The most easily de-railable topic on the internet.

[Not not Mattaru]

1. Women have a longer life expectancy (In the US, women live on average 5 years longer than men. It also holds true universally across the globe.)
2. The life of a male is much more hazardous (higher probabilities for fatalities and accidents); people who die from work related accidents are disproportionately male, think miners, loggers, and fishermen. If you're a black male in the US, it's more likely for you to be in prison than in college. And if you're a black male on another continent, well, you're even worse off.
3. Men are so blatantly fucked over in divorce/child custody court that it demands no further explanation or elaboration
4. People are much more lenient towards women when they take off from work for family/child related matters, I have yet seen the same standard applicable to men
5. etc..

The best explanation as to why women are paid less because many take years off from work to have children and raise a family. As a result, they are not as experienced or career oriented as men are at the same age and with a similar background.

1. Maybe some of the longer life expectancy is due to biology, but I think the point you are making is tied into no.2 ...

2. The hazards you discuss are tied, mainly, to labor. Labor practices tend to have gendered lines based on what a society/culture determines the place for a woman or man to be. I have a delightful photo of a woman miner from a mining museum in Cadiz, Ohio talking about how men can fuck off and she can mine, and had been mining as much as she wants. From the 1930s. The jobs that require physical labor have always been done by men partially because of physiology and partially because of the expectation of where women should and should not be. The problem with erring to biology is that we do not live in caves anymore, fight with swords and clubs and work the fields with ox and plowshare (ok, some people still do this, but the women also work in the fields depending on age etc.). Just go to an underdeveloped asian country and see all the men doing construction and all the women working in sweatshops or selling their bodies. Yeah, you may not be falling from a concrete structure, but you still face lots of work hazards, physical strain, health issues.

3. A big reason men are blatantly fucked over (debatable) is traditional ideas of roles of gender. Its a two way street, but its still nitpickey.

4. See above. Preconceptions of gender go both way, no one is denying that, but that is in no way uniquely showing that male privilege is a myth or does not exist, because it does. It exists because traditional views on gender, which at the end of the day are not fair to all involved. Any complaint you are making stems from that. Men get the bigger end of the stick in general because of the split between the private and public sphere roles. In our society we tend to determine success and power as a function of what happens in the public sphere and the traditional actor in the public sphere is a man. End of story.

That is ridiculous. Maybe early on in a woman's career that has some validity, but if she hasn't popped out a kid in 15 years and has not been a stay at home mom in over 10, is capable, educated etc. there is no reason why she should be being paid less than a man. If you want to say she is lacking another three years experience go ahead, but that is in no way unique to a female/male problem. Someone with less years of experience can be making more, in a higher position than someone else despite gender. Causation, correlation etc.

EDIT: As for sticking dicks in things etc. What are you? An uncontrollable beast in the wild raping the naked females of a rival tribe? We can control where we stick our dicks and believe it or not women have a sex drive. There is sex for procreation and sex for recreation both genders do it. Sure one pops the baby out, but I think many humans have kids and want to see their children succeed so the process of rearing a child falls on both parents - in and out of the womb. As both sides have a role in rearing the biology argument is shaky at best.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

I am curious, what is your proof for saying women are "programmed" to be caregivers? Saying it's just the way it is isn't a solid statement.

Before there was baby formula and super market, the best and most reliable source of food for a baby was the mother. Say what you will about today's culture and education and whatever else you want to say about how things are today, but if I was left alone with a baby, even if it were my own flesh and blood, I would physically be less capable of caring for the child than a woman. I could not feed it, not by myself. A woman, however, can.

Or are you looking for something else? Look, you don't want kids, that is fine, neither do I, but I'm looking for an argument here other than "nuh uh" to the statement that women are biologically predisposed to have and care for children.

[Weiing]

It may be better worded that women are more "well equipped" to care for an infant if you are going with that breast milk argument. However, being predisposed to want a child and a family because of it is just an assumption.

[Mojo]

I am curious, what is your proof for saying women are "programmed" to be caregivers? Saying it's just the way it is isn't a solid statement.

