Over the past 6 months, as I have become more involved in the Men’s Rights Movement, I’ve learned a lot of terms feminists use over and over again in their arguments. The term “male privilege” is the one I hear the most, and is usually the go to argument we see time after time, especially from those who strongly oppose Men’s Rights Advocates.
This argument is usually followed by mentions of the high percentage of male ‘CEO’s’ or ‘Presidents’. But I noticed that they never actually look at the other segment of society, where 99% of all the other men really live, and match up how they are doing in comparison to women. Powerful CEO’s or politicians only make up a tiny fraction of the population (in fact more men die on the job each year than there are fortune 500 multi-million dollar male CEO’s in the US) but somehow their wealth and power gets parlayed as a privilege that all men enjoy.
According to the Wikipedia description, which fits with what most feminists believe, “male privilege” is:
“..a sociological term that refers quite generally to the special rights or status granted to men in a society, on the basis of their sex or gender, but usually denied to women and/or transsexuals. Thus, biologically “male” privilege is only one of many power structures that may exist within a given society,[4] and levels/manifestations of male privilege differ both between disparate societies as well as in different contexts within the same society.”
But do the raw statistics and realities within our society bear out this theory of “male privilege” to be true? By definition, if feminists are right, men should hold a significant advantage over women in almost every aspect of society. So let’s take a look at some significant statistics in the US in regards to education, poverty, health and welfare to see if any of what they say is true.
Green - Advantaged/privileged
Red - Disadvantaged/unprivileged
Unsheltered Homeless (2009) [1]
Women – 12,000 – 4%
Men – 240,000 – 96%
Life Expectancy (2006) [2]
Women – 80.8 Years
Men – 75.7 Years
Suicides (2008) [3]
Women – 7,585 - 19%
Men – 28,450 - 81%
Deaths by Homicide (2004) [4]
Women – 3,856 – 20%
Men – 14,717 – 80%
Deaths from Cancer (2004) [4]
Women – 269,819
Men – 290,069
Deaths from HIV/AIDS (2004) [4]
Women – 3,357
Men – 8,756
Federal Funds for Sex Specific Cancer Research [5]
Women – Breast Cancer – $631,000,000 - 40,000 Deaths
Men – Prostate Cancer – $300,000,000 - 33,000 Deaths
Deaths on the Job (2010) [6]
Women – 355 - 7%
Men – 4,192 - 93%
Injuries on the Job (2007) [10]
Women – 36%
Men – 64%
College Enrollment (2009) [7]
Women – 58% - 11,658,000
Men – 42% - 8,770,000
Affirmative Action Education Programs (Gender Specific) [8]
Women – Yes
Men – No
Unemployment Rates (2010) [9]
Women – 8.6% – 6,199,000
Men – 10.5% - 8,626,000
Average Hours Worked Per Week (2010) [11]
Women – 36.1
Men – 40.2
High School Graduation Rates (2005) [12]
Women – 72%
Men – 65%
Incarceration Rates (2009) [13]
Women – 114,979 - 7%
Men – 1,502,49 - 93%
Child Custody Rates [14]
Women – 11,268,000 custodial mothers
Men – 2,907,000 custodial fathers
US Military Deaths From 1950 – 2010 [15][16][17]
Women – 139 - 0.001%
Men – 100,063 - 99.99%
Federally Funded Battered Shelters [18]
Women – 2,000+ $300,000,000 per year
Men – None – $0
Federally Funded Health Offices and Research 1970 – Present (not including cancer research) [19]
Women Only – Office, Projects and Programs 70+ – Funds – $100,000,000,000
Men Only – None – $0
Forced Selective Service
Women – No
Men – Yes
Drug and Alcohol Addiction and Abuse Rates (2010) [20]
Women – 5.8%
Men – 12.2%
Indeed, not only is the theory of “male privilege” dead wrong, if we were to use their arguments and definitions, we could say with statistical data that the opposite, or “female privilege,” would be a much more accurate conclusion. Truth is, feminist arguments hardly ever back up their claims of “male privilege” with anything more than superficial hyperbole or emotional tantrums. Sadly, all they can fall back on is the role of the oppressed victim in need of special treatment.
Unfortunately for them, real world data shows the stark truth of men’s disposability within our society. “Male privilege” is nothing more than a bigoted term, a hollowed core of ignorance and hate, used to ignore and deny the brutal situation that men often face. So to all you feminists out there spewing your dozens of unfounded and unresearched “male privilege” checklists that lack even a shred of critical analysis, why not replace your twisted rantings with this list for a day?
Or do you wish to continue ignoring the truth?
Tags: explorer
18 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Jean Valjean:
Charbroil:
Peegies:
Doug1:
Kimski:
Hi Kyle,
Your research skills are magnificent. Really, just superb. Want to come do some research for Shrink4Men?
(Apologies in advance to Paul for my kind of, sort of joking poach attempt!)
You write:
This argument is usually followed by mentions of the high percentage of male ‘CEO’s’ or ‘Presidents’. But I noticed that they never actually do they look at the other segment of society, where 99% of all the other men really live, and match up how they are doing in comparison to women.
I think this particular bit of fanciful and purposeful blind eye to the facts is because a lot of stay-at-home-moms and women of dubious intellect and skills ALL believe they could be powerful CEOs, Presidents, Empresses, celebrities, etc., etc., if only it weren’t for that damned male privilege or because they “sacrificed” their career to stay home and take care of the children until they graduate from college.
Meanwhile, the women (and men) who cry “Male Privilege!” ignore the fact that most men aren’t CEOs or Presidents either. They also fail to grasp that most individuals don’t rise to the top of their profession by their entitled attitude (unless they win the gene pool lottery and are born into wealth and privilege) and the childish wish to be an “important person.”
People at the top of their profession usually get there because they work 70 + hours a week and do whatever it takes.
Seems to me that the gender who can commit murder and other crimes and get away with it, not to mention appropriate a former spouse’s hard-earned money while doing eff-all is the real privileged class.
Women in general in this country are more than capable of achieving such great success, they just choose not to pursue it because of how much work it takes. Much easier to claim the effort to be futile.
Exactly. However, many are not capable of anything other than their delusions of grandeur.
Those who can do. Those who can’t whine about it.
By “capable”, I meant that the system doesn’t truly stand in women’s way anymore. Feminism merely convinces them that it does.
But your point still stands, and I agree. Most people, regardless of gender or ethnicity, never achieve greatness, they simply dream of it. Not inherently bad, but becomes a problem when they start pointing the finger at everyone else, and even more of a problem when they start lobbying for legal changes to compensate for their “disadvantage”.
Fathers of daughters: teach them now! Show them examples of some of the feminist tripe posted here,
and then teach them the virtues of becoming a strong, viable, and independent woman.
It’s up to us guys. Really, save the hunting trips with the guys and engage your daughters EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.
Hours worked or “hard work” to reach to top of a profession is as much a myth as Male Privilage.
It’s more common that luck/timing, likability, looks/appearance and political awareness led to the rise to the top. Add being female and/or identifiable minority to these factors and they are actually advantaged over white males.
The most hard working, best and brightest rarely make it to the top. The most attractive and politically asute do.
That’s true. Hard work is vital but politics greatly play a role in undercutting many of those who do work.
Good points, Keyster.
Dr. T, thanks for the kind words and many more thanks for the keen insights. I’d be happy to help with any kind of research you needed as time permits. I see you found my blog below, you can reach me at the email on the about page.
Exactly Dr. Tara J. Palmatier , it is the same thing in female fields like modeling,
How many women want to be models?
How many pursuit it?
How many become real models?
Now
How many became Top Models?
Feminist divisiveness also omits the fact that a “high percentage” of ceo’s* are MASSIVE pieces of steaming fecal particulate.
In effect, they are demanding to be cretin scumbags as well…as they do with most things.
*cannibalistic evil oppressor
If men have “privilege” on Wall Street and women have “privilege” on main street, the only response that I have is:
>>> There is a lot more room at the bottom <<<
Excellent article. Yes, this is the crux of all the reasons for a Men’s Rights Movement. Neither the non-aligned, passive onlookers to the “gender war”, and certainly not your typical feminist, can be relied upon to air all sides in the inequality debate.
WOW!
Actually kind of frightening, to see something you already knew being presented like this.
I wonder what the odds of actually making it into your middle age as a man are, compared to womens ?
Excellent work and article, Mr. Lovett.
I am going to save this list for debunking and FTSU later.
-And what a terrific tool for that!
Not sure about making it to middle age Kimski, but in Australia according to the ABS
About 41% of males born in 2007-2009 could expect to live to at least 85 years, while for females, the proportion is 16 percentage points higher at 57%. In 1998-2000, the probability of males surviving to age 85 was 31%, and was 50% for females.
“Residual” life expectancy is greater for women at any age,
Women aged 65 years in the period 2007-2009 could expect to live another 21.8 years, while men aged 65 years could expect to live another 18.7 years in 2007-2009 .
but of course we don’t hear feminists offering to give up those years of their lives to be equal to men, or offering to die in battle to preserve their freedom, god I feel so privileged to be a man!
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by+Subject/4125.0~Jul+2011~Main+Features~Life+expectancy~3110
Thanks, Rper1959.
I can’t say that I’m surprised that it is lower, but 41% !!
That is a horrificly low number, considering the fact that we live in a modern, civilized world with the best healthcare in history.
Maybe there’s something to the old joke after all:
Q: -Why do men die before women?
A: -Because they want to! -The alternative is too much to bear!
We don’t have the best healthcare in history. We poison our water supply with the toxic chemical fluoride, for chrissake. We consume substances that cause cancer like they’re candy (unfermented soy, sugar, GMO corn). We are prescribed drugs that cause cancer and debilitating disease like candy (antibiotics, vaccines, statins, anti-depressants, I could go on and on).
Thanks for another well researched and informative article. I think that women/feminists often use projection to blame all men for their own insecurities and failures.
I’m still waiting for my male privilege card that gives me access to power and wealth. Where do I sign up?
Excellent article. It’s great to have such a list of female privileges complete with references.
One correction: If women account for 139 out of 100,202 military deaths, that amounts to 0.14% rather than 0.001%, males account for 99.86%.
Thanks for such a useful article.
Doh! Thanks for the heads up on that.
Good job Kyle. I’m not certain, but I think it was Warren farrell who said something about feminists looking at the top 5% of men and desiring that for all women while never considering the other 95% of men. There is a thing called the Male Privilege Checklist that describes the feminist concept of male privilege quite well. I found it a couple years ago and “exposed” it on my blog.
http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=1444
Actual privilege carries responsibility and privilege without responsibility is entitlement. Entitlement is what feminists are after.
