Female privilege

[lose24lb]

There is a lot of talk of male privilege but not female privilege? Can we discuss things from the other point of view?

As a white female in a developed country, my privileges are:

1. If I am a child and I go missing, the media is far more likely to give my case more attention than if I were a boy. And if I'm pretty with blonde hair then all the better, I can guarantee the entire country will know I'm missing and be out looking for me.

1. From an early age the opposite sex will be instructed never to hit me but I will be given the same instructions. And should I strike males I can expect not to be hit back and any social penalties that occur from my actions will actually fall on the male.

1. If I'm not smart and unable to get a well paying job, all I have to do is marry a wealthy man.

1. Most homeless are men, yet most homeless shelters are created with my gender in mind. Which means if I go homeless I am more likely to get a bed in a shelter than if I were male.

1. If I commit a crime I am more likely to get more leniency than a man in the exact same circumstances. People will want to try and understand what made a pretty woman like me do such a thing and look for reasons. Unless I go on a mass murder spree I don't really have to worry about going to prison.

1. If I am attacked, passers-by are far more likely to intervene to protect me than if I were male.

1. As a female I am less likely to be physically attacked in the first place or challenged to a fight.

1. Despite killing almost as many people, prostate cancer gets only a fraction of the funding than breast cancer does. It benefits me if my health issues are given priority over men's health issues even if the men's issues are almost as deadly.

1. If a man masturbates it is seen as disgusting and perverse. If I masturbate then I am seen as pleasuring myself. Female masturbation doesn't carry the same stigma as male masturbation.

10. If I am pretty and/or I can make myself cry I will be able to get away with anything and everything.

11. If I am upset I am allowed to cry without being ridiculed. I don't have to be all macho and bottle my feelings up like boys and men have to do.

12. Similar to #11, I am encouraged to seek help if I need it. Seeking help is not seen as a weakness for my gender. If I seek support I will get it and people won't laugh at me or ridicule me or tell me to "man up" or "take it like a man".

13. I can wear almost anything I want without having my sexual orientation being questioned. If a man doesn't want people to think he is gay then his wardrobe will be extremely limited. But with the possible exception of dungarees I can wear anything I want.

14. One word- chivarly. Because I am female I can expect little perks here and there. One seat left on a bus? It's mine! Expensive dinner bill? The guy can get his wallet out.

15. If my husband lays a finger on me he will be labelled as a wife beater for the rest of his life, be beaten up by other men and spend time in prison. But if I hit my husband people will say "you go girl!" and say he must have deserved it. I can hit my husband and he won't dare hit me back out of fear of what I just pointed out.

16. Violence against women is the worst crime on earth. Violence against men is hilarious, especially if it involved injury to the titter penis/balls.

17. On today's TV programmes my gender is portrayed as being smart, strong and independent. The male characters in today's soaps, comedy's, cartoons etc are shown as complete idiots, deadbeat useless fathers or criminals.

18. I can work with children without being worried about people thinking horrible things or making horrible allegations.

19. If I live in the USA and there is a military draft, I won't be forced against my will to sign up to the army and go fight in battle.

I suggest you look at this link before dismissing any biological difference between the sexes slug.

It's very interesting how often people who come on here to tell us all how it is deploy this sort of tactic. Then, most of the time when you look at whatever nonsense they link to, it doesn't say what they said it does at all. This video seems to be discussing gender (i.e. social) differences not biological differences at all.

It's almost as if they don't actually know how to conduct a discussion about issues.

Make up is a social construct, not an evolutionary or biological one.

Shaving is a social construct, not an evolutionary or biological one.

If it's not of the body, it isn't a biological attribute.

Hope that helps.

Make up is a social construct, not an evolutionary or biological one.

Shaving is a social construct, not an evolutionary or biological one.

If it's not of the body, it isn't a biological attribute.

Hope that helps.

Can't anwer you all in one post. Sorry.

FloraFox, sigh, I didn't see the other poster detailing why I should read Fine. The clip was a discussion about why the sexes are different - social or genetic (in fact, mix of the two). I linked to this very clip as it was posted on another feminist thread so I thought it might be familiar to some [helpful]. When marriages and so on are organised, we can really truely talk about society governing mate choice. There's a lot of this sort of thing over history too. When we talk about evolutionary forces however, we are thinking of pre-history, things which would have been the case in our evolutionary past. This is a huge topic.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Make up is a social construct, not an evolutionary or biological one. Shaving is a social construct, not an evolutionary or biological one. If it's not of the body, it isn't a biological attribute. A* for your GCSE in Biology. However, it is the behaviour leading us to look good for the other partner (the actual thing you do is of little interest) which is the outcome of selection.