There's literally an ocean of sociology/gender/evolutionary/etc. studies that have been done about it. I know it's sort of a cop out to not provide any here, but I'm going to because I don't think that there is any one source of evidence you can cite that can concisely explain why it is.

[Mojo]

It may be better worded that women are more "well equipped" to care for an infant if you are going with that breast milk argument. However, being predisposed to want a child and a family because of it is just an assumption.

As is the notion that men and women are equally predisposed to wanting a child and a family is an assumption.

[OWS_Tonx]

Estrogen? That's why they tend to care more. Kinda obvious I think.
edit - doesn't hold true for every female, but for the majority it does.

[Not not Mattaru]

There's literally an ocean of sociology/gender/evolutionary/etc. studies that have been done about it. I know it's sort of a cop out to not provide any here, but I'm going to because I don't think that there is any one source of evidence you can cite that can concisely explain why it is.

I'm not doubting, but give an abstract. That is what they are for.

[Kashka]

Hurray gender essentialism debate. FYI, it never goes anywhere; bring up evo psych and someone points out that it's a contentious discipline, and try to use anything else and it gets countered with 'culture starts from day 1, did you know girls are discouraged from moving in their crib while boys are encouraged to be energetic and move a lot?' or something similar. Science's past role in justifying oppression often gets a mention as well.

I'm talking about you guys saying "Oh but...look at the things men have to put up with. Paying child support! Women are more favored in *certain* fields/jobs! But look at this...and that...etc" Like I've said, there are certain gender inequalities for men. However, the list for women is longer. Why can't you guys at least acknowledge the fact that you guys have certain unspoken, deeply entrenched privileges that women don't have? Man up and own up. I can at least man up and own up to the fact that there are some female privileges (that only recently emerged) that put men at a disadvantage.

This is something that bothers me... the list is the catalyst for the thread. Its duty is to be discussed about, and picked apart, and analyzed and consumed. Just saying that men have privileges and leaving things at that is pretty pointless. I'd imagine that most if not all of the guys in this thread would probably admit to having some privileges. That doesn't automatically mean that the list is entirely right, or that there isn't merit in pointing out the flaws or double standards.

This same thing happens with the situation reversed and "female privilege" lists that I've seen posted (although to be fair those are usually more troll-y).

[wagon]

1. Maybe some of the longer life expectancy is due to biology, but I think the point you are making is tied into no.2 ...

2. The hazards you discuss are tied, mainly, to labor. Labor practices tend to have gendered lines based on what a society/culture determines the place for a woman or man to be. I have a delightful photo of a woman miner from a mining museum in Cadiz, Ohio talking about how men can fuck off and she can mine, and had been mining as much as she wants. From the 1930s. The jobs that require physical labor have always been done by men partially because of physiology and partially because of the expectation of where women should and should not be. The problem with erring to biology is that we do not live in caves anymore, fight with swords and clubs and work the fields with ox and plowshare (ok, some people still do this, but the women also work in the fields depending on age etc.). Just go to an underdeveloped asian country and see all the men doing construction and all the women working in sweatshops or selling their bodies. Yeah, you may not be falling from a concrete structure, but you still face lots of work hazards, physical strain, health issues.

3. A big reason men are blatantly fucked over (debatable) is traditional ideas of roles of gender. Its a two way street, but its still nitpickey.

4. See above. Preconceptions of gender go both way, no one is denying that, but that is in no way uniquely showing that male privilege is a myth or does not exist, because it does. It exists because traditional views on gender, which at the end of the day are not fair to all involved. Any complaint you are making stems from that. Men get the bigger end of the stick in general because of the split between the private and public sphere roles. In our society we tend to determine success and power as a function of what happens in the public sphere and the traditional actor in the public sphere is a man. End of story.

That is ridiculous. Maybe early on in a woman's career that has some validity, but if she hasn't popped out a kid in 15 years and has not been a stay at home mom in over 10, is capable, educated etc. there is no reason why she should be being paid less than a man. If you want to say she is lacking another three years experience go ahead, but that is in no way unique to a female/male problem. Someone with less years of experience can be making more, in a higher position than someone else despite gender. Causation, correlation etc.