TDOM
Due to hypergamy, women are only looking at the top 5% of men. The rest of us are invisible. Therefore, we don’t count.
Women in general have been ignoring low and no income men to such an extent, for so long, that I’m beginning to think that when they go out in public, literally all they see are the rich dudes walking around. And so is it any wonder that they can’t grasp the concept that great wealth applies to only a small percentage of any community of human beings? And that gender, at least in this country, at this time, is irrelevant?
Would certainly explain why I could walk around in a clown suit and go unnoticed by women. At least until I throw a pie in their face, at which point I’m probably going to jail.
But…but…but, you don’t understand!! If male privilege does not exist, then there would essentially be no legitimate reason for feminism to exist, either!
This is the class warfare strategy, only posited to divide male and female.
You need to motivate and organize the Prolatariat by exposing the “advantages” of the “bourgeoisie”. But in reality there are very few rich (or very few CEO and politicial positions available).
If women aren’t equally represented, they MUST be discriminated against by patriarchy. It can’t possibly be that they lack the same interest or propensity to excel as men do. That would mean men and women aren’t innately equal!
Feminism: Failing to see the superior drive of men for 50 years.
Actually feminists saw this drive and were jealous of it and so sought to destroy it. Feminists exist because they are jealous of men’s superiority.
Likewise if ‘misogyny’ didn’t exist, if ‘patriarchy’ didn’t exist, if ‘rape’ didn’t exist, if ‘male violence’ didn’t exist. . etc. . etc. .
Thanks Kyle, this really needed to be said. Over and over. What a joke. Women have generally raised their status not through their own effort but through marrying a man with power and then getting a slice of that for themselves. Is that female privelege? lol
Certainly is. About the only man who knows what it’s like to marry into money is Kevin Federline, and that made him so famous that I know who the fuck he is, when I really shouldn’t.
Found an image on a blog post with stats about male homelessness that pretty much says it all:
http://www.thereformedbuddhist.com/2011/09/male-privilege.html
Wow! That’s a kick in the gut.
Hmm…that’s Kyle’s blog there, Dr. T.
Kyle is the ReformedBuddhist? I missed that one (egg on face).
Don’t feel bad at all. I’ve been activated for a little while, and am just now realizing how small of a group we have here.
Maybe check out this short youtube on grinding men’s bones….
Right on, Kyle! The phrase “male privilege” is pure projection on the part of women & their white-knight enforcers. The term gives women a false sense of superiority over men. As far as college enrollment goes, the day could very well come when those places become de-facto all-female institutions!
I can already hear the feminist screeching in my head. So I figured I’d do a satirical impression of a radical feminist.
While there is less funding for prostate cancer, there are still more deaths for breast cancer. So it makes sense that there is more funding being put into breast cancer.
The reason why men commit suicide more, die of AIDS more, are unemployed more, are homeless more etc etc… Is clearly because they have inferior genetics. And they specifically die of AIDS more because they can’t keep it in their pants. If they would stop trying to fuck everything, then maybe they wouldn’t die so much from AIDS. I suggest a form of eugenics. We should abort male babies because they place too much of a burden on society. All they will end up doing is rape women and violently impose their will on everyone. There’s just something flat-out wrong with their head. Maybe just too much testosterone. Too much testosterone is like a disease.
If men want battered shelters, they should just create them. Don’t rely on feminists so damn much when you can do it yourselves.
About the homicide statistics… Men are killing themselves! That shows how evil and power hungry men actually are!
Nevermind that my bleeding heart recognizes that when black people are killing themselves, it represents their powerlessness; but I can’t recognize the same thing for when men are killing themselves.
Women are kept out of the military! And it’s men that are making sure that it’s only men in the military. So men only have themselves to blame for selective service.
Everything that I didn’t mention from your list is the fault of patriarchy shooting men in the foot.
So basically if you’re getting fucked over by the strenuous burdens placed on your sex, it’s your sex that is to blame. If you’re being blown up in the battlefield or raped in prison… Just remember that your disposability is no ones fault but yours. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Radical indeed. Unfortunately, it’ll likely be a moderate feminist that ever addresses this article, which will be easier to swallow by other feminists and blue pill men everywhere.
I think their argument would definitely include a bit about patriarchy shooting itself in the foot though. Feminists do love to blame everything on men, after all.
Actually, apart from the eugenics part, I’ve seen ALL those comments come from moderate feminists, so…
wish I’d seen the ‘satirical’ at the head of your post before I down-voted…LOL
bet I’m not the last though
Haha. I don’t doubt that people will miss ‘satirical’. So many of those arguments flow through my head every time I look at statistics like the ones Kyle wrote about here. The overall lack of human compassion that it takes to hold feminist beliefs is rather stunning sometimes. Their arguments are taken straight out of the sociopath/narcissistic handbook.
-And this would be my answer to that rant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWjIZLO-PwE&feature=related
Would be possible to get a model that goes FTSU! to buy from AVfM?
I would find it a nice place to live beside my computer, and feed it often.
If there is an intellectual equivalent to steroids, then mr. Kyle Lovett is taking it.
I am pretty much bookmarking every single article by Kyle in my resources folder. It’s almost like an MRA encyclopedia.
Kudos man. I feel we are lucky to have you in our camp.
Hey thanks, I appreciate it! I’m still very new to all this, but just so glad we have such a powerful site like AVFM to bring so many of us together.
http://nointerruptions.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/7968394.jpg
Imagine; what if there was actually no male privilege?…
No actual male privilege, no feminism. Fancy that(?)!
Another home run Kyle – thank you.
Great article
Thanks Kyle , great work. Of course feminisms idea of equality is to claim their “share” of the most privlidged ( CEO’s Politicians, etc) without the expectation that they should also have equality in lest privileged areas (Suicide, unemployment, workplace deaths etc.) Same old , same old, all rights no responsibilities.
Entitlement U
Given the vigorous effort to recruit more females into hard-sciences, the Physics department at the social engineering facility here in Guelph pays Physics female graduate students a premium of $2000.00 above male students. The payment is not based on economic status, nor grades, but solely on suffragette entitlement.
There is already now a large majority of female students enrolled on campus (~70%). Moreover, departments such as the Ontario Veterinary College, are almost entirely occupied by female student/faculty. I asked a member of the Board of Governors what the premium is paid to recruit prospective male graduate students within departments that are female dominated…? A response is still pending.
I imagine that the cognitive dissonance may have to wear off for a time before a peer-reviewed and politically correct reply is generated.
Paying any group more than another to entice them into a particular field is not only discrimination, but self-defeating. Women don’t avoid certain fields of study, or careers, or types of jobs because they’re low paying, they avoid them because they think they’re either too dangerous, or beneath them, or just don’t have any interest one way or another.
Feminism may not be entirely responsible for anyone giving a shit that more men than women are interested in working on oil rigs or in salt mines (Hell, I’d love to see more women taking on the more dangerous jobs), but it sure as hell is the treason why it’s becoming standard practice to make special accommodations in order to entice them into such fields. And that isn’t fair, and that isn’t how you’re supposed to do things.
I want women to take on more dangerous jobs, but I don’t want companies paying them more just to get them to. If the ladies can’t handle the compensation that comes with the risks of the job, then they can just leave it to those who can.
By the way, do we ever hear of men being offered more money to work in say, the beauty product industry? There is most likely a shortage of us there, am I right?
Yes, I agree, it’s all about choice and responsibility. The choice to work hazardous, toxic jobs which pay higher has been warped into an irresponsible Pay Gap inequality crisis. Most women do tend to actually prefer the soft-sciences like Biology, as the outcries of having their GPA diminished by the latest Physics exam results may well attest. Perhaps once the hard-sciences are also female dominant, when Physics becomes Fizzx, we can wonder once again if the earth really is flat.
To better equalize the playing field, perhaps I would do well to consider the male under-represented field of bra-fitting as a new career, and expect to be paid no less than a high-stressed, sleep deprived Nurse.
Why bust my back working to fix a rotten roof when I can bust a nut fitting tits?
If Pay Gap Equality campaigns sponsored males we’d all be in caves. There would seem to be a method to the madness of entitlement, all be it lacking in creative edge as our big-daddy, mangina Government continues to roll out heinous false stats which are essentially an inversion to the actual reality we all share. Apparently, being a member of a sociopathic clique not only lacks empathy but original creative imagination as well.
To better equalize the playing field, perhaps I would do well to consider the male under-represented field of bra-fitting as a new career, and expect to be paid no less than a high-stressed, sleep deprived Nurse.
Why bust my back working to fix a rotten roof when I can bust a nut fitting tits?
XD
Brilliant idea. Too bad you have a dick, because that disqualifies you from being able to work such a woman-infested job. Unless you don’t like to use that dick on women, if you catch my drift. Then you might have a shot.
Apparently one man is living the cream dream –
YouTube, ‘Mrbra’, a fine antidote to bra-burning fembots.
Cheers to this man’s high school guidance counselor.
As a guy who is completing an engineering degree of my own i have always wondered why my classes have been so chiefly dominated by other male students (I can only confirm one woman, specifically outside my timetabled classes). Physics and mathematics are hardly gender specific classes and yet it is thought of as a male domain.
I think the general excuses by women would be intimidation or the idea of getting hit on by other guys in class (The later being the lamest of excuses). But to be honest i really have large doubts that they would be disparaged. In fact i think many guys would find it refreshing and hand out due respect were it is deserved, with myself included.
To be honest i find it disappointing because i enjoy those scientific fields so much. The universal understanding that comes from studying physical theories is awe inspiring. Whether your engineering a car or objectively observing space, it all becomes evident that nature is connected in so many beautiful ways. Well at least thats how i feel about it.
Physics and mathematics are hardly gender specific classes and yet it is thought of as a male domain.
Well, there was that one professor who had the balls to claim that men were naturally more adept at math, and got shit-canned for it. Actually, it might not have been math, but it hardly matters. The reality is, women can feel all they want that something is too hard for them, but no one is ever allowed to actually suggest that they’re generally not as good at it, no matter how accurate that theory may be.
I think the general excuses by women would be intimidation or the idea of getting hit on by other guys in class (The later being the lamest of excuses).
The idea that women in general don’t live for the attention of men is laughable. Especially cute little college girls who are just recently enjoying the company of boys without daddy’s scary-ass shadow looming over head.
Granted, certain women who truly do have ambitions will get annoyed by all the swinging dicks that are trying to get so much as a whiff of some flesh lettuce while they’re trying to study, but those women are few and far between. And a lot of times, the smarter and more academically-driven a woman is, the uglier she usually is too, so not too much flirting likely going on with them.
I think the man you mentioned was Larry Summers, the ex president of Harvard University. In fact The Simpsons had actually made an episode about that topic which you folk will probably enjoy.
