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 was thinking about this thread earlier (forgive me if I am derailing slightly or a bit nonsensical - insomnia and an early rising DD to blame). I was wondering why women often say "All the good men are either married or gay" - by which is usually meant that the gay guys are perceived as fun, chatty, house trained (i.e cook/clean) and emote. Why then do men think women want Alpha Man and, as OP has done, think any male who cries/shows his feminine side, would be mocked by females and left on the discarded heap, when it seems to me to be quite the reverse?

LL

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.

Which university? This book isn't peer reviewed and the record you've attached gives no information about the authors nor the quality nor methodology of their research. As WtR has pointed out, the abstract indicates that there are no issues relating to gender nor to biological sex in the work.

TBH since you were making claims which are not supported in the link, I assumed you had not read the book and that you don't actually know anything about what they are talking about in it or how it relates to this discussion. However I thought I should give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you for the information that is not apparent in the link. Have you read the book?

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.

It doesn't support LeBFG even remotely.

If other posters would like to engage with the science and not the value of the science feel free.

Please LL or LeBFG or even bigdave1, please do "eludicate" us on the science. I'm all ears.

Problem is Flora, this is topic you should know inside out if you want an informed opinion as to the source of differences in the behaviour of the sexes.

This shows the sex with lower reproductive variance in humans in females thus according to Bateman's principle women have more choice. Surely this is a female advantage?

Humans aren't exactly like birds because birds are largely polygamous and humans are largely pair-forming. Mating system will effect the details and, as I said, the topic is large. I recommend you look on Amazon for a good textbook to talk you through it in more detail. HTH.

Whenthered - I can't answer all and every question, but as you asked so nicely:

if these roles are genetic, where do feminists, SAHFs and gays and lesbians fit into the theory? Well, this is really interesting. I can't pretend we really know the answer. The only/best known theory is that lesbians were women who sacrified their own reproductive chances to care for the young of related women thereby increasing their chances of survival. I'm not sold on this.

As to whether gay behaviour is genetic or social in origin, again I would be hesitant to answer. Gay people often say things like 'I always knew I was different' 'it's not something I can change' etc which points to it being genetic. In prisons, there is more gay sex than in the population which tells us environment also plays a role (at least, in whether people participate in gay sex at least).

FOr the hard of thinking, none of this is prescriptive, none of this means you have genetic destinies that are set in stone. It's the natural fallacy to assume because something is 'natural' it is thus 'right'.

Flora and Red since LeBFG has taken the time once again to establish what they are saying and the scientific principles behind it I will leave that alone.

Flora your extrapolations are indeed correct and your powers of observation are commendable, the link says exactly as you said, indeed I told you that by saying it is a synopsis of a book. The link was not offered as proof of the science as I TOLD YOU, it was proof that not only the science that lebfg had referenced was valid and existed, but it was in 1994 so very long ago in existence so that your comments added to by others that looking at animals is irrelevant to telling us anything about humans is false, bogus, ill informed, and just plain wrong. In 1994 people were studying it, recording it, and doing so in a proper analytical process.
My last comment about being drawn in to the inevitable (on this board any way) debate about the validity of research, you neatly display. I dunno what university you attended but the one I went to (Not boasting but one of the top 10 in the UK just before any one starts.) References from digital sources were expected to be validated not just random bits of the web. An institution like Eric who are a repository of academic material would be seen as a valid and proper source in it's self as academic rigour has been passed at an earlier stage insured by the board of governors who oversee the type of material to be housed. The original university was I believe Stanford, not that it matters as I have just explained.

Hang on a minute.

The evopsych aspect of this conversation is being discussed as though human sexual relations are about mating .

But we know that isn't the case. Humans do not engage in PIV sex primarily to have babies.

Where does prostitution fit into your theory LeBFG? Or child abuse, or incest or rape or arranged marriage?

The notion that women choose their sexual partners doesn't hold true for much of women's history and indeed is still not true for millions of women and girls around the world.

Female sexuality has been fetishized and politicised in patriarchy. Does your theory explain why that might be?

And how come women are the so called 'ornamental' sex whilst also allegedly being the ones who 'choose their mate'.

Surely the above is a pretty contradictory statement even for evopsychers to make

Oh and LeithLurker do you see what a misogynistic statement this one of yours is?

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.

I don't know a single feminist who will take any man seriously when he starts accusing us of hysteria and 'denying science' when we are discussing women's issues.

Sorry for multiple posts am rereading bits of the thead I skimmed earlier.

LeBFG what exactly do you mean by this?

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.

How are you using the term 'gender role' ? (Or indeed 'gender')

Again where do you fit in gender roles such as the ones displayed in the institution of prostitution and human trafficking?

Where does the feminization of poverty fit into the conclusions that you can draw from how our 'closest relatives' live?

