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.

How it does not account exactly? The data is right there:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm

Household Activities in 2014

--On an average day, 83 percent of women and 65 percent of men spent some
time doing household activities such as housework, cooking, lawn care, or
financial and other household management. (See table 1.)

--On the days they did household activities, women spent an average of 2.6
hours on such activities, while men spent 2.1 hours. (See table 1.)

--On an average day, 20 percent of men did housework--such as cleaning or
laundry--compared with 49 percent of women. Forty-three percent of men did
food preparation or cleanup, compared with 69 percent of women. Men were
slightly more likely to engage in lawn and garden care than were women--11
percent compared with 8 percent. (See table 1.)

--From 2003 to 2014, the share of men doing food preparation and cleanup on
an average day increased from 35 percent to 43 percent. Over this same period,
the share of women doing housework on an average day decreased from 54 percent
to 49 percent. The average time per day women spent doing housework declined by 9
minutes, from 58 minutes in 2003 to 49 minutes in 2014. (See table 1.)

This is not exactly what you asked for(what percentage of women that cook are married to men that also cook), but I don't see why that specific piece of data is especially important. On average, 43% of men do cooking or cleanup, against 69% of women. My statistic skills are not good enough to know if we can calculate what you asked for based on this, but again, I think the 43% vs 69% paints a pretty clear picture already.

Also, if you watch the table, you'll see that indeed men spend more time doing lawn&garden care than women(0.25h vs 0.12h). Problem is, when summing up "Household Activities", of which lawn&garden care are part of, women spend 2.14h against 1.38h of men. 0.82h for food preparation and cleanup, against 0.34h for men. You'll see that "lawn and garden care" takes only 0.25h(average hours per day) and the average percent engaged in this activity per day is ~10%, against food preperation and cleanup which takes 0.82h(average hours per day) and average percent engaged in this activity per day is 56.3%.

Which lines up with what I said: Cooking and cleaning is for every day, things like lawn care are much less often needed. They might even take longer when they're being done(I believe this is what "Average hours per day for persons that engaged in this activity" is for, which shows 2.37h for lawn care, longer than any other household activity), but they're not executed nearly as often("Average percent engaged in this activity per day", 10% for lawn care, lower than any other household activity). It's actually pretty intersting to see how things interact between the 1st and 3rd table(which is average hours per day against average hours per day for persons actually enganged in the activity). Cooking does not change much for women(1.19h when engaged, 0.89h on average), but lawn care for men, it changes drastically(2.37h when engaged, but only 0.25h on average).

The survey doesn't tell where the overlay. What portion of the male percentages overlay with the female percentages. How much of the 43% overlaps the 69%?

As I said, the idea of gender roles is retarded. Parents teach both boys and girls how to cook, clean, sweep, etc. The parents that fail to do this are the ones that get that weekly visit from their adult children wanting them to do their laundry for them. Marriage is a compromise, each partner does what they are good at. My wife was taught to cook, but she isn't very good at it, where as I was taught to and enjoy doing it so I cook every night. Even you showed that it is a crock, men do any of the chores they are considered heroes, women do it they are considered conforming to a gender role. Saying a woman doesn't choose implies that she has no freewill or ability to make a choice. Just the point of proving it is a gender role shows the folly of it; a woman does it then it is a gender role, a man does it then it isn't. Gender roles border on the same logic as the whole "men can be sexist to women, but women can't be sexist to men" argument.

Even you pointed out the flaw when you said it takes 5 seconds to take out the trash. Everything I listed are the male gender roles, but just like everywhere else it is the women's side that MUST change while the male gender roles are just fine.

That is how it is across the board; movies, games, music, comics, et. al. portrayals of women MUST change, but the portrayals of men being muscular, suave, sexy, etc. is just fine. Do I look like I'm any of that? The argument given? These portrayals of women are unrealistic. Nope, they may be unlikely, but you can find women walking around any city that look like the women in the different media. But this is just me ranting now, I'm sure everything will be changed in favor of what women are wanting and then they will be perfectly happy after that[anyone married knows this isn't true].

The survey doesn't tell where the overlay. What portion of the male percentages overlay with the female percentages. How much of the 43% overlaps the 69%?

*Why* does this matter? You're basically asking, from what I can gather, what percentage of households has both parents that do the cooking. We don't have that piece of data, but as long as 69% of women and 43% of men do the cooking, don't we already know that it's mostly women that do the cooking? I don't understand why you insist that we can't make a judgement when we have those data already at hand.

And nobody said that women(or men) have no free will, but out choices are affected by external forces. You're setting up a false dichotomy: Either our choices are informed only by our very own internal free will, or we're drones doing exactly what we've been told. Of course neither of these is true.

69% and 43% overlap by 12%.

No need to thank me.

69% and 43% overlap by 12%.

No need to thank me.

:D

Yeah, I'm not really sure what BHXSpecter means by "how much they overlap"? Like, how much of the 43% and the 69% are...married to each other? Or...what? Kind of lost. I'm going with "what percentage of households have both spouses do the cooking".

69% and 43% overlap by 12%.

No need to thank me.

That's... not how it works at all.