(The full episode is within the link below)
http://xepisodes.com/the-simpsons/season-17/episode-19-girls-just-want-to-have-sums/
What i loath more then anything about Larry Summers situation was just how much of a fervently negative response he got. Here’s a guy who makes a plausible hypothesis based not on his opinion or bigotry, but on research and data.
Personally i tend to disagree with Summers since i think men and women have the same capacity to do well in any field of science. My reasons are that i notice that there is far to many inconsistencies and fair amounts of exceptions. So instead i think the results come from the personal interest of that individual, be it male or female. But to be sure, men as a whole certainly express a greater interest and care in the broad field of science.
I don’t agree or disagree, I just think it’s a bunch of horse shit that a man can’t suggest such things simply because it’s a man doing it, while women can talk all they want about what men are or aren’t good at.
If only that was the one double standard that we had to worry about….sigh. I certainly couldn’t agree any more with you
Once again, great work Kyle.
Agreed. Fantastic article. Thinking that if I could I would about donate my male “privilege” to any female that wanted it.
LETHAL, Kyle! That was one fantastic read. The red and green section is an anti-feminist pill box. The hardest one to convince someone of is the life expectancy gap. I have argued until blue in the face but am told that women outlive men by only 2 years. The insurance companies apparently show only a 1 or 2 year gap in their actuary tables. I often am presented with the argument The insurance company is only motivated by money thus their life expectancy data is most credible of all. Men get REALLY angry about this one. They then dismiss all the points of the MRM as being inflated as a result.
Similarly, the FBI reports that less than 2% of rape claims are false. People trust FBI data. Publically condeming FBI or life insurance company data as being false will get an MRA’s ass handed to him fast. Does anyone have advice on this issue?
Also, I am often faced with the argument that prostate cancer kills men, on average, who are much older than breast cancer casualties. Because breast cancer kills young women, while prostate cancer generally kills men who are much older, near death anyway, breast cancer is more important. Any advice on counter-arguing this?
Also, it is sometimes argued that if men and women die of cancer at roughly the same rate, then funding is spent correctly. That is, if one sex requires more spending than the other in order to prevent an unequal number of men or women suffer, then it is correctly spent. Because health care funding is about spending money wherever it needs to be spent so that prevention is equally gendered. Cancer funding should be weighted more heavily on which ever sex needs it until deaths from cancer are as closely equally gendered as possible, which is our current scenario. Does anyone have advice for arguing this point?
These are just a few of the stronger arguments against my points that I have recently ran into.
a cpl of things about the cancer issue is that the arguement sounds like an equity of outcome one to me,, one that i have seen from women before (look at golf they want a head start in almost everything and assume its owed to them so that the outcome is the same) why not look at it as saving more men with less money instead therefore a better investment and more money should go there since its working better? as for the stats i have seen the stats linked from here to colleges worldwide that will refute most of the ones they will cherry pick on you they have 5 you have 200 surveys to quote,, the unreported rape claims are impossible to prove so thats a dead end on both parts but (dont quote me on this im sure someone has the link) i believe there are more reported rapes in the US prison system for men than happen worldwide to women…
Hi Ben,
On the first point about life expectancy, the 5-7 gap between men and women has been vetted by multiple government agencies including the HHS, NIH, CDC and Census Bureau. Anyone who argues different is either lying or getting their facts from bad sources.
The FBI/Rape thing I have no clue, will have to research it.
On the argument that breast cancer kills sooner than prostate cancer, well several things to point out here.
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html
Breast Cancer-
Median age for diagnosis – 61 years
Median age at death – 68 years
The age-adjusted incidence rate was 124.0 per 100,000 women per year
The age-adjusted death rate was 23.5 per 100,000 women per year
Prostate Cancer-
Median age for diagnosis – 67 years
Median age at death – 80 years
The age-adjusted incidence rate was 156.0 per 100,000 men per year.
The age-adjusted death rate was 24.4 per 100,000 men per year.
I think these facts are enough to counter that argument. But I am a bit disturbed by people who out-of-hand feel that one life in inherently more valuable than another based solely on age. I’m not going to argue the point when speaking about children or young adults, however I’d argue to those people the question; why do they feel the life of a 68 year old is more precious or more valuable than the life of an 80 year old? I mean sure, someone who is 80 has lived a long full life, but can we be so sure that this bias against older men isn’t solely because they are men who they see as competing with women for public funds? You can be damn sure if the facts were reversed, many feminists would be screaming ‘ageism’ against this very argument.
To the last point, can you clarify the argument? I think I am missing something here, as women get the lion’s share of cancer funding, but men have about an 8-10% higher rate of death from cancer than women.
Hey Kyle,
On my last argument, I will try to clarify. If the lion’s share of funding goes to women, but men suffer only 8 to 10 percent more, then this is an 8 to 10 percent disparity, not a disparity of the magnitude of the disparity in funding. That is, only a small adjustment to spending would correct the 8 to 10 percent disparity. Further, if the spending were made to be equal, then the women would begin to suffer more than the men due to equality of spending…. Because it takes more female spending than male spending to equalize the numbers of deaths between each sex. In an effort to spend more on which ever gender needs the greater amount, in order to cause the same number of men to get treatment and prevention as women, a small disparity may occur, despite this effort. That disparity is only 8 or 10 percent, which is about as fair as they can reasonably make things. The disparity is this smaller 8 or 10%, not the lion’s share disparity in funding, and is unintentional. This is the level of arguing I am faced with.
Our student handbook says that less than 2% of rape claims are false, citing FBI data.
Independent research shows 40 – 60% or higher. I go listen to feminist speakers on this campus and record them. When they are asked about false rape statistics, they say, “According to the FBI….” very conspicuously before answering any such questions. No one ever asks about other studies. The drill is always the same. They say, “According to the FBI, [insert misandric bullshit]” every fucking time. The FBI is corrupt and is part of the man hating machine.
So I’d approach it this way:
8-10 percent equates to about 25,000-35,000 lives
“That is, only a small adjustment to spending would correct the 8 to 10 percent disparity. ”
I’d ask for sources and facts that support this rather vague claim.
“Further, if the spending were made to be equal, then the women would begin to suffer more than the men due to equality of spending…. Because it takes more female spending than male spending to equalize the numbers of deaths between each sex.”
Again, I’d ask for studies, statistics or reputable research that back up this very broad claim.
“That disparity is only 8 or 10 percent, which is about as fair as they can reasonably make things.”
First, I’d ask who “they” is. Secondly only 8-10 percent is 25,000-35,000 lives, actual human beings.
“The disparity is this smaller 8 or 10%, not the lion’s share disparity in funding, and is unintentional.”
I can prove 25 ways to Sunday how the massive amounts of research money is going to women is anything but unintentional. On the contrary, it is deliberate. Again, I’d ask them for facts that back up this claim.
You can almost never go wrong sticking to the facts of the situation. Getting tangled in unfounded emotional and highly subjective arguments, which is what almost ever item above is, usually end in meaningless exercises in mental masturbation. Unless they can support their theories with hard stats and research, I’d stick to the facts as they are. 99 times out of 100, their only counter to factual evidence is just more subjective dribble.
Equal protection under the law is the key. You can prove how this funding disparity is not, can they prove otherwise?
Yeah, I am starting to see the problem. The people I am trying to convince are my enemies. It is male psychology, I guess.
I think part of the disparity in public funding for prostate cancer in comparison to public funding for breast cancer is due to lobbying efforts in Washington and large private organizations that raise money for medical research. For instance if you do a Google search for breast cancer the names of many organizations, including the big one Susan G. Komen will come up. As you know the Komen organization organizes runs to raise money all over the country. They get involved with the makers of popular products and sell versions of the product which include a donation to the organization. The people behind the breast cancer fight lobby government, they are in your face, they are visable, and they demand support and funds for their initiative. Due to their efforts they get the funds they seek. Sadly, I admit that I couldn’t name the largest male organization that is trying to raise funds to support research and obtain public funds for prostate cancer. To increase the funds going to prostate cancer reseach the organizations behind the effort need to step up their efforts.
but if i use your approach with anything other than public funding it falls short with feminists,,,if women want better wages in the workplace then they just have to go out there and work harder for it, no more equal outcome policies,, see its simple, if its equal then every single dime that women get and lobby for should be split right down the middle for mens health mens DV shelters funding for schooling doesnt matter if theres less men right now it only takes public education and more advertising to get men to start reporting women who are abusers “because only they can stop it” thats what equality is all about right? equal outcome?…
The $631 million is all public funds and all very much lobbied for. If you add private funding, you would need to inch close to the $2 billion dollar mark.
There are many cancers that kill almost as many people, but receive little to no funding for research. Brain tumors and pancreas cancer aren’t glamourous or popular, but they still kill in large numbers.
if we got half their public funding i would put almost all of it into a campaign for private funding and turn that 300 mill into alot more,, maybe just me?
One other thing to consider:
Of all these cases of breast cancer, 1% of the cases are men. It is usually found too late, as this little fact is not well known to the common person. Link: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancerinMen/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-in-men-key-statistics
There is a bias, as these men, even with insurance, aren’t covered for treatment, because the insurance companies believe it is a woman only disease, when every medical book states otherwise. So we not only get the “privilege” of getting this disease, because of ignorance and lack of coverage, we are going to get the privilege of dying from it more often.
Well, the unequal deaths thing is rather easy to counter: in Canada it’s men that die more of prostate cancer than women, with the same funding difference. So it’s not a matter of more funding equals more lives saved.
In fact, there were recently some female breast cancer doctors who survived breast cancer themselves (how’s them apples) who said that they don’t know what to do with all the money. Well, to be precise, they said that the funding would yield much greater results by spending it on other cancers, but that’s pretty much what it comes down to.
I should probably look up that damn article again sometime today; but I can’t remember how I came across it; it may even been through avfm.
Found it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27283197/ns/health-cancer/t/politics-behind-pink-ribbon/
Hell, do a little search on “too much breast cancer awareness” or “too much pink”, or “too much funding breast cancer” and you’ll get a whole myriad of articles about the large amount of funding that breast cancer gets not being effective, and other causes of death being able to much more effectively use more funding.
“Any advice on counter-arguing this?”
If I were to offer any ‘advice’, it would be to concentrate on arguments other than this particular one. It is not the most deadly torpedo in our arsenal, and like other second-string talking points would best be ‘rolled out’ a bit later. Think staging.
Good point. I try to use the torpedos first and then work these other, more easily challenged, male issues in later as you suggest. The trouble is that my listeners are dead silent when I make points that they know they don’t have a chance of effectively countering. They continue to say nothing until I mention something that think they can attack then they attack that.