Where do the gender roles displayed in political structures and organised religion fit in?

How do you explain the global exploitation of women's energy, work and reproductive capacities?

How do you explain cultural and historical differences where what is attributed as being 'masculine' or 'feminine' varies, but there is a constant of the 'masculine' being awarded higher status and higher rewards?

How do you explain social phenomena such as the witch hunts or gendercide such as the killing and aborting of female babies which takes place in several countries to the extent that it has actually affected the natural male/female ratio of the global human population?

What does the behaviour of say, chimps, tell us about all of this?

The theory isn't mine, Beachcomber. Sorry to disappoint.

Humans do not engage in PIV sex primarily to have babies - but the only reason PIV sex exists is to enable us to have babies. We also enjoy it too .

Child abuse isn't an evolved behaviour - it involves pre-ado children thus cannot be selected. It is an environmentally caused behaviour/disorder. I suppose it could be caused by some kind of genetic mutation? I doubt it imo.

Arranged marriage: this really is the partriarchy. It's about marrying for power/resorce guarding (off the top of my head). Nothing to do with evolved behaviours.

Incest has always existed. It also exists in the animal world. I see it each day with my ram and his flock . Avoidance of incest is a learned behaviour, a social taboo, which is why we don't engage in it (which turns out to be backed good solid scientific reasons).

Prostitution: off the top of my head again, I guess it would be lower ranking males that engage prostitutes. This is just because sex is pleasurable to us and if you can't attract it, in human societies, we can buy it. Is this an evolved behaviour? I doubt it - you would have to argue that prostitutes had more children survive to sexual adulthood in our evolutionary past - unlikely as they would have needed help to bring them up, help that normally comes from mother-father pairings.

Rape: I know there is a lot of controversy about whether rape is an evolved behaviour. I'm sure you know the stats far better than I do. Again, this is seen in many other species and the cited benefit is if you can't father your own children in a relationship, you try rape to pass on your genes (controversial I know but I'm fairly sure that rape is most common in low ranking men). There is something very deep-rooted about rape and I remember reading a lot about it at one time. I don't think there are any easy answers.

Female sexuality has been fetishized and politicised in patriarchy. Does your theory explain why that might be? People like sex. Men like sex more than women (on average) - they have higher sex drives, they have the expendable gamete (sperm are, in a practical sense, unlimited supply and they are cheap to produce and costly pregnancy isn't an issue). As male reproduction outcome is more variable than women, there is male:male competition for women. Women are more ornamental and men are more visual. All these things (and more I expect) conspire to mean porn is prolific and female sexuality is fetishized. I don't know what you mean by politicised.

NONE of this means it is RIGHT or that it is a reason to perpetuate the behaviour. However, I think feminists are wrong to dismiss it exists at all.

Can you answer some of my questions?

• Men and women have different physiques, why is that?
• Why do women fancy men with muscles or intellect whilst men like curves?
• Why is it abhorrant that genes may explain some behavioural tendancies (it's not just feminists who dislike this) whilst at the same time accepting that, for example, boys are more likely to suffer autism than girls.

Beachcomber, I'm not sure I have the puff to write another response to your second list of questions!!! Perhaps I'll try later.

Thanks for your reply. I don't have much time either just now so am not going to reply in detail. I find many aspects of what you say contradictory and unclear.

Just to answer your questions though;

Men and women have different physiques, why is that?

Biology

Why do women fancy men with muscles or intellect whilst men like curves?

This is a massive (and misogynistic) generalisation and not one that I am sure holds much truth. Human beings are socialised to an extent that determining what attracts us to others must involve analysis of socialization to have any merit. (Lots of women fancy other women BTW. Same goes for men.)

Why is it abhorrant that genes may explain some behavioural tendancies (it's not just feminists who dislike this) whilst at the same time accepting that, for example, boys are more likely to suffer autism than girls.

I find this question unclear. I suspect that you are using autism as an example of 'behaviour'. I disagree entirely with you on that and think that autism is a biological illness and that the higher male/female incidence is a biological matter in the way that many illnesses affect the sexes at different rates.

LeBFG ok let me be blunt. After trying to engage with you to establish if you have any scientific backing for your claims about the relationship between social behaviour/gender roles and biology, it seems to me that you are able to distinguish between the two as you keep pointing to evidence of sexual reproduction that tells us nothing about social behaviour, including Bateman, other than that you have cast what you describe as "obvious" which are actually just sexist truisms over the matters. I don't believe you are capable of taking this discussion any further if you can't understand the distinction. You've brought Bateman into the discussion in a manner akin to "it's the fruitflies, innit?"

