your least favourite shakespeare play ?

[MorpheusSandman]

Yes. That would constitute "assuming the antecedent" (if that's the right name for the fallacious logic that suggests that if the conclusion is correct, the axioms must be correct). I'm not sure that's what Morpheus did, though (although I haven't read the thread very thoroughly). It's perfectly reasonable to suggest possible reasons why women get paid less than men, one of which is discrimination (there are doubtless multiple factors).

Discrimination itself can be a secondary factor: discrimination against a group might change the culture of that group. IN the U.S. (for example) it seems reasonable that African American subcultures would have less respect for America's laws than many white subcultures (because the subcultures developed in a time when legal discrimination existed). For women, specific discrimination limiting their participation in certain professions in the past may no longer exist, but culturally constituted norms about women's role in child care, about whether drive and ambition are attractive qualities in men or in women, or about what professions are consistent with femininity might have developed as a result of discrimination.

Even not having read the thread thoroughly you'd right on the money, Ecurb (and I never did what he said I did, btw; I suggested precisely what you did in your second paragraph).

[MorpheusSandman]

IThere are some people who live in those bubbles where everyone thinks like they do and it reinforces their ideas about how things are or should be, and since nobody questions them in their group they just assume that everyone holds the same beliefs.

Trust me when I say this doesn't describe me. In fact, I hunt out places where there is huge debate on both sides on issues I'm unfamiliar with and then I use my "critical thinking" to see who has the most facts and reasons the best from them. Having actually studied rationality I've gotten to be a pretty good judge when it comes to issues where one side is clearly wrong and another is clearly right. There are still those where it's uncertain. Like I said, if Clopin is certain he's right then I can point him in the direction of the people that convinced me.

[Clopin]

Uh... no. 6-figures is piddly-squat when you look at how wealth is ditributed in the US (at least in the US; I don't know about the rest of the West).

haha okay buddy, only twenty percent of households make six figures in the States, and that includes everyone who works in the family.

And you seriously think that cultural biases play no role in what jobs men and women consider appropriate for their sexes?

I'm sure that it does, but probably less than you might think. I know that men are genuinely more fit for labour positions regardless of cultural bias and I believe it's pretty much incontrovertible that women generally are simply more patient and better with children, as taboo as that is to say nowadays.

I mean take something like Chess. Women simply do not play it. The ratio at any given chess club will likely be something like ten to one (and I'm being generous) men to women. This is despite decades of serious effort by organizations like FIDE, The USCF and The CFC to generate interest in Chess amongst girls and women. There are female exclusive titles, female tournaments, female clubs (so none of that nasty make atmosphere turning women off from Chess), female leagues online, female mixed doubles prize pots (as in a team event where one entrant must be female and one must be male). And scholastic Chess programs and events are targeted evenly at both genders. I mean what's more likely at this point? That men are going out of their way to make Chess unpleasant for women or that women simply aren't as likely to develop an obsessive interest in Chess?

In the strictest sense, yes, they're free, but neither encouraged before to pursue them or encouraged while pursuing it to continue. A great many women have written about terrible, misogynistic treatment after breaking into the "mens' club" atmosphere of any number of professions. Even in my own profession of poker I've seen it (even though I don't play live that much).

I believe this happens but I don't know what to tell you. Attitudes are changing. I'm not trying to suggest that misogyny does not exist, I'm just outlining why I don't think women are systematically oppressed compared to men.

To answer you first and second questions: ABSOLUTELY! Again, you and Mortal keep assuming this "double standard" where none exists. I've already admitted that there are, indeed, social pressures that are biased against men on many fronts as well, and they need remedied as well. Bringing up the fact of male privilege does not mean that there aren't areas where men don't struggle more and don't need society to change as well. One reason we don't see these addressed is that far too many men (like yourself) are out there trying to "debunk" the problems that women face (rather than remedying them) instead of focusing on the problems men face (and trying to remedy them as well).

One of the reasons we don't see endemic rates of male suicide addressed is because people argue about male privilege on the Internet? Oh okay.

Oh dear, now we're back to you being all reactionary at hearing another term you don't like.

Rape culture is fairly easy to prove. Just look at the statistics for one thing: it's one of the most under-reported, under-prosecuted, under-convicted crimes. Whenever it is reported, victims are held up to more scrutiny than the perpetrators and are frequently accused of making it up (or changing their mind) for "revenge" (never mind that the statistics suggest such false accusations are extremely low). How common is it in our society to use alcohol to try to incapacitate women so they're in no position to consent? How in the world do you think Bill Cosby got away with what he did for so long?

First of all no, you can't prove that "rape culture" exists because "rape culture" is a totally meaningless phrase. And okay with rape the statistics suggest that there are few prosecutions but it's probably not because all of the judges, jurors and police officers in the world have conspired together to make sure rapists always walk and women can be raped without consequence. Have you considered the nature of the crime? Perhaps it's difficult to prosecute. Let's imagine a situation Morpheus:

You and I, alone together, decide to engage in some mutually consensual sex. After we finish I walk to a police station and file a report saying that you raped me.