When they do this, it is obvious that they are not on my side. Let’s see…. They are poker faced on all issues except for the ones they can attack, then they attack those….. Yep! These are enemies. Once this is established, I may as well write them off and forget it.
My strategy going forward will be to only argue the most indisputable topics and ask for their thoughts on the matter. I will not allow them to silently lay in wait until they find a hole or a weak spot to attack. I will not move on to another topic until they give feedback on the current topic.
Isn’t it unfortunate that men attack other men for trying to protect their civil rights? That is nothing but male psychology at work.
Ben, I hope you’re keeping a journal of all these lessons and insights which you are garnering. Including which KINDS of people react to WHAT in WHICH WAYS.
And yes… I like the strategy you are following — it’s pretty much what I, too would do.
Here’s a cute little conversational script for ya.
When they ‘clam up’ as you describe, look them in the eye and say, in a mock-playful tone of voice:
“Ahhhh…..taking the fifth amendment on that one, are you?”
I have a “comments of note” folder on my desktop as well as a “quotes from MRAs” folder and a “facts” folder. Your comments are VERY important to me. Learning to craft fierce arguments for men’s empowerment is like learning to play chess.
I will definitely use the “Fifth Amendment line.”
Also, one more aspect, sorry to filabuster. Although men are only 41% of college students, more men go to college now than ever. This is because more people than ever are going to college. So, a higher percentage of young men go to college than ever before. It is just that an even greater percentage of women are going to college than before. Thus, college enrollment for men is increasing and improving and this has been the trend for several decades. This argument is often reinforced further by saying that the real problem is that too many people are going to college, acquiring too much debt, and obtaining too many degrees in virtually worthless disciplines. How do we argue this effectively?
Oh, and these arguments do not come from feminists. They are not smart enough to say anything except sound bites like “women’s suffrage” and other weak ass trash. These are arguments from MSU Engineering students who are fiercer. I am asking because I want some advice on this to become a better MRA. These arguments are presented to me in a friendly and relaxed way / healthy debating from good students who ARE interested in this movement, seem to be concerned, and are just proceeding with caution.
if men and women are both having an enrollment surge than why is the percentage of men going down to below what it was for women in the 80`s when it was a huge feminist issue? if there are more ppl in general whats holding men back from getting in college?<<feminist manrta inserted for humor, and let me ask you why college enrollment is no longer based on merit for some classes? isnt that written into basic human rights?
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
article 26 (section 1)
so why are women allowed to take places from male students with better grades? isnt that sexism? isnt that “holding them back”?
Thank you Rog. I have read both of your replies. Outstanding points! Sometimes a second set of eyes is key. Your Sword of Androcrates (An Drok’ Kra Tes) was sharper than mine on these points. Thanks for the rhetorical tune-up (seriously).
And, yes, Ben is making up words again, lol!
College – First point is why do we still have massive amounts of public funds for affirmative action programs for women, yet absolutely none for men, when women are obviously enjoying a much higher enrollment rate already?
Second point – Between 1970 and 2010 men have seen about a 70% rise in the number of students attending college, while women have seen about a 375% increase.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/bias-against-men-expands-education-gap/
Third point – In 1970 when women only made up 41% of the college ranks, it became a national crisis. In 2009 when men only made up 41% of the college ranks, nobody cares.
Last point – Acquiring too much debt maybe, but what does that have to do with anything? Women enjoy many more grants and better Perkins loan programs than men due to above mention affirmative action programs.
Send these MSU students this way, I’d love to talk the politics of granting money and privileges to a segment of society who is doing much better than the other segment, who receive nothing. And this is fair how?
ty for the great article Kyle !
Everything you just said is 100% correct. Men are outrageously disciminated against. Those arguments that I mentioned are just the arguments that I am faced with. I tell them what you have said for me to say. But they still come back and say the exact same things I brought up in my first two comments. They just don’t get it. I don’t know what else to do. I will print your article out, along with these comments. But I don’t know if it will help.
I am trying to start a men’s alliance on this campus. I have a bunch if luke warm fence stradlers who cannot get beyond using these arguments. I use all the arguments of this movement. They are silent about every one of them except the ones they think they can attack and present these exact arguments that I pointed out above.
Thanks for your feedback
Don’t get me wrong, these are their arguments, not mine. It is like no one is on my side around this man hating shit hole of a pussy pass entitled princess neo Marxist re education camp. Fuck.
Oh, I understand what you are faced with, but I’d make it clear that if they can’t support their claims in any meaningful way, then I’d suggest very strongly that they are blinded by their own ignorance and bigotry. Some people aren’t looking for meaningful debate, they only want to push people around with either their victim identity or their dogmatic pandering. It makes them feel better about lying to themselves.
I would say that my arguments are stronger now. I am going to use everything you have said. I am keeping all of your stats from this article on a card, too. I am so grateful for this site! So much wisdom here.
Brilliantly written!
This idea that we need more female politicians is idiotic beyond belief. Personally i don’t mind if they can cut it but in all honestly how often does anyone find women who are interested in politics, or even men for that matter? The only common thing that many women debate about is frivolous ads and programs on TV while Incidentally leaving out the actual news.
All that funding for breast cancer research could come back to bite some women. I knew a man who was very upset when his wife died of leukaemia and discovered that a disproportionate amount was funding was for breast cancer and not the type of cancer his wife died from. I do not know if the wife was upset. Perhaps feminists should consider that their pet cancer may not be the best use of limited resources.
Excellent article Mr Lovett. Men need to know this information, while most women just don’t want to hear it. They would just dismiss it anyway. Women have been railing against phantom ‘Male Privilege’ ever since I can remember. It’s their one-size-fits-all boogyman that fulfils all of their victim fantasies.
This myth is so deeply entrenched and cherished by most women, that contradicting it is perceived as a form of misogyny bordering on harrassment. They refuse to budge from their victim perch because it has served them so well. It justifies all of their spiteful, hate-fuelled rhetoric and retaliatory actions.
Recently, I had a falling out with a woman who had been a friend for more than 25 years. While a guest in my home, she muttered – for no apparent reason or relevance – something about ‘Male Privilege’. I asked her to either give me an example of this ‘Male Privilege’ or acknowlege that it was a myth. Of course, all she did was suggest I was being a misogynist. It amazes me that women don’t understand how offensive man-bashing/blaming/shaming is to men.
Having insulted me and every man I know, I ordered her from my apartment. It is essental that we refuse to let women get away with using us to fulfil their victim fantasies. They can lie to themselves, but I will not allow them to lie to me. Again, a great article that every man needs to read, study, remember and use.
andy i had this same conversation with my own sister it didnt go well when i stood up for men in front of her (she was making comments how all these deadbeats should keep it in their pants if they dont want to pay child support) and called her on it.
I’m sorry to hear that Rog. When your own sister is taken aback when you call her out for her misandry, you know that feminist poison has seeped into their very marrow. Women look startled when required to justify their hateful attitudes. They respond with infantile tantrums that are embarrassing to watch.
The woman I wrote about is typical of so many middle-aged Australian women of my aquaintance. They never seemed particularly feminist in the past. However, somewhere along the line, they just ceased trying to hide their Tiptreesque hatred of men. Feminism has mined bottomless pits of seething envy and vengeance within these women and the results are ugly.
Most striking is their inability to understand why men don’t want to be around people who don’t like them. Introducing them to the kinds of facts and figures provided by Mr Lovett results in blank, angry stares of incomprehension. You may as well be talking Swahili. It is men who benefit from this opportunity to put ‘Male Privilege’ into perspective.
Let’s just put it this way: My lack of tolerance for man-bashing misandric rhetoric is one of the reasons I’ll likely never have a healthy connection to women. My standing up for myself and men everyone doesn’t earn me respect from women, it earns me their contempt.
I totally agree. The last time that I went on a date, the woman actually said to me, “I would invite you in, but I don’t know you well enough to trust you around my kids yet.” I had known the woman for over a year when she told me this. Women routinely say things like this to men even after the man has made every effort and has paid for her dinner. I got angry when she said this and she said I had anger issues and to never call her again. Feminism did this to us…
@MrStodern
I hope you really won’t allow some crap a women might say during a debate on male/female issues affect your relationships with women. 99% of what people say is for effect. It has very little to do with how they actually feel and how they live their lives. furthermore many of the views women hold when they are a young single gal change when they are in a committed relationship b/c at that point all the focus in their life is on YOU.
@Ben
You say you knew her for 1yr. Are you saying you dated her for 1yr? When a person is a single parent of a child, introducing your new mate to your kids is a huge step. I would think one would want to be certain that they are in a serious committed relationship b4 they start bringing them home to the kids. It seems she was being completely honest with you when she told you this. Which is exactly what she should do.
td9red,
I meant that I had only known her for one year. I only went on one date with her. I had no intention of meeting her kids. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable for her to want to be in a committed relationship before her kids are introduced to me. I have absolutely no problem with a woman saying that she has kids at home and does not feel that it is a good idea for me to come in yet. But I do have a problem with a woman saying that she does not know me well enough to trust me around her kids. That is a different matter altogether. My point was that women do not have any hesitation to imply that men are a potential danger to children, even to the man’s face who just paid $100 on a date. THAT is a slap in the face. It is a matter of having some tact and respect for men and not acting as if they have two strikes against them for being male and then burdening the man with proving to her that he is not a danger.
I hope you really won’t allow some crap a women might say during a debate on male/female issues affect your relationships with women.
Why shouldn’t it? People are defined by their perspectives on important issues like abortion, sex, rape, marriage, divorce, cancer, AIDS, etc. Especially women, because so many of them have attitudes and opinions that are not based on the facts, and regardless of whether they are, when a man differs in their opinion, it counts against them as potential sex partners, so why shouldn’t I hold women to the same standard that they hold me?
99% of what people say is for effect.
Oh really? Then I shouldn’t take it seriously when I hear a woman bash on men? Sounds like someone trying to slip a blue pill into my drink. Excuse me while I pour it out…
It has very little to do with how they actually feel and how they live their lives.
I beg to differ. Very much so.
I have yet to meet a woman in my entire life who was so compatible with me that NOT partnering with them would be a crime against myself. And the very reason is because women who identify themselves as feminists (which is pretty much every women I’ve ever personally known) truly do mean what they say when they talk about any number of typical feminist issues. And obviously, as an MRA, as a red pill man, I’m not going to get along with such women. Ever.
furthermore many of the views women hold when they are a young single gal change when they are in a committed relationship b/c at that point all the focus in their life is on YOU.
