In post 49, Psyche wrote:there are advantages and disadvantages to being poor rather than rich but that doesn't bear much on the fact that it's a privilege to be rich
In post 51, Psyche wrote:we were talking about the advantages and disadvantages afforded to people based on their gender
Because apparently third-world countries don't matterIn post 52, Garmr wrote:first world countries
In post 52, Garmr wrote:Why don't you prove how men are privileged since you are the one advocating that they are the burden of proof is on you.
In post 52, Garmr wrote:Well since you agree men and women have all the same rights in first world countries (which makes the advocacy of rights redundant when they are all the same.) Why don't you prove how men are privileged since you are the one advocating that they are the burden of proof is on you.
In post 53, Davsto wrote:Because apparently third-world countries don't matterIn post 52, Garmr wrote:first world countries
And, true, women have the same rights. That's undeniable. That doesn't mean they're equal. How often have you seen people treat women as inferior? Usually little things, sometimes bigger. Certain double standards.
The fact that men have some of these problems doesn't mean that women's problems should be ignored - it means problems for both sides should be combated equally.
Now, having a problem with people who focus purely on women's problems is justified, but you seem to have a problem with anyone focusing on women's problems. Like, at all.
In post 54, Chevre wrote:You know that moment when you see two scummers that are often at odds agreeing, and how that pushes the opposition even further into the hole they've dug themselves?
The fact that Shea and Kublai Khan seem to be within degrees of alignment here should tell you that you need to zip this up, boo.
In post 51, Psyche wrote:we were talking about the advantages and disadvantages afforded to people based on their gender
In post 58, Garmr wrote:Nazi and the Taliban both hate Jews and agree on it. Does that make then right. Beside it was the liberal scummers crying misogyny that started it in the first place I wasn't going to say anything.
In post 63, Davsto wrote:Aaalso I never got people using "liberal" as a sort of slur
"oh no you called me what i literally am and literally identify as politically ouuuuuch"
In post 61, Davsto wrote:apparently shea and kublai khan are comparable to the Nazis and the Taliban.
In post 66, Majiffy wrote:But really though when are they going to reboot 3 Ninjas
In post 67, Kublai Khan wrote:In post 61, Davsto wrote:apparently shea and kublai khan are comparable to the Nazis and the Taliban.
Eh. I don't think he was calling me or Shea either Nazis or Taliban. He was just making a very poor argument that pointed out a logical fallacy.
Garmr - I think the problem is that you're mistaking rights and privileges. Women have the same rights as men do in first world countries, yes. However privilege is about opportunities. Women generally lack the same opportunities that men have because men generally feel as if women lack some x-factor that men have when it comes to doing certain jobs.
Just today I heard a story about how ESPN the Magazine hired the first female editor-in-chief of any major sports publication. Women are still fighting to break barriers to pull even with men.
In post 70, Garmr wrote:The education system was reformed to allow women to study better at the expense of men (girls and boys have different studying behaviours) this was done a while ago like 20-30 years. They have all the same educational opportunities as well.
If you want to argue about people being unemployed it's about 50/50 no matter the gender according to the Australian unemployment statistic released by the government.
Carer choices tend to have mean saturated evenly between low paying jobs and high paying jobs on the pay spectrum while women are concentrated in the middle and have some lean into the high paying side which studies have shown.
In post 72, Kublai Khan wrote:In post 70, Garmr wrote:The education system was reformed to allow women to study better at the expense of men (girls and boys have different studying behaviours) this was done a while ago like 20-30 years. They have all the same educational opportunities as well.
If you want to argue about people being unemployed it's about 50/50 no matter the gender according to the Australian unemployment statistic released by the government.
Carer choices tend to have mean saturated evenly between low paying jobs and high paying jobs on the pay spectrum while women are concentrated in the middle and have some lean into the high paying side which studies have shown.
You seem pretty sure of yourself and ready to argue it so I doubt I'll change your mind in any way. Also we're looking at the issue from different continents, so that's a factor.
I don't doubt that all your statistics are accurate, but for all the egalitarian changes to education, women only make up about a fifth of your government. There still a weird under-representation happening. Why the gap if equality has been reached?
My feelings on the privilege problem is that the problem is more societal. People still have pretty strong cultural gender identities which are hard to overcome. The number of girls I've heard repeat the excuse of "girls aren't at good at math and science" is just simply staggering. Worse is when I hear it from grown-ups and parents. It kills ambition and a disturbing number of women just don't end up trying to reach their full potential. Even if they do try harder, they might aim away from traditionally male fields (like STEM).
Boys on the other hand are told that they can do anything and are frowned at if they "settle" for a job that is traditionally done by women.
Stuff like the backlash to an all-female Ghostbusters cast sorta fits into that theory because if gender doesn't make a difference, then why does it matter that they are women?
In post 73, Garmr wrote:We also had a female prime minster in Julia Gillard and she was horrible
