I am a 6ft tall, 180 lb, reasonably fit male. I also have what I think of as a pretty attuned danger detector about neighborhoods, which has less to do with poverty and more to do with gang markings, and general upkeep of the neighborhood and property. For example, parts of Hyde Park in Chicago are poor, but feels quite safe.
On the other hand, there are parts of Baltimore (and Chicago) that I would be uncomfortable walking alone during the day, much less at 3AM. Anyone who feels otherwise either knows the neighborhood well enough to know it is safe despite the warning signs, or is simply oblivious to the warning signs.
“the sole fact that someone is a man means that he was given benefits that entitle him to things that women aren’t allowed to have”
Yes. Like less worry about being attacked on the street. Like positive assumptions about his value at a coal mine. Like the assumption that if he’s in a medical setting, he’s probably the doctor. Like a five times better chance of making partner at my former law firm relative to the female lawyers.
“I doubt many people would choose to be a white guy who is an unemployed former coal miner in West Virginia instead of Meghan Markle.”
So what? That doesn’t mean that gender and race are irrelevant. Kate Middleton has advantages relative to Meghan Markle, too, if you prefer that example. Like Kate Middleton can appear in public with her natural hair texture, and Meghan can’t. And Kate doesn’t have to worry about members of the royal family wearing racist jewelry that demeans her humanity. Meghan had to swallow that garbage solely because she is biracial.
A person can have an overall good life – even be very lucky and blessed – and still pay some cost for being part of disfavored groups.
I’m not sure what you mean by “pay me for the privilege”. I’m not being bossy though.
I’ll rephrase to highlight what I meant (a “you” plural neutral, not you directed to a person.)
==> I’ve found that rules for women aren’t the same as for men and that one needs to respect that.
Central London and Central Paris have different issues from US cities (acid and knife attacks for London, for instance, which aren’t significant problems in the US as far as I know). Also, European city centers tend to be the oldmoney, old power areas - back to the times where that’s where the Lord was in his castle, with the cathedral nearby, then the courtiers, then the burghers; the little people lived in the close periphery although within the “walls”, if servants they literally lived above the nobility and wealthy commoners - the top floors were for the poor, lots of stairs, no running water so heavy buckets to carry up there, nothing like the way we think of penthouse apartments. Just 2 days ago I was looking at LSE’s overlays of Charles Booth’s London map with today’s. Both cities have been razed and re-imagined (by Haussman, by fire, by Millenium projects)
Baltimore is often discussed on these boards because of JHU and many people consider the area around JHU unsafe in ways that New Haven isn’t. (For the record, I disagree with these statements and was ridiculed for it.) Mostly I think it’s related to The Wire. For a while another city was used due to a film where a woman walked alone at night and there’d been a huge outcry at how completely unrealistic it was.
Some cities have a bad rep, I guess, or stand for something else (ie., Manhattan stands for Wall Street, skyscrapers, 5th avenue, crowds, Times Square, lights 24/7, capitalist greed, expensive real estate… not “danger walking down the street”. Now, if you’d said “Central Park at night”, it’d have been another story).
Again, it’s about going where you feel like going - not about putting yourself in danger expecting to escape unscathed. There’s a difference between being clueless and being reasonable, and between being reasonably fearful and reasonably fearless.
“This is a myth. Men are victims of violent crimes at about the same rate as women. To the extent young men think they are invincible, it’s evidence of self-delusion not privilege.”
What? Men are raped/victims of sexual violence at the same rate as women? That’s a new stat I haven’t seen…
I know the thread has veered away from the question of why boys go to college far less than girls these days, but I have a theory I want to throw out. I think part of the problem is the changing face of education in the lower grades.
Kids today are expected to master subjects in kindergarten that, in the past, were not even started until 1st grade. In place of free play and recess, they spend extra hours drilling phonics and math facts. Even softer subjects that appeal to curious and creative minds like social studies and science have been moved out of the lower grades to make more room for phonics and repetitive math. Kids have less gym and are required to sit still at their desks longer. I think these changes are terrible for everyone, but probably disadvantage boys far more than girls. In general, very young girls simply adapt to this regimen better than most boys. Boys eventually catch up, but by that time, they have endured years of tedium as well as constant reprimands about their behavior. They may be tracked onto slower educational paths because the schools are no longer well suited to their learning styles. It can’t be good for their self esteem or love of school.
If you spend any time talking to veteran elementary school teachers, you hear an almost unanimous loathing of these changes.
Well, this is a good example of female privilege, that K-12 education is now designed to suit girls better than boys.
There are circumstances where it is safer to be a woman than a man, for example the police are somewhat more likely to assume a man is a danger and assault or kill him.
Women can also, for example, go anywhere around children without being readily suspected of being a pervert or child molester. That’s a privilege too.
I have also deleted some posts as well.