No, no they don’t change at all. They keep their opinions, they still have a certain distrust and dislike of men, it’s just that being taken care of by a wealthier man is incentive enough, if the woman has any tact, for them to keep it in check. I know this because most relationships don’t last until the end of time anymore, and pretty much every time they come to an end, the woman has plenty of nasty things to say about their ex-boyfriend/husband, and, typically, men in general, which includes or is inspired by a lot of the same old feminist diatribe.
@Ben:
Have a care, shipmate!
I smell a feminist mixing the personal with the political here.
Stand clear.
Wow, a lot of great discussion here while I was away. Awesome.
Well, I’ll just say this about a few things…
False rape statistics: Don’t know that I trust it to be only 2%, and even if it’s that low, that’s still a pretty good amount of men being wrongfully incarcerated. Granted, you can only get so low or so high, but let’s not forget that the reason that false rape statistics are anything but 0% is because women are willing to lie about something so serious.
Life expectancy: I actually don’t care if men generally don’t live as long as women, because no matter what, most of us don’t reach 100 anyway. And how many of us, upon reaching our 70s and 80s, find that life is what they really wanted it to be at that age?
Breast V.S. Prostate cancer: As far as I’m concerned, breast cancer gets WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much of the attention in the media, and funding. There’s diseases out there far more deadly, and far more terrible, that should be at the forefront. I blame feminism entirely for this bullshit.
You’ re correct, there are more deadly diseases out there. But, none of those diseases occur in the population as much as breast cancer. I think the chances of developing breast cancer today is 1 in 8 women. Men can also develop breast cancer.
I note, Kyle Lovett’s statistic above for breast cancer vs prostate cancer shows an advantage in public funding for breast cancer and irrespective of that large funding advantage nearly 7,000 more deaths occur from breast cancer. That’s no advantage. One of the really scary things about breast cancer is that it is affecting women younger and younger every year. There are now women in their 30′s dying from breast cancer and the freakin government and the cancer associations can figure out when women should start to have regular breast exams. My doctor just told me that the breast cancers that are occurring in young women grows so fast that a yearly mamogram may not catch it in time to put up a real fight. This is why the advice the government is giving as to when is the right time to get a mamogram keeps changing. Fuck!
Bullshit. There are cancers and other diseases that occur in far greater numbers than breast cancer:
Lung cancer is the number 1 cancerous killer amongst women and is occurring in massive numbers; not in the least of which aggravated by smoking. It also occurs in men quite highly.
Skin cancer is the number 1 cancerous killer for men, and it occurs both death and existence in greater numbers than breast cancer.
And that’s just the cancers. For example: spontaneous cardiac arrest KILLS, (it occurs even more often), 300,000 people a year in the US.
Just to name a few.
I believe lung cancer is the biggest killer of women. However, lung cancer is much less of a killer in non-smoking women.
“men can also develop breast cancer.”
You have choosen feminist argument #1. But just like you, never point out that the number is less than 1%
“I note, Kyle Lovett’s statistic above for breast cancer vs prostate cancer shows an advantage in public funding for breast cancer and irrespective of that large funding advantage nearly 7,000 more deaths occur from breast cancer. That’s no advantage.”
You have choosen feminist argument #2 – For God sakes, do the math.
$15,775 spent per breast cancer death
$9,090 spent per prostate death
“One of the really scary things about breast cancer is that it is affecting women younger and younger every year. There are now women in their 30′s dying from breast cancer and the freakin government and the cancer associations can figure out when women should start to have regular breast exams. ”
You have choosen feminist argument #3. Well, again, let’s look at your so called facts that you didn’t even attempt to back up with data.
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html
Breast Cancer-
Median age for diagnosis – 61 years
Median age at death – 68 years
The age-adjusted incidence rate was 124.0 per 100,000 women per year
The age-adjusted death rate was 23.5 per 100,000 women per year
Prostate Cancer-
Median age for diagnosis – 67 years
Median age at death – 80 years
The age-adjusted incidence rate was 156.0 per 100,000 men per year.
The age-adjusted death rate was 24.4 per 100,000 men per year.
Men in their 30′s die of prostate cancer too. So your point? A man’s life is worth LESS than a woman because they are older. Why, how bigoted of you.
“My doctor just told me that the breast cancers that are occurring in young women grows so fast that a yearly mamogram may not catch it in time to put up a real fight. This is why the advice the government is giving as to when is the right time to get a mamogram keeps changing.”
Emotional hyperbole, and again, no data or research to back up your claim. No one is denying that young women die of breast cancer, but the facts clearly show a bias against men. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
I already explained the major flaw in your argument there is a bias in public funding for breast cancer vs. prostate cancer. Go back to my comment toward the top.
The major flaw in your argument is that you do not account for the effects of lobbying in Washington, attention to the cause, organization, such as Susan Komen which raises money for research and to help lobby government for public money. With respect to lobbying efforts and attention to a cause there is no prostate cancer organization that is even remotely comparable. Our government is all about lobbying and pushing your cause. The primary reason breast cancer gets more money is b/c those chicks push hard!
Yeah you guys, if you would get off your ass and lobby government to fund male research efforts and fund violence against men acts like the feminists do, then there would be no problem. Never mind that the government gives Feminists hundreds of millions of dollars per year for women to lobby the government.
The primary reason breast cancer gets more money is b/c those chicks push hard!
You mean they are blackmailed into funding it with loss of vote, etc. and hey a breast is a heck of a lot nicer looking than the access way to the prostate.
By the way I must have drank too much of my apple cider I am using to cook my turkey stew I upmodded by mistake.
“The major flaw in your argument is that you do not account for the effects of lobbying in Washington, attention to the cause, organization, such as Susan Komen which raises money for research and to help lobby government for public money.”
Oh, nice feminist argument #5 – Stop whining about it and do something like feminists are.
Whether or not more money goes towards feminist causes because of political lobbying is besides the point. It is no less bigoted, discriminitory, violates the 14th amendment of the US Constitution and creates a privileged class while oppressing another. You have heard of equal protection under the law, right?
Our government buys into this legalized discrimination because we have a chivilaristic society, because feminist groups believe that women need help because they couldn’t cope without it (and frankly if I were a woman, I’d be deeply offened by this) and feminists have played the victim role very well. I don’t question the power feminist groups in DC have, I just question how it marganlizes men, and exposing how feminists (who are supposed to be champions of ‘equality’) have no interest in real equality.
So, no there isn’t a flaw in my argument unless you are in favor of bigotry and discrimination, which you clearly are. Those “chicks” (you need to say feminists) may push hard, but we are now pushing the fuck back!
@KyleLovett:
“Oh, nice feminist argument #5 – Stop whining about it and do something like feminists are.”
Something more subtle here: the subject as good as admits (well, implicitly acknowledges) the driving political reality of our time — that men and women have effectively become separate political power blocs in competition with each other.
Once this model of things is normativized, it puts the feminists in a mighty poor posture to preach at men about any supposed “duty” toward women — especially women in the abstract, which was a weak stance even in the first place.
I think there is a powerful element of “cold comfort” in recognizing this cutthroat political reality. It simplifies life greatly, and clarifies thinking.
Well “exposed” actually, it’s the big dirty secret that they will fight tooth and nail to hide.
Kyle – You have smashed it out of the park.
NIce!
The green and red thingamejig was excellent and really highlights the disparity. The fact remains that these are real issues and this sort of argument used repeatedly could shut down the male privilege thing altogether
The komrades, who are pledging for donations by the way, at Wikipedia that allowed their published defined version of male privilege appears to be copied straight out of feminist central and the holy scheme book. Oh wait, post-modernist Foucault’s portioned take on the world is referenced as a piece of the puzzled definition. We know where this is about to go.
An impressive array of verbal gymnastics are displayed throughout the whole Wiki piece. But the ever so limber verbiage looses grip from the top parallel bars falls onto a trampoline and bounces vortex-like out the window.
Someone’s about to get a head-ache (I feel one a comin’ on) trying to follow most of their convoluted reasoning or by landing somewhere precarious from the trampoline fall. Overdone yet undercooked. The definition of ‘male privilege’ looks quite like hyper mortar board material on paper but comes up short on practical. Don’t strain the synapses professor. Keep it simple.
Ah yes, a privilege as exemplified in wage earnings. We know the hubris of that industry. Plenty of misleading data, lack of accuracy but heavy on pork barrel lip smacking gravy for the girls. Not a good choice for pointing out privilege. Except for those who don’t know any better.
So no real common mundane examples that show privilege as something other than drudge work for the manly masses. And somehow the socially minded at Camp Far Left overlook the masses of proletariat men monotonously greasing machine gears for the man at the top, who, by the way, has the privilege of sacrificing major parts of his life to make something out of nothing.
The male privilege theory. Another feminist shibboleth destined for the dustbin or among the other accumulated dung piles seen throughout history. If it weren’t for the huge infusions of interest bearing borrowed money feminist chicanery and the resulting free ride would have ended long ago.
I would give except they’ve shown themselves to be partisan liars. I probably won’t be able to make a difference since there is usually great profit in misandry.
And how much are they paying the GD dictionary companies to keep the word Misandry out of the official texts??
Ah yes, gotta love that male privilege. We’re never barred from things that women routinely take advantage of because of our sex,as in this case here.
http://tinyurl.com/brar5yn
I’m sure, though, this has nothing to do with feminism. I bet he was foiled by some hyper-masculine culture on campus.
Oooopsie! Well, I still smell the patriarchy in this. You know what? I bet the patriarchs who control the world just didn’t want this little guy breaking from the accepted masculine code. That’s how they create a rape culture, by forcing men into aggressive macho roles. And as feminism teaches us, any time men are apparently discriminated against, it’s the patriarchy. The patriarchy hurts us all.
It appears I might not be cut out for feminism, I am having a really hard time blaming this on men.
I’m going to give it one last try.
Ok….
The best way to make up for past discrimination is to create future greivances in the present. It makes no sense at all to give everyone an equal opportunity in the present and move on on an even footing.
Nope.
The best thing to do is to make sure the “historically underrepresented gender” gets an extra helping while the “historically overrepresented gender” gets shit on until we subjectively decide this boy has been punished enough for things that happened before he was born to people he never met.
Hey, I am a feminist,after all!
I knew I could do it.
It’s CHEERLEADING! By their own law, teams with even one overrepresented gender have to be disqualified; the overrepresented gender being GIRLS. In cheerleading, the overrepresented gender would be GIRLS. Thus by their own law, all teams with even one girl should be disqualified; which would mean EVERY SINGLE CHEERLEADING TEAM IN EXISTENCE.
Instead they disqualify the one team with a single boy in it; blind hatred at work folks.
Fantastic work, Kyle. Your breakdown of the issue into compact bite sized units is perfect for conveying information to a world that seems to have the attention span of a hyperactive ferret on meth. This submission should be in the munitions box of every activist.
