Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
159. In some ways, but then again, so are men...
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 10:29 PM
Jan 2012

I think the best thing that could happen is for more men to recognize their disadvantages for being male. It would make it easier to recognize their privileges by at least recognizing that society promotes certian inequalities.

Recognizing one's privileges, no matter where they come from, is generally harder to do than one's underprivilege or disadvantage.

I think anyone who says that males cannot be underprivileged or disadvantaged as a group are not only wrong, but being counterproductive by sort of encouraging men to be in the dark about privilege. (This goes for other groups as well, like whites)

And women (as well as men) need to be more aware of their privileges.

Males generally have the most privileges in most situations in the US at this time between genders, though not always and not in all areas. Some of them are even aware of the disadvantages of being male. Instead of telling males that they have no disadvantages, which isn't true, it should be embraced by others that they have disadvantages, then used as a way to explain that many other groups (like women) face even greater disadvantages, things that they don't have to, things, which in fact, are privileges.

If their disadvantages aren't aknowledged or are dismissed out of hand, you're going to have a hard time having them recognize your disadvantages, or even the whole system of inequality and privilege.

Hell, it's bad enough that many people are too proud in the US to even admit that our society has privileges and disadvantaged groups.

Does the fact that history is full of examples of oppressed majorities make the question Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #1
Can you give an analagous example? n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #2
South African apartheid comes to mind. Arkansas Granny Jan 2012 #6
In what ways is the experience of Nelson Mandela similar to yours? n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #15
Was Nelson Mandela the only victim of South African apartheid? racaulk Jan 2012 #19
I'm sure there were. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #22
I'm a white American male. racaulk Jan 2012 #25
In that the numerical minority oppressed him due to his majority status.... Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #34
Oppression enforced by denying the vote to the majority group is qualitiatively different. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #40
You asked for an analogous example, not my personal experience. Arkansas Granny Jan 2012 #55
So women aren't a minority group? lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #64
So if women here don't suffer like blacks under Apartheid they don't qualify as oppressed majority? Zalatix Jan 2012 #78
Certainly an example... any example... would bolster the argument lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #82
Saddam's Sunni party was the dominant political group, but minority religious in Iraq riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #93
There are lots of examples of oppressed majorities. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #99
Your OP was not about electing leadership. riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #113
Do any of the oppressed majorities in your examples enjoy electoral dominance? lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #119
No, which is why sociologically they are considered "minorities". Just like women in the US. riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #152
You clearly misunderstood. Women enjoy electoral dominance by virtue of casting most of the votes. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #155
Nice goal changing. Your OP was not about votes. riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #160
Women are still traditionally an underclass treestar Jan 2012 #3
What do you mean by underclass in this context? n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #5
Over history, over time, tradition treestar Jan 2012 #12
I notice that when you gave that substantial answer, the OP stopped engaging you CreekDog Jan 2012 #145
"future progress would involve women not having a market for selling sex or having equal access to EOTE Jan 2012 #91
Women should have the same benefits as men in life, no? treestar Jan 2012 #125
Sure, but once again, what point are you trying to make? EOTE Jan 2012 #127
No, you made that point up yourself treestar Jan 2012 #133
So once again, you equate being "equal" to having the same desires. EOTE Jan 2012 #134
That argument has never worked before treestar Jan 2012 #147
Sure, spend all the time at Chippendales that you want, I'm not going to stop you. EOTE Jan 2012 #185
You seemed to prefer the idea that women desire it less treestar Jan 2012 #186
No, actually, I'd prefer if they desired it more. EOTE Jan 2012 #188
To women they generally do treestar Jan 2012 #206
No. Our interest in sex isn't equal. Remember Me Jan 2012 #161
My point is that it could be treestar Jan 2012 #171
I think you're quite wrong Remember Me Jan 2012 #174
Why on this goal? treestar Jan 2012 #187
We are a still an unequal, in some ways, majority frazzled Jan 2012 #4
Do these inequalities merit minority status? lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #8
Who cares what you call it? Inequality and discrimination don't need a name. frazzled Jan 2012 #11
We all should. Words mean things. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #21
No one suggested a 'similarity' to apartheid. It was used as an example of a majority Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #44
Okay, so "South african apartheid" is not "an analagous example". lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #58
Oh, no you don't Remember Me Jan 2012 #163
To the extent that women face barriers, it isn't just men putting them in place lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #182
No, but it still may count treestar Jan 2012 #17
I'd say ask the Native American woman who faces all those barriers and then also Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #20
If a native american woman faces a double dose of oppression... lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #100
