Male Privilege Checklist (S/O)

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Is it racist for a company not to engage in affirmative action?

Yes, if a company has the ability to engage in some sort of action to recognize and prevent discrimination within their own workplace, then I would say that it is the equivalent of the sin of omission.

Wow. Where are they supposed to draw the lines? They way you define it, any failure to redress a preexisting injustice is discrimination. You'd go insane trying to factor in all of the different injustices in each individuals life before you encountered them.

Anonymous wrote:Let me get at this in another way that you might understand. MLK Jr in his famous letter from a Birmingham jail, writes eloquently about how the greatest obstacle in the struggle for civil rights was not the KKK, but rather white ministers who failed to take a stand on the issue of race. By allowing the status quo to remain, by not condemning Christian leaders who upheld racist policies, white Christian leaders who failed to speak out were perceived by their congregations as tolerating racism.

OK. But it's a leap from tolerating racism to racism, and it's a much bigger leap from not sacrificing oneself to remedy injustice to perpetrating it. By your reasoning, anyone who didn't march could be called racist.

This kind of expansion of the definition of isms is counterproductive, because it blurs the lines and alienates people. People who do not sacrifice themselves to remedy the effects of unfair discrimination are not the same as the perpetrators of it; it's unfair and insulting to equate them.

Anonymous wrote:To not even properly investigate whether or not racism or sexism exists as a problem within the company is unjust.

I'm an academic, and when MIT was confronted with statistical evidence of institutional sexism, MIT had to act.

Completely different issue (and a legal necessity, BTW). We're talking about preexisting injustice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=AnonymousYes, you did say it was a family's problem. And lack of maternity leave is sexist, since it penalizes the woman only.

"In any case, a lack of support for families isn't sexism. It's still a choice whether to have kids. If you don't want the career impact of having kids, don't have them or arrange beforehand for your mate to lead in childcare."

Even where there is maternity leave, paternity leave is mostly absent. Men are expected to be back to workthe next day or take their own vacation time.

Oh and let me explain something to you in terms you might understand. If you are discriminated against something that you do not have a choice in then it's "ist"

Discrinination over your gender - sexist
Discrimination over your race - racist
Discrimination over being a woman -misogynist
Discrimination over being a man - misandrist

If it's something you choose to do - have children, color your hair purple and pierce your face 30 times, become a SAHP; you cannot require that the world adopts itself to YOUR choice.

You misunderstood where I was coming from (I'm back, those other posters weren't me). I was making two arguments: one that it is not a family problem, it should be a society or policy problem or rather a solution. Nothing about sexism there.

Two, if a supervisor percieves a man as a harder worker because he became a dad, and perceives a woman as less reliable because she is a mom and for no other reason, that is what I was calling sexist.

You are right in that in that I wouldn't necessarily call crappy policies sexist. I actully think they harm men and women. But the documentation and studies done on this perception issue is something I consider sexist.

[Anonymous]

ManWithAUserName, MIT's sexism was a pre-existing form of discrimination. That's why they were called on it.

As for standing by when discrimination occurs, yes it is a sin. You can decide for yourself whether or not it is excusable (different from understandable), but is is clearly not in the same category of moral goodness that taking action is, and not in the same category of people who are ignorant of such problems (morally neutral).

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:ManWithAUserName, MIT's sexism was a pre-existing form of discrimination. That's why they were called on it.

What? No - I meant "preexisting" as in "unrelated to the employer."

You've said that a company is sexist if it does not institute policies to ameliorate the innate, natural injustice of the inequitable impact of having children on women. I raised affirmative action as a case in which employers sometimes take action to ameliorate other injustices that they did not create. I asked if you would call it racist for an employer not to institute AA.

Anonymous wrote:As for standing by when discrimination occurs, yes it is a sin. You can decide for yourself whether or not it is excusable (different from understandable), but is is clearly not in the same category of moral goodness that taking action is, and not in the same category of people who are ignorant of such problems (morally neutral).

You didn't say that an employer's failure to help women with children was a "sin," possibly an excusable one - you said that it was sexist.

Are we all sexists, racists, etc. in every instance in which we fail to act against discrimination? That's why I say that overuse of those terms is counterproductive - if everyone is a sexist or a racist, then no one is.

[Anonymous]

As for standing by when discrimination occurs, yes it is a sin.

There's a world of difference between this and, for example, failing to offer paid maternity leave. Or do you suggest faulure to provide paid maternity leave is sexist? And if a company offers paid maternity leave and not paid paternity leave, is that sexist too?

[Anonymous]

I can have kids until I die while women only have limited time-span to have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can have kids until I die while women only have limited time-span to have kids.

Anthony Quinn and Orson Bean.

[Anonymous]

Men can pee standing while usually have to sit down. Seriously icky for women in public restroom

[Anonymous]

However, note that although these rules are true in the majority of jobs, they are not true in all jobs. In fact there is a definitely sexism the other way (against men) in certain traditionally female roles. These rules hold true for women in teaching, nursing, childcare, housekeeping and SAH parenting. Believe me, the sexism against men in those occupations are all decades behind the sexism against women in the white collar world.

[Anonymous]

Men have a huge advantage in Elder Sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men have a huge advantage in Elder Sex.

Indeed, they need not be the only elder involved. I believe a lot of middle-aged DCUMs' marriages include elder sex because they married older men.

[Anonymous]

# whatever: I don't have to go to DCUM to waste time at work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can have kids until I die while women only have limited time-span to have kids.

But your offspring have a higher rate of being born with disabilities if you are older than 35, just like the ladies!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men have a huge advantage in Elder Sex.

Indeed, they need not be the only elder involved. I believe a lot of middle-aged DCUMs' marriages include elder sex because they married older men.

Eeeew!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men have a huge advantage in Elder Sex.

But most elder men hace erectile dysfunction.