing an arm, when the situation becomes grayer and grayer then the argument gets more and more idiotic, because the language of "privilege" is a stupid condescending language. Instead of saying: "Well both genders have their respective advantages and disadvantages in various aspects of their lives" It becomes "You're privileged!" " No YOU'RE privileged!". A stupid language to have any sort of reasonable discussion in, as the word privilege carries negative connotations to many people.

Men and Women both have "privileges".

For men it might be something like "Being able to be regularly promiscuous without as much judgment from peers as could be experienced by the average female in the same situation"

But each privilege comes with its flipside.

For example, a Woman who is a virgin is more respected or desired than the average male virgin of the same age.

So by restricting the discussion to "Male Privilege", it becomes needlessly one-sided. It becomes a circlejerk.

On the other hand, if you went to a female-dominated messageboard and created a thread about "Female Privilege" I would expect a very similar situation.

Is the same story true globally? Depends where you are. If this thread were about male/female power dynamics in India, for example, then it would be a different story.

So the very nature of this discussion is stupid and non-productive. Why is this thread being treated seriously, when there is no real discussion to be had in the language set forth by the original topic?

Maybe, like ecchigaijin suggested then, the post should be edited to specify whether or not this is a male privilege in America thread.

That said, while I agree that privilege is defined differently relative to the culture one is addressing, certain privileges can be seen across different cultures (one example is white privilege). The privilege argument also is not limited to a comparison of an average white man and autistic black woman, obviously it is apparent who would have advantages over the other. The argument states (depending on what privilege you are talking about) that when you take a man and a woman who have the same level of education, same ethnic/cultural background, same skills and intelligence there are advantages that the man will enjoy due to male privilege. Do women have privileges? Of course, the male privilege argument doesn't state tha women have no privileges.

The reason for having the privilege discussion is not to merely let one group vent out against another, rather the reason for it to have both sides become aware of their own advantages, become aware of the other groups disadvantages and try to bridge the gap and make things more equal. Simply stating that the argument is stupid or non-existent won't solve anything. You can't address something you refuse to accept.