As usual, you don't know WTF you're talking about. liberalhistorian Jan 2012 #197
+1 nt riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #204
Women are welcome at the barbershop that I go to. Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #16
Thank you for taking the two things I put in the list of serious inequalities ... frazzled Jan 2012 #88
Why did you bring up the hair and the drycleaning issues Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #90
Because people are always accusing women who ... frazzled Jan 2012 #98
There is a very vocal group of women-hating posters liberalhistorian Jan 2012 #198
Yes. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society. justiceischeap Jan 2012 #7
I'm having a hard time reconciling a couple of concepts lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #14
well, by being treated as inferior persons in the workplace and in the home Tumbulu Jan 2012 #32
Stereotypes suck. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #74
Well, it is my judgement Tumbulu Jan 2012 #97
I'm inclined to accept that the expectation that I'm a fully functioning adult is a privilege. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #104
I am sorry, I do not understand your points (nt) Tumbulu Jan 2012 #150
ha ha ha. women get higher education because men are acting to protect them? DERP! bettyellen Jan 2012 #172
Define "dangerous jobs." Last time I checked, liberalhistorian Jan 2012 #199
How can the minority Tea Party hold so much power over politics the last two years? justiceischeap Jan 2012 #89
Here's a partial answer Remember Me Jan 2012 #164
Nice, I haven't heard the "Obama's primary voters are sexists" meme in a while. hughee99 Jan 2012 #46
If you think there weren't people who voted for him based on gender justiceischeap Jan 2012 #81
To say that there were no people who voted based on race or Sex hughee99 Jan 2012 #95
I still stand behind the assertion that the nation wasn't ready to elect justiceischeap Jan 2012 #101
I voted for my Governor, both my senators and Hillary. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #105
This forum couldn't be any bigger proof of sexism on the Left Remember Me Jan 2012 #165
Sure. 2b-A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society. pampango Jan 2012 #9
Which is the bigger problem... lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #29
Yes. Remember Me Jan 2012 #166
OMFG redqueen Jan 2012 #10
You're confused. The fact that I disagree doesn't mean I don't get it. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #24
Me? It's not me, Jeff. It's sociology. redqueen Jan 2012 #27
I've read the 1951 book on the subject lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #31
Congratulations on reading an out of date book. redqueen Jan 2012 #35
He does not want to acknowledge or examine his privilege. a simple pattern Jan 2012 #84
"And he wonders why women do better in school." redqueen Jan 2012 #85
No, I know exactly why you do better in school. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #92
Zounds -- this is awful Remember Me Jan 2012 #167
. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #183
Jesus fucking Christ, you are beyond unbelievable. liberalhistorian Jan 2012 #200
I've decided to just not engage anymore Marrah_G Jan 2012 #72
I hope you're right. redqueen Jan 2012 #79
No, I'm afraid he's for real, you should take a look liberalhistorian Jan 2012 #201
Yes, they are. racaulk Jan 2012 #13
so what if women were the majority in numbers... Whisp Jan 2012 #18
If DUers would stop contradicting the dictionary, Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #26
Could you send that stroke of genius to every sociologist in the world please? redqueen Jan 2012 #28
While I am flattered by your "genius" comment, Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #37
Maybe YOU need to look up the word in a dictionary obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #48
According to that definition, men are a minority too, Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #52
No I didn't obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #59
Dictionaries define words a bit differently than the real world in liberalhistorian Jan 2012 #202
then you tell me, what if women were the majority by numbers Whisp Jan 2012 #36
"what if women were the majority by numbers".... Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #38
oiy... Whisp Jan 2012 #56
Because the answer to the question posed has implications on policy. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #49
firstly it's male attitudes, then the policies are made to suit those attitudes. Whisp Jan 2012 #63
The purpose is simple. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #96
Yes, we're so "privileged" that we totally liberalhistorian Jan 2012 #203
Sociologically yes. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #23
2b: the f/m ratio of Senators, Representatives, Presidents, and Supreme Court Justices. eShirl Jan 2012 #30
Exactly! racaulk Jan 2012 #33
OK, *that* is a good point, and an issue that should be debated. (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #42
If women make up a majority of the voters, hughee99 Jan 2012 #51
It's not a battle of the sexes FFS. It's the patriarchy. redqueen Jan 2012 #53
The patriarchy is being upheld by men and women, hughee99 Jan 2012 #73
No they don't cry and whine redqueen Jan 2012 #83
That's on the listener, really? hughee99 Jan 2012 #86
Yep. redqueen Jan 2012 #87
Somewhat clearer. hughee99 Jan 2012 #103
I don't give women a pass. redqueen Jan 2012 #107
I completely agree that women do have a choice, hughee99 Jan 2012 #111
I didn't say that, you did. redqueen Jan 2012 #115
I imagine we often fail to see institutionalized disadvantages... LanternWaste Jan 2012 #39
Absolutely. And in no topic of discussion is this more blatant than this one. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #43
Why don't you also educate us about all the ways white people are disadvantaged? redqueen Jan 2012 #60
They're not. Does that closet have any more strawmen hiding in it? n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #69
LOL ok... redqueen Jan 2012 #70
Apparently there's room in that closet for the amazing Kreskin too. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #77
Well, for God's sake, man, SPIT IT OUT Remember Me Jan 2012 #168
Can I help you? lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #184