EDIT: As for sticking dicks in things etc. What are you? An uncontrollable beast in the wild raping the naked females of a rival tribe? We can control where we stick our dicks and believe it or not women have a sex drive. There is sex for procreation and sex for recreation both genders do it. Sure one pops the baby out, but I think many humans have kids and want to see their children succeed so the process of rearing a child falls on both parents - in and out of the womb. As both sides have a role in rearing the biology argument is shaky at best.

Men are more biologically inclined for physical, hard labor, as a result, we usually take on more risky professions and work longer hours, often times leading to higher pay. In contrast, women are biologically built for child rearing, which requires time away from professional work and consequentially results in reduction in pay. Everyone's sympathizing for women who stay home and take care of children, what about the men who slave away long hours at work to support the family? If pay's all you care about, blame mother nature. I hate to reiterate, pay isn't everything, there are fair shares of disadvantages of being a male, so stop being a fattaru.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

It may be better worded that women are more "well equipped" to care for an infant if you are going with that breast milk argument. However, being predisposed to want a child and a family because of it is just an assumption.

Look, you are talking about today's culture and society, but you have to understand we are, at our core, animals. We may be highly evolved animals, that have established the greatest society on this planet, certainly greater than any other animals on the face of the earth, but we are undeniably animals, and animals have instincts.

Also, what I said was in direct response to the question of what made women programmed to be care givers, and I answered with the only real answer there is: their own bodies.

[wagon]

It may be better worded that women are more "well equipped" to care for an infant if you are going with that breast milk argument. However, being predisposed to want a child and a family because of it is just an assumption.

Nope, that's a fact like gravity. Me thinks that you're typing this at the kitchen while making a sammich is an assumption.

[Caiti]

Look, you are talking about today's culture and society, but you have to understand we are, at our core, animals. We may be highly evolved animals, that have established the greatest society on this planet, certainly greater than any other animals on the face of the earth, but we are undeniably animals, and animals have instincts.

Also, what I said was in direct response to the question of what made women programmed to be care givers, and I answered with the only real answer there is: their own bodies.

Ok, so why haven't any of you started to kill yourselves over the right to mate with Wei and I?

If you're going to throw society out the window and use biological imperatives as the sole basis for your horribly sexist, and factually incorrect, arguments you might want to warm up to the fact that the without society, you'd probably have been killed and had your head shoved on a stick in an effort to make want to mate with some Jersey Shore-looking asshole.

Until you're willing to be brutally killed as a display of manliness, or kill to defend your right to not end up as a vaginal lubrication device, you don't get to quote the "biologically predisposed to caring for children" shit in a world that wouldn't exist if we gave even a passing nod to our primal instincts.

Next you'll be telling me that killing someone shouldn't land you in jail as long as they were on some land you wanted, or had some food you wanted, or looked at you wrong, or whatever. Evolutionary imperatives! Woo! I love arguments that are about as well thought out as the plot for an episode of Dora the Explorer.

[Weiing]

@Kashka - I'll agree and say you're right. We should be discussing the list and what not. But most of the people here seemed quick to point out the double standards, flaws, and assumptions while not acknowledging that there may be some truth to each statement.

Yes, we may be animals at our core. However, that doesn't justify most, if not all, of the inequalities imposed on women by men.

[Zoolander]

Estrogen? That's why they tend to care more. Kinda obvious I think.
edit - doesn't hold true for every female, but for the majority it does.

How has no one brought up hormones until this post? lol

There is obviously a biological predisposition for women to be the primary caregiver of their children, refuting that is delusional. Now does that mean a woman should be expected to care for the kid and give up on a career/job/whatever? No of course not, but it also isn't a zero sum game where one parent HAS to give up everything and one parent continues their career.

The breakthrough has been made, this isn't the pre 1960. Women know they have a choice and men know it too. Whether or not people choose to be open and approach their relationship as one of cooperation and equality is another matter entirely. The numbers will ALWAYS be skewed towards women staying at home to raise a kid for the obvious reasons above.

[Weiing]

Thinking about this--it's kind of funny. Talking about male privilege and gender inequalities, it's boiled down to what everyone that supports male superiority says: "Women are the caregivers. They are biologically inclined to make babies and care for them. Thus, they are inferior, should stay at home, are so delicate and soft, etc etc."