For those asking about the 2% false rape accusation rate, there is a great study by Edward Greer. It was done I believe about 10 years ago. Most likely, the FBI source is the same as the others, that supposed 1975 NYC rape center survey which can’t be found.
http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf
I found this forensic examiner article on false rape just today. It may be old news to some people though. What I liked about it is that the forensic examiner is a peer reviewed journal. Apparently even forensic scientists realize that a lot more than 2% of rape reports are false, and identify the major reasons behind false rape allegations. As the respectable author cites the same sources as MRA’s, it punches a few holes in the feminist claims that we are using erroneous studies.
http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/
Slightly OT. The campus feminists have taken misandry to a whole new level. They have placed stickers on the main front doors to all the academic buildings, on the walls of the hallways, and on the doors to each classroom that say, “What to do if you are raped” with a long checklist and a message from campus Sexual Assault Services.
They are determined to make every student think about rape every second of every day, even while they are in class and are supposed to be thinking about the subjects they are studying.
I pointed this out to other male students. They look at me with the most confusion that the human face is able to display and say that I am crazy, or that I must really have something very seriously wrong with me if those signs bother me. One guy said, “Dude! You need to stay off those woman hating sites! If this bothers you, they have warped your mind.”
There isn’t much that ONE person alone on the entire campus can do about this. But a group, even if it was only 8 or 10 people, could stage various actions that would stir up conflict and get polarization started.
I have been unsuccessful at getting ONE other person to help me, much less 7 or 8, lol. Those are the types of personal attacks I receive while trying to recruit others to build that group of 7 or 8 to cause polarization. The rape awareness crap is on the front door to Mechanical Engineering building for crying out loud! Are they freaking kidding me?!
I guess soon they will be asking male students, “How many fingers am I holding up; Sexual Assault Services says I am holding up 13 fingers. Now, I will ask you again, how many?”
There are things that an individual can do. Guerrilla tactics. Brush up on your Sun Tzu – when weak appear strong for instance. Try indirect, covert subversive and propaganda tactics in order to convince everyone that there are more of you than there are. Loaded language literature using “We”, “Collectively”, “Our”, etc. Use articles and slogans that are written by different people when seeding the campus as the varied writing styles are unconsciously picked up by the readers and correctly interpreted as the efforts of different individuals, giving the sense of numbers.
Humans are drawn to group mentality, which is why they initially shy away from small groups. Once they begin to perceive that there are greater numbers, their group nature will assume that they can find acceptance and protection there and will be willing to become vocal.
Outstanding advice!
I almost want to say, hire an airplane to fly over the campus at night and drop thousands of propaganda leaflets. I’m sure that would stir things up.
So in more realistic terms, what would an “airplane strategy” (if not involving an actual airplane) look like?
The principle here, is to feed carefully formatted information to a target population. This could be done either shotgun style, or IV-drip style (and either way could be desirable depending on the exact scenario) but the question is the mode of delivery.
A helium balloon on a string carrying a sack of fliers?
@Rog:
You would need a triggering mechanism, to release the flyers from the bag. Let’s see. . .
How about a second string, with one end loosely tied
around the bag end? A quick tug from the earthbound operator would open the bag and the papers would come tumbling out.
Always remember, Ben, that statements like that last one probably come from individuals who have been excellent targets for the daily manhating brainwashing since their early childhood. And most of them have responded very well to it, since they do not even recoqnize injustice and hatred anymore, even when it shrieks them in the face.
-Or they might just be very frightened herd creatures, too afraid to want any attention directed at them for stating the obvious.
I think I agree with paragraph one. They don’t know any better. They truly are brainwashed.
Would it be unethical to put up your own stickers stating 1 in 4 rape accusations are false? I guess to women it would be. However, no more unethical than what they are doing.
Ethics are a great thing to have. Morals, honor, integrity, all virtues. They are also equally worthless, and most often a liability, in times of war.
This is a war, my friend, and one in which we probably do not fully realize who the enemy really is. If we try and fight this war honorably, we will be exactly as successful as the Confederate army was. We will have the same chance of victory that Japan did. We face vastly superior numbers with incredible resources. If we fight like samurai we will fall like grain before a scythe.
We check our ethics at the door and pick it up when the war is over. Our pride might have been lost along the way, but at least future children will have the opportunity to build their own virtues anew.
Warped your mind have we, Ben? How’s that for unadulterated blue pill bliss? Their type will even resist the the convulsions when they are ultimately unplugged from their delusion!
Good article…
Hypocrisy came to mind, and the selective mindset of a good percentage of women and feminists.
O.T. so please indulge me
It provoked many thoughts within me and the one that came to my mind was the use of colours that past and present society still use happily to define the sexes. The tradition of blue for boys and pink for girls is now being challenged by some who wish to deplete this standard; especially in places like Sweden at Kindergarten level.
Girls and women embrace pink as a colour to represent their femininity when they so choose. They also use pink to define breast cancer awareness for females. They also use it to celebrate their freedom to dress as they please on slut walks. They use it on college campuses to thrust their misandric message down the throats of male students. It’s used in the media to represent anything feminine…so what is it that some of them are advocating for when they feel the colour pink has been forced upon them in some way. Where are they going with that pathetic argument.
Do we not see some major, bullshit hypocrisy here?
Add it to the list, if there is any space left.
-There probably isn’t.
I cannot count the number of times I see fluorecsent pink on this campus with the message, “Love Pink.” Worn by college girls. That says it all doesn’t it?
I was thinking about what you’d had to endure when I wrote that about college campuses, Ben.
That sentence was for you mate!
Holy shit, I just now realized that Ben is the Helper Dog From Hell. Sweet.
i think helperdog is tryn to keep a low profile right now( redoing vids and removing his face ect from them ) so he can do his school without becoming a target. best wishes to him from fixt100 tho
Love this article and it makes me think of a recent situation at work in which a coworker who has had some marital problems , and was arrested of course. No charges have been filed and he and his wife are trying to work things out. But the draconian nature of the court system saddled him with a no contact rule… long story short, a few women in his office found out about his arrest and now he’s on “administrative leave” because they don’t feel safe in the office…wow.. talk about male privileges!
Hmph. Meanwhile, I’m not allowed to feel totally safe becoming intimate with women, or working beside them, but no services are available for me to impose my fear upon the lives of women in general. Ever.
Please add proper source info below the articles, not just links!
oh my god, how can you dislike an article for requesting sources? ignorance…
Mr. Lovett’s commentary has been posted at a political discussion board, and there is a heated discussion going on there now. Any MRA’s who want to contribute can register at the Debate Politics Board. Here’s the link for the thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/113743-feminist-myth-male-privilege.html
I don’t think you fully understand the concept of Male Privlege. It’s not simply that men have it better in all aspects of life, it’s a deeper social construct that favors men in social status and opportunities as a lingering result of a long history of female oppression by men. In particular, it highlights men’s status as the “normal” and women’s status as the “other” (having a male president is “normal” while a female president would be a break from that established norm for example)
But just for fun, just for a moment, I will entertain your list of data that has either nothing to do with male privilege (like life expectancy) or isn’t evidence that supports your conclusion.
Because you forgot a few
- Number of women sexually assaulted vs. number of men
- Pay and benefits for men vs. women for doing the same job (despite your noted higher graduation rates for women)
- Number of male CEO’s of fortune 500 companies vs. female CEO’s
- Number of health plans that cover viagra but not birth control
- Number of research studies that exclude women because of their “abnormal” menstruation cycles vs number of men excluded for their “abnormal” lack of menstruation cycles
- Number of women prevented from having certain jobs in the military vs. number of men prevented from having those same jobs
- number of men in political office vs. number of women
etc etc.
p.s. don’t cite wikipedia in a so-called academic essay.
research what male privilege really is! and get a clue!
Do you have statistics with references comparing men and women or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Not handy, but have studied it in the past. They are rhetorical questions because they have little to nothing to do with male privilege These lists could go on all day.
I am sure there will be more comments here. I do have to take issue with using number of men/women in political office and which gender the president is. I don’t see this as male privilege. For decades women have had the freedom to run for any office they choose to. With 51% of the population being women, theoretically women could occupy 100% of political office positions including president. No one is stopping them. They aren’t oppressed from running. If less women desire to run for office or the population doesn’t choose to vote for them, that doesn’t make it male privilege.
I also would like to add one in relation to your first on the list. Men falsely accused of sexual assault and domestic violence who’ve been imprisoned or had their lives destroyed vs. number of women.
I think Kyle has addressed the CEO issue. How is it male privilege if 99% of men are also excluded from that group? Also, studies show that women state they aren’t as interested in doing what is necessary to get to that level compared to men.
As far as wage gap, there have been plenty of studies that attribute this to higher pay for dangerous occupations and avg. number of hours worked by men compared to women with men being higher. If men and women do the same EXACT job, they get paid the same, as the 1963 Equal Pay Act requires. If they don’t, a lawsuit can take care of that. The wage gap frequently reported just averages out all men’s and women’s salaries, irrespective of job title. Women also tend to choose occupations that pay lower, though that is changing. I also like to add that those figures do not include alimony and child support. Those 2 help women (the primary recipients) to be able to work part time and less hours and should be included in wage figures as they help pay for monthly expenses.
And lastly, the medical issues you raise as male privilege are not privileges at all. Menstrual cycles are biological differences that can not be changed. You might as well include in Kyle’s list then number of men with erectile dysfunction vs. number of women if that’s the case. And I would have no issue with insurance covering birth control if they cover Viagra. However, Viagra addresses actual physical function and disease of blood vessel narrowing etc… where birth control is a choice and can be addressed with OTC condom use.
Your last item addressed the military. Which jobs are women banned from holding?
- Sexual assault: men are the ones who are sexually assaulted more. Female sexual assault is but a tiny insignificant number; indeed another show of female privilege. Men on the other hand, don’t have such privilege. There are women bragging about having fucked men when unconscious – which is rape no matter how you twist and turn. But in our society it isn’t counted, because a man can’t get raped, right? If you add in rapes in prison and during war time, the numbers favoring women as the ones getting least raped enter the ridiculous.
And hell, what do you have “normal” assaults? We add the non-sex-based ones on top it; and the numbers favor women as being perfectly sweet and safe to even greater degree.
- Benefits for the same job: doesn’t exist. “The same job” isn’t actually “the same job”. When a man chooses to work over time, he gets bonuses for the over time; not for the same job. Women choose not to do over time. The same goes for doing “the same job” in hazardous environments versus choosing to do it safely indoors. But don’t worry, if we follow the UK’s example, I’m sure soon women will get all the same bonuses as men do; despite the fact they choose to NOT do the extra work, and the work in hazardous areas and time that nets the men those bonuses.