When we look at our nearest relatives, we see gender roles similar to ours. In what ways are we exceptional? Chimps learn sign language. In fact, plenty of species communicate (honey bees communicate quite complex spatial maps). Everywhere we look, when we see a dimorphic species we see different behavioural roles - sometimes it's the female who's aggressive, sometimes the male is the ornamental....so what? I ask again, do you really think humans are the only dimorphic species to have zero behavioural differences between the sexes?

LeBFG again you are muddling biology and social constructs / gender. Men and women are biologically different because humans reproduce sexually to combine DNA from two contributors (parents) to produce offspring therefore a female human and a male human exist. Biologists do not know how (and certainly not why) humans evolves to reproduce in this way.

You are overlaying this biological issue (which isn't considered a "huge topic" by biologists because it doesn't advance current scientific endeavour in any particularly meaningful way) with social and cultural analysis of how our behaviour may be gendered. EP is more like eugenics than biology but actually even more ridiculous because eugenics was at least studying people as they are now not making unobservable statements about the behaviour of people who died a million years ago.

Hey, I think you are missing a lot of what I'm posting about Flora. Mate choice, sexual selection etc are huge areas I haven't got time or inclination elucidate you with.

Men and women are different because, in part, they are genetically different. What the hell is that Y chromosome doing - just making a penis? WHY the sexes are different is indeed by far the more interesting question (and indeed, why sexual reproduction ever evolved in the first place - perhaps there was a partriarchal god in the vicinity?). But this doesn't interest posters on here. Only disputing that differences exist.

Whenthered - sorry but looking at other animals tells us so much about our own species. If all our closest relatives are dimorphic and have the same gender roles as we do then this is fantastic evidence that our own gender roles have a genetic basis. To my mind, this isn't even interesting. It's obvious. What is interesting is how this helps us to understand, for example, why low ranking men struggle to attract partners while similar women don't. It may help explain other things linked to the OP - why men are more likely to be homeless, die violently and at a younger age than women, and why men are socially expected to retain emotions and the pressure to provide for their families.

leBFG do you think there are more differences:

1. Between each sex

or

1. Within each sex?

(not sure how to account for the one in a hundred people who are a bit sexually ambiguous at birth - are we still a two sex species and those who don't fit are just made to fit one or the other?)

LeBFG "elucidate you with" ? Your grammar is no better than your science.

Even on your own analysis you are getting it wrong. In other species, where there is an ornamental sex, it is the other sex that does the choosing, which is the point of the ornamentation - female peacocks choose male peacocks. I would say that has no relevance for human social behaviour. You seem to think it does but you are so determined to fit your social, MRA theory around pseudoscience that you somehow think:

• women are the ornamental species
• women choose male partners
• animals tell us "so much about our own species"

Your logic is absent. Your analysis is vapid. Your conclusions are stupid.

I luff you, Flora

Thanks Doctrine

Some of the posts on this fred are examples of those who want things to be a certain way and will do their damnedest to dispute any argument against their point of view. Some of the posts on this thread reach almost hysterical volume in denying principles of science, sometimes denying those principles exist, or more often by denigrating the importance of alternative science which does not automatically concur with their own view.

So I give you a link to a proper well respected, world leading university that has indeed carried out research and has a published work on some of the disputed elements of the science being questioned. I do so not to offer new evidence but to lay to support one poster who seems to be getting it in the neck for talking about valid and constructive science pertinent to the op. If other posters would like to engage with the science and not the value of the science feel free.

www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?nfpb=true&&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED379059&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED379059

Can you summarise the thesis and the findings LL? Who wrote it and how is it relevant to the discussion?

GTF littledave0

Oh no, you have decided to change my name from big to little, how hurt I am that you have thought of such a cunning way to belittle me, I now understand your pain and realise that women need to be empowered to the same levels as men, because being belittled as you have for so long, is so abhorrently preposterous.

Pipe down. Grown ups are talking.

Yeah, you are a bit dave

LeBFG how does this specimen fit your theory?

In way over your head here dave.

Flora the page in the link has a very handy summery, in fact all it is really is the synopsis of the entire book. Why cut and past when you clicking the link will be far faster and a better use of all our time as I then will not get drawn in to the debate about proper sources.

Dave I think your mom was calling you in for the night