It's the one argument that people seem to fall back on.

edit: Damn, it must really be god's fault, amirite? I mean...Eve's fault.

[Not not Mattaru]

Men are more biologically inclined for physical, hard labor, as a result, we usually take on more risky professions and work longer hours, often times leading to higher pay. In contrast, women are biologically built for child rearing, which requires time away from professional work and consequentially results in reduction in pay. Everyone's sympathizing for women who stay home and take care of children, what about the men who slave away long hours at work to support the family? If pay's all you care about, blame mother nature. I hate to reiterate, pay isn't everything, there are fair shares of disadvantages of being a male, so stop being a fattaru.

I think that is an assumption. Plenty of women in low-paying, unskilled labor work extremely long hours to support their extended families before they are even adults in parts of the underdeveloped world. The ability to do work is not gender specific, I'm sorry, it just no longer is the case and hardly ever was the case. Pre-industrial revolution women were also working farms, sure they had domestic duties as well, but they did both, industrial revolution, women and children worked in dangerous places with few rights, post industrial revolution because of more accessible capital for more people a greater number women stayed at home while men worked because the mores prescribed that as the roles for public and private spheres (the capital being in the hands of predominantly males assured this) and as women now have more choice and accessibility concerning their bodies and their lives that binary is breaking down as well.

Women being more equipped for popping out babies and suckling them does not mean that a) they do that or b) they do it for the majority of their working years. Your concept of what women 'do' and what men 'do' is from a fantasy land you must have watched on TV.

You are right, pay is not everything. I lived with a very traditional family abroad where the father worked a normal job and the mother raised the kids at home and worked part time to supplement the family income. There were obvious advantages and disadvantages for both of them, but if her husband ever left her or visa versa she would be in a lot worse shape than the man because of that societies view of women in the workplace. The assumption being you get paid little because you are supposed to be married or living with your parents and getting married soon. The choice simply is not there the same way it is for men because of a legacy of where power in the public sphere lies.

[Mojo]

I'm not doubting, but give an abstract. That is what they are for.

I'll go out on a limb for you then. Life before modern society required that one parent be the caregiver and that the other be the provider. Women, having the means to provide physical nourishment to a child, were better equipped for the caregiver role (not to mention how unlikely it would be for a woman to provide at the same level of a male counterpart during and after pregnancy...) Women who were more inclined to fill this role reproduced and thus women have evolved to have that natural inclination more than men. Men, having to fill the provider role, evolved to have larger muscle mass and other traits that aided in their success (as their offspring were more likely to survive.)

[OWS_Tonx]

How has no one brought up hormones until this post? lol

I can make a hormone ifyouknowwhatimean

[Komm Suesser Tod]

Ok, so why haven't any of you started to kill yourselves over the right to mate with Wei and I?

If you're going to throw society out the window and use biological imperatives as the sole basis for your horribly sexist, and factually incorrect, arguments you might want to warm up to the fact that the without society, you'd probably have been killed and had your head shoved on a stick in an effort to make want to mate with some Jersey Shore-looking asshole.

Until you're willing to be brutally killed as a display of manliness, or kill to defend your right to not end up as a vaginal lubrication device, you don't get to quote the "biologically predisposed to caring for children" shit in a world that wouldn't exist if we gave even a passing nod to our primal instincts.

Next you'll be telling me that killing someone shouldn't land you in jail as long as they were on some land you wanted, or had some food you wanted, or looked at you wrong, or whatever. Evolutionary imperatives! Woo! I love arguments that are about as well thought out as the plot for an episode of Dora the Explorer.

Fine, you are not predisposed to having children, starting a family, or being a caregiver.

Happy now?

[Not not Mattaru]

I'll go out on a limb for you then. Life before modern society required that one parent be the caregiver and that the other be the provider. Women, having the means to provide physical nourishment to a child, were better equipped for the caregiver role (not to mention how unlikely it would be for a woman to provide at the same level of a male counterpart during and after pregnancy...) Women who were more inclined to fill this role reproduced and thus women have evolved to have that natural inclination more than men.

What about after the babe lets go of the tit? Are men more predisposed to look after babe when he/she no longer sucks it out of the mother?