- Number of CEOs is entirely women’s fault. To reach the position of CEO you need among luck, also willingness to work 80 hours a week, long into the night regularly. Women are rarely willing to do that, even less so once they have children. And thus, they don’t reach that position as often. If you want women to be CEOs; teach them to forget life, forget their time with families and children, work themselves to the bone, and when they do, affirmative action will have them outnumbering men in no time.
- Number of health plans!? Bwahahaha! Have you even bothered to read Obama-care? Just fucking look it up on this site, it’s get analyzation. Women this, women that, women get more of this, and more here. Men? They’re barely even mentioned. There are multiple offices of women’s health, even in the friggin’ military. Men? Not a one. How about breast cancer. Men can get breast cancer you know. But they don’t get help under Obama-care, medicaid and medicare, no the can just drop dead.
- Research studies? Your pulling this out of your ass. The only research studies that exclude women isn’t because they prefer men, it’s to protect women. You see, if men get infertile, impotent, crippled, or outright dead, who cares right, he’s just a man. But a woman, no, no, that can’t happen to the precious woman. Both chivalry and righteous fear of feminists will make sure that won’t happen. After all, if feminists get wind of women suffering during a research, holy shit, your company or university will be shut down in not tim.
- Yeah, that’s because those jobs have a physical component. And guess what, most women just don’t have the physical requirements. Not to mention that most of those positions would get them KILLED. And we can’t have that. 97% male combat deaths is good rate; after all, because men lost their jobs, they were sitting at home and not getting crushed by trees and the like; less male deaths in the work place. Relatively speaking, it meant female deaths went up, even though the absolute number did nothing. Result; feminist outcry that the number of women deaths on the work floor went up; incidentally, before men forced to stay at home, it was 93% male deaths, 7% female deaths. Afterward, the massively large majority is still men. Yes, the male privilege to die.
But don’t worry, feminists will no doubt solve that problem with affirmative action soon, the same way they solved it with the firefighters. When women don’t pass the already ludicrously lowered physical standards; they still get hired! Thus endangering the lives of the public, their colleagues lives, and their own.
- number of men in political office: blame the women. They’re the majority in the electorate. If women can’t stand the “male privilege” all they gotta do is start voting for women. Oh, wait, right. “Male privilege” isn’t actually any “male privilege” is male disadvantage and female privilege as long as women choose it that way, right?
I overlooked this in my previous post, but is too big not to deal with now:
Life expectancy not anything to do with Male Privilege!? how the fuck does that work, especially when you speak the exact opposite the paragraph above?
What? Didn’t notice you contradict yourself? Well, let’s show it to you:
Males, being the standard, and the females being the other; and this directly going into the concept of health care. Yes, men get the drugs, and the health standardized for them, and then oops the women.
Except for that annoying problem that in reality there are multiple female focused health departments that have been steadily increasing females’ life expectancy, both in absolute terms, as well relatively increasing it higher than in men.
Funny, you would think that if men are the standard and women only an afterthought that they would be getting the departments, and that their life expectancy as a result of all that health care geared toward them from their male privilege and all that, would actually get them closer to women as opposed to widening the gap.
But, oh yes, I forgot, life expectancy has got nothing to do with Male Privilege, how absurd! Feminists just claim that males have the better, standard health care. Evidence to the contrary? It suddenly no longer has got anything to do with Male Privilege; it just evaporated in mid air.
Then there’s all those jobs that Male Privilege is supposed to guarantee them, hired by fellow males who prefer males, ’cause their sexit, see? Yes, men get jobs so much easier! Except that there more men unemployed than women, but you know, not important! Jobs that women refuse to do, at times and places that kill men faster, adding to that life expectancy gap? (Merely going against your biological clock can quickly reduce your life expectancy by a decade.) Nothing to do with male privilege (or lack there off), don’t look here, nothing to see, move on, move on.
But no! Getting jobs no longer has anything to do with male privilege, even though it’s always been a core tenant of the male privilege hypothesis, because life expectancy has got nothing to do with male privilege anymore! It’s because it goes counter the ideology, you see.
In other words: it’s ridiculous.
again, rhetorical questions because they don’t address male privilege. i wanted to demonstrate that the list presented was not exhaustive and could be manipulated to “support” (ineffectively) either point of view.
menstruation — male’s biology is the norm
pay — it’s a fact, women make 2/3 that of men for the same position. Acts get violated and lawsuits rarely work.
politics — strange coincidence that though 51% of the population is female they are so vastly underrepresented in government. maybe there’s other factors at work here…
work hours — “men’s” work hours (say, plumbing for the sake of Joe the Plumber) are valued while “women’s” work hours are not (say, child rearing)
condoms — are you serious? do you know anything about effective birth control?
CEO thing — that’s not an example of the absence of male privilege
please, if you continue this debate, understand what male privilege is. it doesn’t just mean “men get more stuff” it’s a deep social structure issue. Therefore, a list of a few statistics from wikipedia explaining concrete things men don’t have doesn’t even come close to disproving this well established sociological (not just feminist) theory.
Alright, I usually don’t argue with brainwashed folk, but:
1- I believe the only Wikipedia source here was the definition. Did ya even bother to look at my sources? Didn’t think so.
2- The CEO thing, yep addressed. Of course you don’t give a shit about homeless and destitute men. Why do you hate poor people RayMak?
3- Just by claiming your theory of male privilege is a “deep social structure” doesn’t excuse you from backing up your claim with facts and stats. And fuck Joe the Plumber, I detest far righties.
Now you can come back with your big boy shoes on, bring some real stats that show your theory as true, or go troll elsewhere. Saying there is male privilege and female oppression just because you think its true, doesn’t make it true. That’s why feminism is like a religious cult of believing on things that you can’t see. How’s the tooth fairy been doing lately?
I think that the “debunking of RayMak” almost deserves it’s own article or a chapter in a book of it’s own, it’s classic, and could be part of the official mra statbook for all the kids going in their freshman year. To the extreme consternation of their frequently fact impaired professors.
Just to clarify: If used properly condoms are 98% effective. The pill 99%. Obvious male privilege. And that’s the end of my response. Anyone who insists not having a menstrual cycle is male privilege doesn’t deserve my time for further replies.
“pay — it’s a fact, women make 2/3 that of men for the same position. ”
It’s also a fact that every girl I knew growing up wanted to be a teacher or a nurse while every boy I knew wanted to work for NASA or be a professional athlete. Maybe that has something to do with it?
“strange coincidence that though 51% of the population is female they are so vastly underrepresented in government. maybe there’s other factors at work here…”
Hey, you’re right. Maybe it’s Bigfoot, or UFO’s, or hey,maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, maybe because women are 51% of the voting populace, maybe women are the ones who keep voting for men instead of women. Maybe there’s a whole bunch of studies that show women prefer men in authoritative positions, such as studies that show that women prefer to work for male bosses.
Maybe, because if women wanted to, they could have had a female president in there 20 years ago, it’s a sign that they WANT males in leadership positions. A whacky concept, I know, in light of your more reasonable theory of a worldwide phantom power structure that would require hundreds of billions of dollars annually to maintain and which generates absolutely no material profit or evidences no reason at all for its existence,or indeed, no mechanism whereby it could be sustained for any period of time at all.
“work hours — “men’s” work hours (say, plumbing for the sake of Joe the Plumber) are valued while “women’s” work hours are not (say, child rearing)”
That might have something to do with the fact that caring for your child is not a trade, it’s a gesture of love that any sane,biologically-sound human being makes,a choice which is reinforced naturally by the releasing of endorphins into the bloodstream of a healthy human being,creating a positive feeling of accomplishment.
You’re saying,essentially,that we should pay women not to kill children. If it was a man with a mask and a gun demanding the same thing,we’d call him a terrorist.
“condoms — are you serious? do you know anything about effective birth control?”
I’ll confess that I don’t. As a man,I don’t have any effective birth control which does not require an invasive surgical procedure, in large part thanks to women’s groups.
“CEO thing — that’s not an example of the absence of male privilege”
It’s not an example of the existence of male privilege either.
Do you realize that if we were to take the NBA as our example, using your flawed reasoning, we could make the case that the United States is racist against white men.
You can’t simply pick a group of successful people,look at their makeup and then go “Uh-oh! Discrimination!”. I could walk into a barbecue joint on any given day, look around, interview everyone, and then claim the Fourth Reich has come to our favorite ribs restaurants because I didn’t see one practicing orthodox Jew there.
I could do that, if I were a total imbecile or I had a reason to paint entire swathes of people as prejudiced. In the case of feminists, the motivation is cold hard cash. Millions of dollars every year.
And,oh, by the way,women have more representation than men in government. Women have over 15 panels on policies that relate to them. Men have ZERO panels.
I don’t think you understand how democracies work. In our system of government, women and men elect a representative,who then tells the people in government what your vote was. It’s broken up into districts.
You don’t have to be a woman to understand who the majority of people in your district want in office. You just read it off a piece of paper.
The representative,male or female, black,white,or purple,is appointed to represent EVERYONE,regardless of race,sex, sexual orientation or religion. The lack of women in government is evidence of a lack of women in government, not a lack of representation, which women actually have MORE of,thanks to all the government panels on policy.
Every single one of the points you brought up,RayMak,has either nothing to do with prejudice against women or bias for men, is riddled with faulty logic, and has been debunked time and time again by both the MRM and now,increasingly, the mainstream media.
“strange coincidence that though 51% of the population is female they are so vastly underrepresented in government. maybe there’s other factors at work here”
Now,look again at this statement you made,and tell me there isn’t a hole here wide enough to drive a semi truck through. Tell me,honestly,that you aren’t willfully connecting two dots in order to draw the conclusion of male privilege where any number of factors could explain the phenomenon you are referring to.
Have you actually looked into any alternate explanations? Done ANY research independent of feminist “studies”?
Do you realize that in order to say all these things are definitely the result of “male privilege” you have to actually try to disprove your theory in order for it to be scientifically valid? You have to run through a checklist of possibilities and rule out the possibility of any one of them to arrive at “male privilege” as an explanation, and as I believe I have shown,you have not done that.
Red Bones.
I wrote you a program to express my opinion concerning your reply.
10 FOR Z = 1 TO 1,000,000
20 Print “Awesome!”
30 NEXT Z
99 END
Thanks, I think.
k, you’ve really dated yourself!
nothing on that list has to do with male privilege, and isn’t my argument. i haven’t presented you with an argument but you aren’t critically reading.
here we go: male privilege is a larger, culturally ingrained social phenomena that cannot be disproven with a list of a few statistics where men suffer more. i offered a few statistics where women suffer more to show (obviously ineffectively) that statistics can be manipulated to demonstrate any social theory because they can be cherry picked to prove a point.
no one, including the original poster, has proven or disproven male privilege. if you would like to see arguments strongly supporting the theory of male privilege, first learn its actual definition and then go read a book.
