HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Women and Men are the vic... » Reply #4

Response to davidn3600 (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:10 AM

4. see, now that is fine

if you call it a "stereotype".

But if it is called a "privilege" for males. Then all males must have those privileges. and privilege is defined as 1. right, advantage, or immunity, 2. special benefit or honor.

A special benefit should not be harmful. An advantage should not be harmful. Otherwise why is it called a "benefit" or "advantage"?

Now, if it is harmful to SOME males, then it should not be called "male" privilege if the privilege is not attached to the quality of maleness at least for the vast majority. A benefit to 95% of males that harms 5% of males could still be called a male privilege, but if it gets down to only benefitting 70% and harming 30% then you have a significant portion of males who do NOT benefit from this thing called "male privilege" making it very much of a misnomer that should be called something else. Especially if that something else not only does NOT benefit many males but actually directly HARMS them.

Now, I can think of an example of executive privilege which might be useless to some. Where I work, the office "bigshots" have a weekly staff meeting. At that staff meeting, they are provided with free coffee, which I have the privilege of making for them most weeks. As such, the office bigshots get that benefit of some free coffee every week. A tiny benefit, to be sure. At fifty cents a cup it is worth about $25 a year, but at wholesale, it is costing my employer perhaps $60 for the coffee, $10 for the cups and $5 for the sugar/creamer packets. And perhaps 13 hours a year of labor costs which is another $195. Sort of, because I am not paid extra for making coffee, so my labor is kinda free. Anyway, my long point is that if I was an office bigshot, I would consider that benefit to be absolutely useless since I would not drink coffee. But it would still be a fact that this benefit was provided to me every week.

I suppose if free cigarettes were provided that smokers would perceive that to be a benefit, Even though such a benefit would harm their health and also harm the health of those forced to breathe the 2nd hand smoke at the meeting.

As a non-smoker, I would still object to calling that a "privilege". Why shouldn't the perspective of non-smokers who don't enjoy the "benefit" be just as valid as that of the smokers who enjoy the "benefit"? Especially if the non-smokers are a large majority?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
littlemissmartypants Jan 2013 OP
LineNew Reply .
littlemissmartypants Jan 2013 #1
hfojvt Jan 2013 #2
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #3
LineLineLineNew Reply see, now that is fine
hfojvt Jan 2013 #4
littlemissmartypants Jan 2013 #5
bemildred Jan 2013 #6
ananda Jan 2013 #7
Zorra Jan 2013 #8
littlemissmartypants Jan 2013 #9
littlemissmartypants Jan 2013 #10
Please login to view edit histories.