Nooooo, that’s not what I’m saying at all.
That’s just an example of One form of privelage, a stable home life as a child.
It’s not meant to negate every other possible circumstance.
2 Likes
In fact, that’s kinda the whole point of this thread.
A bunch of us saying that it can’t be like that because it never happens to us, so it’s unbelievable.
Then when there’s an issue, excusing it 1000 times in a row
2 Likes
Well, it also follows that men would be less violent if MEN didn’t sleep around so much.
With the current situation (let’s call it “somewhat socially encouraged monogamy”) it’s obviously not perfect, but it could be a lot worse.
Surely we’ve all seen men fighting over women, and women fighting over men? Well, there’s a social norm we tend to follow that acknowledges when someone is in a monogamous relationship and so you back off rather than pursue them. And if someone tries to break up a monogamous relationship then society sees them as the bad guy/girl - especially when they are married or there are kids involved.
And there’s definitely a kind of hierarchy when it comes to finding partners or hooking up. There was always the “hot chick” or “hot guy” at school who could have their pick of partners, usually they were good looking AND wealthy. Obviously if 1 guy has 10 women fighting for him then there will be issues between the women and with other men, and so “somewhat socially encouraged monogamy” is a strategy to help society cope with this.
Human nature (jealousy/urges) can be pretty ugly, and while “somewhat socially encouraged monogamy” and other social mechanisms (police?) separates us from cavemen/animals, there’s still plenty of blokes that haven’t evolved one bit.
And when it comes to “incels” (which would be worse without “somewhat socially encouraged monogamy”), Petersen’s views are generally that young men should look within and improve themselves and not blame the world/others for their problems. Sounds like sound advice (right?) if you are talking about a white male, but when the young man happens to be part of a minority group then it sounds cold-hearted and insensitive to the issues they face.
Again, this is what happens when academic theories are expected to be applied across the full spectrum of people, it’s just not that simple, but that’s what’s great about testing theories and open debate.
1 Like
Exactly my point.
1 Like
I appreciate the thought you’ve put into this
It’s always sound advice, regardless of how it sounds.
But you don’t really though, do you?
Do you?
I really do.
I used to write like that.
I blame video games and today’s culture of instant gratific…excuse me for five minutes.
Oh for those sweet sweet days when I thought I actually knew anything.
3 Likes
…ation.
2 Likes
Yeah, I figured. No sarcastica font required.
Nobody has said it is exclusively one thing or another, or that it applies absolutely to everyone in a group. What is being said is it is a way of talking about the systemic sum of the biases that a group will generally have. And white males are clearly net beneficiaries of the biases currently built into the system.
Good thing nobody has ever said that. Oh, except those arguing against the idea of privilege. But its a nice strawman.
The point is that if you had been born to indigenous group, or been born female, that even with the same parents you’re likely outcomes become a bit worse. Not because of anything your parents do/did, just because of a switch of gender, or geography, or race, or sexuality, or disability.
The odds are as a white male you’re doing better in your life, and have had less hurdles, than if you’d been born differently. That doesn’t mean you have it easy, it doesn’t mean things are good now, it just means you likely faced a little less pressure.
But when averaging across the entire group, that pressure results in marked differences at the group level.
I’ll do it with Packer and Murdoch’s kids…
Which neatly ignores that the Australian Government had years where it systematically and deliberately moved kids of indigenous heritage from their parents. And those people are now parents. Don’t think that has any flow on impacts?
2 Likes
Yes, but that’s old-school privelage.
Trust fund kid, parachuted into high powered positions.
Not that there’s anything inherently (ha!) wrong with that, but they’re not the people you’d listen to about anything at all.
Oh, tell a lie.
If I ever want to make a corporate takeover…
I don’t believe you.
1 Like
How many ways do you ■■■■■ want to spell privilege?
1 Like
Seven.
Someone told me today that “several Australian universities had banned sarcasm” as they consider it a form of violence.
Please tell me this is some kind of joke or misinterpretation?
I mean, I get it that bullying isn’t cool and that sarcasm can be used to bully and insult people, maybe it’s related to that, but that headline, surely it’s a beat-up.
1 Like
Most of the ludicrous political correctness is found in universities. Some of it is downright insane.
2 Likes
I, for one, welcome our new Noonan overlord.
Man, I wish I was better at quoting other’s posts.
Instead, I’ll simply state that the flow on impact you mentioned is something (maybe the only thing) that I agree with in your post. Past laws and cultures that were genuinely racist still have a residual effect today. It’s something that should be acknowledged when assessing the plight of aboriginals.
1 Like