LL since this is an anonymous forum we have to take each other on the basis of our statements made here. So you weren't posting the link to support LeBFG 's actual argument but to tell us that there's a thing called science out that that is studying, well, other stuff. Erm, thanks for that

As for your sources, Eric does not equal peer review and there's a lot of dodgy material in all universities and a clear hierarchy among academic publications, starting in the field of biology, with Science and Nature. It doesn't do to be too deferential to the sources just because they are in a library. But the more important point with the linked work is that it doesn't support LeBFG in substance but apparently you knew that.

LL one more thing. When I used the word "source" I was using it in the academic sense of considering the author and his or her credentials. I can see that you are using it in the more commonplace sense as in a place to find information (ie a library versus Wikipedia or something like that). I agree Eric is a good source in that sense but not in the sense of demonstrating the quality of any individual work in the reference.

LeBFG "controversial I know but I'm fairly sure that rape is most common in low ranking men"

If you had any credibility at all (which, to be clear, you don't) you would have lost it right here. You really are talking a load of shit.

Yup FloraFox.

That above statement is particularly and [hogwash]

Flora I can only think that your aggressiveness is due to the fact you've tried to read and not understood my links (my explanations may not be the clearest - hence, my advice to look in a textbook). It's sooo much easier (and lazier) to point to the other poster and say that they have failed to understand.

When you say biology Beachcomber, you mean genes. Why do our genes give us eyes at the front of our heads?- there was an evolutionary advantage to having telescopic vision. In the same way we can ask Why are the sexes physically different? It must serve some purpose! One theory about why men die earlier than women is all the testosterone their bodies have endured over a lifetime. If testosterone (leading to lots of those secondary sexual characteristics I so sexistly mention) is so costly, why oh why have men evolved to produce it?

Evidence for the genetic basis of stereotypical sexual behaviours comes from a wide range of academic disciplines: comparative phylogenetics, physiology and anatomy, anthropology. We don't have a complete link of genes -> brain -> behaviour in part because the brain is so complex. It is NOT misogynistic to study this or to say these behaviours exist on average.

Ask yourselves, in a world where the patriarchy has been overturned, will it really be possible to find ourselves living in a world with large numbers of women fancying men wearing lipstick and large numbers of men fancying women with large biceps?

I actually held off a lot talking about rape, I wasn't going to address it at all - I don't think we really know very much about it and so ladelled in much caution: I'm sure you know the stats far better than I do....I don't think there are any easy answers.. I'm no expert in any of this (I suppose Flora is somekind of professor ) - I'm just presenting my understanding of this well-respected field of research. It isn't a crock of shit just because it challenges your beliefs.

LeBFG, what's your view of tribes where men paint their faces?

I've started but don't think I can finish answering all your questions Beachcomber. Sorry, I'd be here all day and I'm not sure you'd appreciate the effort [hogwash ??].

However, the last question has peaked my interest:
What does the behaviour of say, chimps, tell us about all of this?

I guess you were trying to be dismissive of chimp research by contrasting it with a whole lot of very real, big problems in the world. However, in terms of human behaviour, chimps can tell us lots of things. Rape happens. Incest happens. SOcial contructs/organisation goes on. When looking at other species, we can tell a lot about our own. This isn't limited to behaviour either. On the otherhand, we can only go so far making these comparisons. The evidence from these sorts of studies contributes to our understanding of evolved sexual behaviours. It's not all just about MRI scans.

Doctrine, I was also going to write a bit about that but gave up too. As you've asked, it's clear that men too in some situations and some cultures use ornamental signals. Generally, face painting is an aggression signal to other tribes. Are there tribes who use it for a sexual signal? I don't know. If they do, well, that's what they do - the signals in and of themselves are pretty uninteresting - they change with culture and society (fat women were lusted after in times past and men with powdered faces - all connected with wealth again I'm led to believe).

LeBFG "It isn't a crock of shit just because it challenges your beliefs"

You are 100% correct. It is a crock of shit because the actual science (biology) which is observable, testable and reproducible does not support the faux science (evolutionary psychology) which is none of these things and is no more credible or relevant than the Fall or eugenics to explain modern social or cultural behaviours or structures.

Though if you are talking about The Fall in terms of the Mark E Smith band then I trust the musical group more than evolutionary psychology to credibly explain human society.

Look I said hogwash about what you said about rape.

I'm fairly sure that rape is most common in low ranking men

And I said that because it is hogwash.

What exactly is a 'low ranking' man? And do you see how insulting it is to talk about men this way? You are suggesting that a) rape is natural and b) some men are predisposed to do it due to the nature of human beings.

Anyway you may be fairly sure but you are also completely wrong. Rich man rape, good looking men rape, successful men rape, married men rape, men who have consensual sexual partners rape (and they sometimes rape those partners), 'alpha' men rape, young conventionally attractive popular men rape.

What you say above is a rape myth. It is insulting to men and dangerous and offensive to women.