I have little doubt you believe you know what I mean. LanternWaste Jan 2012 #122
Point taken. I know the words you use, but have little assurance you know their definition. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #128
Oh, jeez Remember Me Jan 2012 #169
+1. The statistics on female versus male college admissions are alarming. Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #47
Please tell us also about all the ways white people are disadvantaged. redqueen Jan 2012 #61
More prone to sunburn (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #65
Whoa! That means racial minorities are no longer sociological minorities! redqueen Jan 2012 #66
I confess you're way ahead of me. Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #71
I imagine your sunburn explains your historical pay disparity. LanternWaste Jan 2012 #124
There was a southern senator in 1861 whop was against the expansion of slavery too. LanternWaste Jan 2012 #123
Yes obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #41
... or owns a dictionary (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #45
Except the dictionary, and wikipedia, back me up obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #54
This would imply that "men" is also a minority (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #57
a) I didn't. b) it's gibberish. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #75
some own dictionaries, some own dicktionaries Whisp Jan 2012 #94
Why did you leave out teh last definition of this word? obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #50
Because you pulled your defnition from someplace else. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #68
Of course you don't obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #106
if you're going to post the definition, how about actually reading it? CreekDog Jan 2012 #110
no subject JustAnotherGen Jan 2012 #62
OFFS Marrah_G Jan 2012 #67
I am reminded of christians who claim to be discriminated against. BlancheSplanchnik Jan 2012 #76
The subject reminds me of republicans wrapping themselves in the flag lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #80
Please respond to this, my attempt to understand your perspective: BlancheSplanchnik Jan 2012 #117
When I negotiate with someone, I pay attention to their response. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #121
Really? Remember Me Jan 2012 #170
No. Those are all accurate. Do your own googling. nt lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #180
let me get back to you later BlancheSplanchnik Jan 2012 #189
You're right, BlancheSplanchnik Jan 2012 #192
Thanks for the reply. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #195
Yet another thread to hide. Quantess Jan 2012 #102
yes see definition 2.b and 2.c CreekDog Jan 2012 #108
seriously Lex Jan 2012 #112
OP was going to make his point, even if posting the definition undermined it CreekDog Jan 2012 #116
"Excellent! I cried. "Elementary," said he. Zorra Jan 2012 #114
A better question using your definitions would be: Cleita Jan 2012 #109
quite so! BlancheSplanchnik Jan 2012 #118
I like the powerful and disempowered. It says what it is. Cleita Jan 2012 #130
yeah.....money talks. :( BlancheSplanchnik Jan 2012 #193
Here is an example of how equality is measured by those grinding this particular axe. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #136
it's late now..... BlancheSplanchnik Jan 2012 #194
This is a good example of the "I need to poke harder" syndrome. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #196
Everything before the comma would be a good question. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #120
A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society LanternWaste Jan 2012 #126
According to one of your definitions they are. Cleita Jan 2012 #129
2. a. Iggo Jan 2012 #131
Most emphatically YES musette_sf Jan 2012 #132
There were areas of the antebellum South LadyHawkAZ Jan 2012 #135
Okay, one at a time. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #137
There's been collaborators in every oppressive regime LadyHawkAZ Jan 2012 #151
No. She was screwing the hired help. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #154
Did I say she should? LadyHawkAZ Jan 2012 #157
Yes. By the very definitions you posted, women can be considered a minority. Matariki Jan 2012 #138
What is your opinion on this, Jeff? Nt DevonRex Jan 2012 #139
Heh. I prefer to remain inscruitable. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #141
The US Governemt classifies women Liquorice Jan 2012 #140
Perhaps I can give you some cut and paste pointers lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #142
Yes, but they are given minority status, so under the law they are treated as a minority. Liquorice Jan 2012 #143
This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #144
And under the law, ketchup was treated as a vegetable. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #146
you don't seem to respond to proof that your OP is wrong CreekDog Jan 2012 #177
No, he doesn't, because he doesn't liberalhistorian Jan 2012 #205
arguably an oppressed majority, but not a minority. south african black during aparthied were never arely staircase Jan 2012 #148
Good point. I'm baffled by some DUers' desire to use the word "minority". Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #149
well it is natural to associate the word with historically oppressed groups because they usually are arely staircase Jan 2012 #158
Because the OP is attempting to cast women as oppressors of men CreekDog Jan 2012 #191
Very good point LadyHawkAZ Jan 2012 #153
thanks, arely staircase Jan 2012 #156
In some ways, but then again, so are men... MellowDem Jan 2012 #159
If they could only HEAR us over their whining!!!! Remember Me Jan 2012 #173
Calling it whining is offensive and counterproductive... MellowDem Jan 2012 #179
Yes, we fall into 2 b. varelse Jan 2012 #162
Say, have you heard about the 99%? spooky3 Jan 2012 #175
Yes. joshcryer Jan 2012 #176
2b nt Capitalocracy Jan 2012 #178
Definition 1b is certainly accurate, as are 2a and 2b. Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #181
Calling women a "minority" is another way of marginalization REP Jan 2012 #190
Not a minority in numbers, but in the way we are treated. Beacool Jan 2012 #207
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Are women in the 2012 Uni...»Reply #159