Men are expected to provide for the family. Men are expected to fix anything broken in the house. Men are expected to protect the family. Men are expected to take out the trash and mow the yard.

I think the negative reaction to extending selective service in the US is another interesting example. Unexpectedly, polls have shown that women aren't that enthusiastic about taking on a burden universally applied to men.

Since Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced late last year that the military would open up all combat roles to women, some top military generals have said that women like men should be required to register with the federal Selective Service System in the event there is a need for a military draft. Men like that idea, but most women don't.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% of all Likely U.S. Voters agree that women should be required to register for the draft. Nearly as many (44%) disagree.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2016/most_women_oppose_having_to_register_for_the_draft

Though, it is interesting when are these views imposed on us?

It is interesting but I fear we'd need to raise people from embryos under a dome to get the answer. Even the idea of narrative transport theory, that purports to tell us that media imprints cultural ideas upon our defenseless minds cannot account for HOW these messages impact us nor what the effect of mutually contradictory messages would be.

This would imply that there is "black privilege." I have not heard this argued in the broad at all.

No, it wouldn't. Perhaps I should clarify - if the dominant culture of a place values black people more than white people, then "black privilege" would exist.

Which means its value is highly suspect in discussing American history and present and we have every right to be critical of it. Consider:

I said "in some places." I was not actually referring to North America. In any case, white people oppressing other white people doesn't obviate the notion of privilege; nor does it obviate the idea that at this point in time, in North America, white people are privileged over non-white people.

If we say that white people in general are privileged over black people, then saying that the English are privileged over the Irish doesn't refute the former.

If it can be demonstrated that large groups within the supposedly privileged group do not enjoy the privilege, then applying it to the group as a whole is incorrect

Except that no such thing has been demonstrated. Saying that some white people are privileged over other white people does NOT mean that those other white people are not also privileged over non-white people. Privilege is not a binary, it is a relative term. One can be less privileged than someone and more privileged than someone else.

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries,

Are you implying that people with white skin don't live in non-Western countries? ;)

I'm sorry, where the FUCK did you get 'mocking' from?

Please keep things civil. I understand refuting the technique of redefining normal interactions as harmful in order to justify abusive behavior, but it's far better to push back against it diplomatically.

This would imply that there is "black privilege." I have not heard this argued in the broad at all.

No, it wouldn't. Perhaps I should clarify - if the dominant culture of a place values black people more than white people, then "black privilege" would exist in that place.

So would black privilege exist in the black community?

I was not actually referring to North America.

I'm confused. If not North America then where?

White people oppressing other white people doesn't obviate the notion of privilege; nor does it obviate the idea that at this point in time, in North America, white people are privileged over non-white people.

Yes, but don't you see that white people oppressing other white people obviates the notion of white privilege and requires us to invent the idea that it only started happening after the 1940s?

If it's so erratic in application, it would seem 'white privilege' only has a value as a rhetorical device or some unprovable construct like 'sin.'

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries,

Are you implying that people with white skin don't live in non-Western countries? ;)

I'd unfortunately have to refer you to Wikipedia or Peggy McIntosh, as the explanation is drawn from there. ;)

So would black privilege exist in the black community?

Is the black community the dominant culture?
Does the black community value white people less than non-white people?

I'm confused. If not North America then where?

I was thinking of Europe, with its mishmash of ethnic groups, many of which have fair skin, and the myriad ethnic conflicts that exist there.

Yes, but don't you see that white people oppressing other white people obviates the notion of white privilege and requires us to invent the idea that it only started happening after the 1940s?

No, that's a fallacious argument. Again: privilege is not a binary concept, it's a relative one. It's possible to be white, oppressed by other white people, and still be more privileged than someone who isn't white.

And why would only coming into effect after the 1940s obviate the concept? We're talking about today. If some groups started being more privileged than others after a certain time, it makes sense to refer to them as such after that time?

It's still binary in the sense of it existing in any meaningful aspect or not.

There's really so many flaws in the theory though, for example Asians would have the most privilege in the USA (Make the most money per capita, live in the best areas etc), but that point is unaddressed.

Also from what I understand I'm part Irish so I get to take points off of my privelege card. Can someone give me a chart on where I stand so I can pull the "Don't privelege-slpain to me!" card and shutdown discussions?

We *see* it in our families, isn't a statistical fact; rather it is subjective. For example, you told the anecdote of your parents being strict to your sister until she was 21. My anecdote is the complete opposite, my parents were loose on my sisters where both got into drugs and married young. My younger sister's husband cooks all the meals and my older sister's method of "cooking" is microwave dinners.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, 69% of women cook in the household. Problem with the data is that it doesn't account for for what percentage of that 69% is made up of women married to men whom also cook.

What I find interesting is that people deem having a girl help her mother with chores is imposing something on them, but don't see boys being told to do chores with their fathers as imposing something on them. It's even more interesting that they say it is imposing it on them for how to act when married.

When did teaching life skills become imposing gender roles? Parents teach all kids how to cook, clean, do laundry, etc. so they are able to take care of themselves when on their own (self-reliant). So when did life skills taught to children to be self reliant become this bs about imposing gender roles?

Women putting family first isn't choice? Interesting, surveys suggest women pick families first because they simply don't trust anyone to take care of their children. One survey stated that 55% of the women surveyed didn't trust their moms, in-laws, or even their own partner to watch their children. Still, with today's services, women do choose to stay as those who aren't over protective can put them in day care and go to work.

Remember this is my point of view based on my life and the lives of those around me as well as government statistics, survey data, and the reactions of certain groups. Like the backlash of Matt Taylor's shirt, or Kaley Cuoco being attacked until she apologized for saying she enjoyed traditional roles in her marriage. People getting outraged over personal choice, wanting to force people to adopt hive mentality.

While it is documented that metastasing cancers get gone by smoking strong marihuana. I am no conspiracy boytoy, but even in parliament of czech republic there were law-givers fighting and beating each other in the very parliament to allow marihuana treatment even for pre-teen patients finaly, after the results with adults. (the not reduced psychadelic full-scale weed).

This is a danger lie because it's been proven wrong, and it gives people false hope.

I'm not anti-legalization, either.

I'd be sure happy to listen to some oponenture on this topic, if we could turn tables and not have me as the first justifier of thier proposition. So? Why is it not effective?

This topic has undergone a strange transformation in the last page or so. Gender roles aren't necessarily "privilege". There's no ordering between a working mom and a stay-at-home dad. Both are socially stigmatized in a two-parent family. There's also no real ordering between "He has to do all the big DIY projects that pop up over the year" and "she has to clean the house and do laundry every week". How many house cleanings is it worth to lay sod all over your back yard? Building a shed? Replacing your alternator? That's more than a little subjective.

I'm not supporting gender roles or anything, but they're not a sign of inequality if they're not comparable.

While it is documented that metastasing cancers get gone by smoking strong marihuana. I am no conspiracy boytoy, but even in parliament of czech republic there were law-givers fighting and beating each other in the very parliament to allow marihuana treatment even for pre-teen patients finaly, after the results with adults. (the not reduced psychadelic full-scale weed).

This is a danger lie because it's been proven wrong, and it gives people false hope.

I'm not anti-legalization, either.

I'd be sure happy to listen to some oponenture on this topic, if we could turn tables and not have me as the first justifier of thier proposition. So? Why is it not effective?

Because it's been disproven completely

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq

If it was a cure, no one in Amsterdam would die from whichever cancer people are claiming it cures now.

So just stop spreading that. It's a fallacy used to justify legalization, and there's plenty of idiots who think it will cure them and skip chemo to try it.