And we just took your bullshit about women suffering more, and shown it was bullshit.
What you don’t get is, that those statistics can indeed prove and disprove male privilege.
In fact; they are THE ONLY THINGS THAT CAN prove or disprove male privilege. Because they are actually the only scientific data gathered (and can be gathered) on the subject; and they always show the same thing: it doesn’t exist.
You see, that’s what you fail to understand. You can spend your time writing a lovely little hypothesis, but that doesn’t mean it’s a theory, let alone that is correct, until you actually do the proper research for supporting evidence, and then try to deliberately destroy your hypothesis. If you find supporting evidence, and you are incapable of destroying your hypothesis, than it manages to reach the point of scientific theory. (Doesn’t mean it’s correct, future data and research could show it to be false.)
But feminists and scientific research… eh, they don’t go together. “Male privilege” was never even a theory, it was a hypothesis that has been completely destroyed several times over by now.
LOL Let’s get this straight. Your definition:
“male privilege is a larger, culturally ingrained social phenomena that cannot be disproven with a list of a few statistics where men suffer more”
And the proof to your argument is go read a book? That’s it, that’s your proof? I mean we already debunked almost evey point you brought up, so you’re down to “read a book.”
Well, how arrogant and ignorant! Wake up to reality. Now, if you have a better definition you’d like me to destroy, I’d be happy to.
Excuse me, I do apologize, I should have reduced all of my comments to one simple paragraph:
I admire your efforts, Kyle Lovett, but since Male Privilege as a social science theory is not merely about statistical haves and have nots, your list of data does not in any way disprove its presence in our lives. One must delve deeply into the comparative psychological, social, and cultural effects of what it means to be male and what it means to be female. Once you effectively do that, I will listen to your attempts to debunk this well-supported theory. Until then, go read a book, and become better acquainted with the theory you are trying to disprove.
“Male Privilege as a social science theory is not merely about statistical haves and have nots, your list of data does not in any way disprove its presence in our lives.”
So, I wonder where the science part comes into your theory?
“One must delve deeply into the comparative psychological, social, and cultural effects of what it means to be male and what it means to be female.”
So, assuming you are male, you know what it is like to be a female? I’ve read most of the big titles on Patriarchy and male privilege, and they all pretty much say the same thing. I don’t think that word privilege means what you think it means.
“Once you effectively do that, I will listen to your attempts to debunk this well-supported theory.”
Oh, now it’s well supported….supported by what? Oh come forth with ye proof of support good sir!
Maybe you should start to think for yourself instead of letting others think for you.
I haven’t offered you any points for you to debunk. In fact, the debunkable nature of the statistics offered only proves my point of the inefficacy of numbers
My only point is that your argument does not in anyway disprove male privilege. This you have not taken issue with.
As far as “read a book,” allow me too elaborate:
If you would like to read real, not wikipedia, academic discourse supporting and explaining male privilege (or white privilege, or heterosexual privilege, etc.), instead of listening to this completely flimsy non-applicable pseudo-empirical essay, go read a book…because i’d get more intellectual stimulation from reading xkcd than explaining it to a group of people who just want their own pre-formed opinions affirmed. Which I will now go do…
Statistics are debunkable? True, but then so is everything else. However, I don’t actually think you understand the term “debunk”. Not surprisingly, most people don’t understand the term debunked. 95% of the cases of claims to have debunked something they did no such thing; in fact, whenever someone claims to go debunk something, I usually tune out secure in the knowledge what they try to debunk is actually real.
Here’s how you debunk statistics; pointing other statistics disagreeing with them, and then explain the reasons (usually money) why the originals were fraud. Case in point “1 in 4 female college students get raped”. Point to all the statistics that the numbers for rapes don’t come anywhere near that required, not even if a ridiculous 90% doesn’t get reported; and then explain how feminists get money, and positions of power, and victim status from the bullshit they sucked out of their thumb. In other words; they have motive to commit fraud. While the people who gathered up the actual statistics don’t, they’re just some pencil pushers in an officers told go do some counting and some calculations and present the data.
So, we have taken your statistics and numbers, and actually debunked them, shown the numbers THEMSELVES to be false; while your attempt to name a few things where women are disadvantaged would not even have addressed the large number of male disadvantages AT ALL, even if they were correct!
Naming a few places where women were disadvantages, does not make it male privilege, it just means that women aren’t quite advantages everywhere in society; but hell, you haven’t even managed to name a single place where women are disadvantaged; which is impressive. You would think someone who is all into the way women are disadvantaged should be able to name one area where they are actually being disadvantaged even in a society that heavily advances them.
So, let’s analyze RayMak’s and feminists view of the “theory of ‘male privilege’ for a moment, shall we? We just handed a massive number of statistics that favor women; in some of the most influential areas in society. What is their reaction? “But that doesn’t disprove male privilege; it’s just statistics!”
So what then is in favor of male privilege? “Well, here’s these statistics.”
They’re complete false.
“But they’re just statistics! I didn’t give them to show male privilege is true!”
Well, then what else.
“Just go read a book; you know, where they describe what it means to be female and what it means to be male. And thus all the privilege!”
Based on what? Statistics? How did all those feminists writing all those books figure out what it means to be female and male; and how this apparently applies to every male and female in existence; individuality? Culture? Sexuality? Race? Studies producing those evil debunkable statistics you can’t rely on into those things?
Not when they’re in the way of feminist “theory”.
No, anyone who actually knows science, and understands a little logic has already gathered what the “theory”of “male privilege” is actually based upon: feeling. Feelings can’t be debunked, they’re the great feelings after all! Feminists feel how women feel, they feel they know how men feel. They just have to look around and feel how men have all these privileges; and so it must be true.
Statistics and some basic common sense observation about government policies, all the government funded departments dealing women and their health, the massive amounts of laws favoring women and disadvantaging men be damned; because that doesn’t fit their feeling.
You know it’s really a shame that this person sounds like they actually get paid to teach young impressionable minds this mostly made up, “feelings” based garbage.
RayMak offers no substantive discussion. I vote eviction.
Why? He’s not trolling, or throwing around useless profanity; he’s actually debating, even if it is completely ineptly.
I say: good, let him; every time we use actual logic, and actual statistics to destroy his claims; it’s another group of posts that any to any fence sitters reading through it will show that feminist thought just doesn’t function.
disagreement isn’t ineptitude. i’m with as little effort as possible simply commenting on your misinterpretation of male privilege and therefore ineffective attempt to disprove it. but you are all picking up on tangential comments as the meat of my so-called argument instead of this very simple point.
i haven’t offered any kind of argument to the contrary because i don’t care in a group think environment like this.
no one has bothered to actually research privilege…
my comments of “read a book” are not factual supporting arguments, but urges to get you to come up with some factual supporting arguments, starting with a correct definition before you disprove something you don’t understand.
i would gladly delve into what male privilege is if not based on have and have not statistics (which it completely is not) but my efforts would be better spent on dissertations elsewhere.
It is hard to ‘misinterpret’ a fictional feminist rhetorical trick that is given as much peer review and criticism in the field of social science as is Sweden’s mockery of science called gender studies.
One can compose laundry lists of privilege, both male & female for days on end, with no tangible results to be had as each is as intellectually dishonest as the other. I for one choose not to resort to college freshman distortion of philosophy. The real burden rests on the shoulders of the ones making the claim of privilege to give evidence for their claim. Male privilege employs the same circular reasoning that fundamentalists use to defend the Bible…It is true because this book says it is. This book says it is true because it exists.
But do please enlighten we deluded male clouts into the illuminating world of evidence which demonstrates male privilege. I await your wisdom with bated breath.
Allow me to paraphrase: “I can’t prove Male Privilege exists, so I just spend my time parroting that it does exist, and any argument you bring up I claim is ineffective, because according to me you couldn’t possibly but do anything but misinterpret male privilege, because according to me you haven’t read any of the right books, which I don’t give the titles of to boot.”
It’s rather classic “moving the goal posts” fallacy.
Also: you can’t actually prove male privilege exists, or you would have done so already.
If Mr. Feminist could get a one up and shut up the MRM movement he would have done so already; but you haven’t, so you can’t.
This article by Kyle really opened a mega thread for me. After years considering myself a feminist guy, I went back to everything I used to consider a male privilege and check the other side of the coin. I took Warren Farrell… and I saw 40 years of academic prejudice against men un-masked in my head. We also had the visit of an arrogant representative of the academic “male privilege” unfortunate and perhaps this was the last time MRAs here waste time to reply to a contemporary feminist troll.
A great trip so far. Thanx to Kyle and AVFM.
A lot of comments here make big generalizations about feminists, largely based off what feminism was a couple generations ago. But feminism has grown a lot. I’d say it’s even outgrown its name—it’s not just about women’s rights; it’s about making society better for everyone. So, to clarify:
1. There’s a whole spectrum of feminism and that feminism has changed over time. Essentialist feminists claimed women had unique, innate qualities that made them superior to men. Then there were feminists who believed the sexes were biologically equal and all differences were socially constructed. A lot of feminists today combine these ideas, arguing that biological sex creates tendencies for some behavior and abilities, while socially-constructed gender creates others. That’s certainly my position at least.
2. There are other kinds of disadvantage besides gender, and feminists know this. Yes, historically, there was tension between the Black Civil Rights Movement and feminism. But feminism has changed. Privilege isn’t just about gender—it’s about class, race, physical handicaps, mental illness, nationality—the list continues. All of the feminists I know recognize this and want to protect everyone’s rights. Third-wave feminism is a lot more focused on inclusion. Everyone is privileged in one way and unprivileged in another.
3. Feminism is still relevant, and it’s relevant for all sexes and genders. Example: I turn on the TV and see a Miller Lite ad where a man gets his “man card” taken away for ordering a light beer. He then has to suffer the humiliation of carrying a purse. Yeah, this upsets me partially because it implies that it’s shameful to be a woman, but it also upsets me because it implies that any deviance in a gender expression is unacceptable for men. That’s right, I feel bad for women and for men. There are disadvantages to being either. I’d like to get rid of these disadvantages on both sides! Which takes me to my last point:
4. feminism is not the struggle of women against men but of people against attitudes. “The patriarchy” is not individual men. It is a system whose enablers—and whose victims— include people of all genders. If you’re trying to crush feminism, an argument like “women helped elect male politicians” isn’t relevant. I see both men and women in our society who hold views on gender that I believe are harmful. I don’t hate these people. I don’t hate men. I hate hate.