Though I don't know what BHXSpecter is getting at either. Even at 100% overlap (which obviously is nowhere near correct), that just means 23% of women are the exclusive cooks in their households.

So would black privilege exist in the black community?

Is the black community the dominant culture?

This is a very good question. I'm not sure there's a way to answer it. We might be tempted to view culture as easily separable, stratified layers but culture in nations with a history of diverse populations seems to be more like ink mixing with water. Take music. The innovative, transformative (even dare I say culturally appropriative) work of early hip-hop/rap has gone from isolated cells within the black community to explode into a dominant cultural juggernaut on the global stage. Clearly this would have been impossible without input, marketing and financing the black community itself lacked, but the cost of success has been diffusion and transformation of this cultural artifact. Would it be one narrow example of cultural dominance? Given how mixed it is, I don't know.

Even growing up in a predominately black city I'd have to say yes and no. Schools, mass media (esp. popular tv & movies) and law enforcement acted like pipelines into what was, in my experience, a very insular culture (fun fact, at the risk of dating myself Dukes of Hazzard was popular when I was a kid and I LOVED all the crazy stunts done by the General Lee-- with ZERO understanding of what the flag on the car actually meant! Made for chagrin years later.)

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

It's impossible to give a general answer. Again in my experience and understanding (West Coast US) it's always been a love / hate relationship, with strains valuing integration ever in conflict with those valuing cultural integrity. Children in a poor black community can be pilloried, for instance, for trying to develop a good vocabulary, but whereas this might be derided as bookishness or nerdiness in a poor white neighborhood, it's long been criticized as 'trying to act white' in a poor black neighborhood. Now compare that to developing business acumen, which carries no stigma in either community (and certainly not the stigma of being a cultural traitor).

So in certain instances and situations the answer is clearly yes, there is contempt, devaluation and even outright bigotry-- and not just directed at whites, but also Jewish and Asian culture. (Unsurprising if you believe all human communities equally capable of the flaw of bigotry, of course.)

I think this variability is yet one more thing that calls into question the value of the very notion of privilege.

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.

Is it not then silly to label a phenomenon using a categorical boundary which may or may not apply? The title itself suggests group boundaries ("white") but proponents now have to scurry around defending myriad exceptions. Isn't this undermining?

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?

So then it's Post-1940s-Some-White-People-But-Not-All-White-People-Some-Exclusions-Apply-Void-Where-Prohibited-Privilege?

I think we should be looking very careful at how this concept deals with logical inconsistencies. It's starting to look like the heliocentric model of social science, requiring adding more and more epicycles just to make it match reality. Clearly this suggests that it is wrong.

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.

Holland citizens are the least consumers of marihuana paradoxly, yet it's a highly poluted, dense, mineral-fetilized country all over the place, with one of the highest cancer rates. Here some link to support I don't spread too much of missinformations :

http://naturalsociety.com/marijuana-kills-cancer-cells-admits-the-u-s-national-cancer-institute/

Marihuana also has rather wast effects on other serious and not yet curable autoimmune diseases.

That site's clickbait. They constantly post X cure cancer! in the hopes that desperate people will click the link and read it.

http://naturalsociety.com/fish-oil-inside-nanoparticles-defeat-liver-cancer-6152/

http://naturalsociety.com/cancer-fighting-foods-4-anti-cancer-edibles/

http://naturalsociety.com/celery-apigenin-kills-86-percent-lung-cancer-cells/

There's dozens of articles they've posted like that.

There's a very large difference in cannaboid chemicals killing cancer cells in small numbers during lab-tests/animal tests, and curing cancer in humans.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/targeted-therapies/targeted-therapies-fact-sheet#q8

Those drugs do exactly what that site claims "cures" cancer, but much more effectively

Holland citizens are the least consumers of marihuana paradoxly

It's not a paradox. Marijuana doesn't cure cancer otherwise the population would take it as a cure (As it's legal in Amsterdam). It has no effect, and there's a huge predatory industry that tries to convince people otherwise.

There's dozens of articles they've posted like that.

They are citing a relevant source, that is my point. You are neat picking on the character of the web in quite inproper ways. Marihuana is a plant, thus not much of a subject to be advertized.

It's not a paradox. Marijuana doesn't cure cancer otherwise the population would take it as a cure (As it's legal in Amsterdam). It has no effect, and there's a huge predatory industry that tries to convince people otherwise.

You are literaly mirroring hostile arguments on the other side "predatory industry trying to convince and use desparate people". I was expecting a different kind of discussion.

You are maybe not aware, that conflicting things in medicine do not need a "bad person" that much. A doctor will prescribe morphium for pain of a cancer patient, with much more adverse negative effects, but marihuana cannot be prescribed even as a painkiller for it is "psychadelic".

Omitting surgery as a treatment for patients, chemo has alarming effect ratio, even one would say of being negative. You may ignore all this, and be so sure as you are, that marihuana shouldn't be used under any circumstance for any prupose , like it is conserved know. This is sort of a unique condition, for a single plant, accepting that entire scale of plants has much more "happier" psychadelic effects, and some are even grown for consumation while being even physicaly dangerous in over dosed intake (nutmeg), what marihuana for example isn't in any amount.