And compare it with:

You and I are alone together, you force yourself on me and rape me. After you leave I walk to the police station and file a report saying that you raped me,

Assuming there were no witnesses these two incidents appear exactly the same to any outsider so what do you do? You can't prosecute a man because he is likely to have raped someone, you actually have to prove it. False rape accusations may make up a small number of reported rapes but they do occur and even of there had never been a false rape accusation due diligence for the accused is the bedrock of our legal system.

And I mean isn't the notion that because the accuser is cross examined we live in a literal "rape culture" a bit nuts? How else are you supposed to proceed with the case? Just lock the guy up? No questions asked? It's very unfortunate that rape is as difficult to successfully prosecute as it is, but can you suggest a better method? When the only evidence you have that a crime has taken place is the word of one person then you just can't prosecute right? So I'm genuinely curious about what your solution would be.

Except it's not just the statistics, it's also hundreds of thousands of anecdotes of women talking about how they've felt going against what society encourages women to pursue and trying to break into male-dominated fields, and every time they raise a complaint it provokes the ire of misogynists like yourself and Mortal who just dismiss what they have to say. "Elevatorgate" was a perfect example of a woman talking about what it felt like to be so "pursued" because she was one of the few women at atheist conventions, and how scary that could be, only to get lambasted by Richard Dawkins who went on a non-sequitor rant about women facing harsher problems in African countries (as if that lessens the problems women face here).

I feel like I've woken up in Bizarro World. Elevatorgate is going to be your citation for male privilege? What next, gamergate? I mean come on. But okay, if some unwanted attention from the opposite sex is so horrendous then I've been sexually harassed (groped unwillingly) and put into awkward situations myself. I survived.

Other than their physical traits, men and women are far more similar than they are different, so the extreme differences we see are predominantly sociological and, yes, they need changing and, yes, they need changing when they unfairly hurt either side. Again, I don't know where you're getting this "double standard" from as I have not suggested that societies are perfectly fair to men.

The double standard is that you presume men are systematically elevated and women systematically oppressed. I don't think this is true, and I think gender makes up a larger biological difference than you seem to be suggesting.

So you have a deep fear that the cops will pull you over for no reason? Or a fear they'd shoot you in the back if you dared to run from them and then try to plant a gun on you?

Yeh, the cops are all KKK dragons just looking for cherubic black orphans to murder. By the way, white and black are not the only ethnicities. Can you tell me why Asians outperform whites in school and under commit crimes if whites are the privileged group?

I'll take a page out of Mortal's book and use a popular TV show as an example. Fresh Prince of Bel Air, the episode where Will and Carlton are arrested in a small town for driving a fancy car that was loned to them. They're held in prison for hours without cause or without representation. Of course, Carlton's dad (Will's Uncle) is a rich, black, judge, and when he finds out and goes down there he rips into the blatantly racist cops and gets them out of jail. This is a case of illustrating both the negative effects of white privilege (two blacks being arrested for no reason) and how wealth privilege helped mitigate the damage. However, the presence of the latter doesn't erase the former in principle. What happens when you aren't related to someone who's rich and you happen to black? Well, you spend the night in jail for no reason (at best) and, at worst, you can end up like Walter Scott.

I see. So you're going to argue based on an episode of a TV show?

Privilege is not something you consider on a case-by-case basis, it's something you consider on a statistical average level. If you think statistics are in favor of women when it comes to wages, or blacks when it comes to... just about anything, then you aren't living in this little place called reality.

But the statistics suggest that women live longer and happier lives. I don't consider that underprivileged honestly. As for blacks, well, I don't think all of their problems are entirely due to systematic oppression. Sorry. Just like I don't think the relative success of Jews (in nobel prizes, world chess champions, etc), or East Asians (much higher attendance at top tier schools, and academic success) is due to systematic elevation. I mean why is white society tying itself into knots to make sure blacks are extremely underprivileged and Asians and Jews are overrepresented at the top. What's in it for the white folk who "run society" to orchestrate this massive conspiracy? I just don't see it. Are blacks also socially encouraged to play sports more than Asians? Or do they just naturally have a tendency towards a better physicality for pro sports.

There is such a thing as privilege (statistics prove it) and you discredit yourself everytime you fling around these ridiculous, reactionary claims. I have a 150 IQ so I have zero doubt I'm intelligent and quite capable of critical thinking; you I have my doubts about.

Ah, and now we bring IQ into the mix. Well I have an IQ of 185 so there tough guy!

[MorpheusSandman]

I figured I'd reply to your comment in two separate posts since the first was getting long and dealt mostly with film. I hope that's okay with you.

Tell you what; since these replies are getting so long and I'm also replying to Clopin as well, why don't you choose one of the two discussions to continue (film VS TOTS/Shakespeare) and we'll trim it to one. I'll let you decide.

[Ecurb]

The fact that Richard Cory "put a bullet in his head" cannot logically demonstrate that he was not "privileged". (Not that anyone said it does.)

[Ecurb]

I mean take something like Chess. Women simply do not play it. The ratio at any given chess club will likely be something like ten to one (and I'm being generous) men to women. This is despite decades of serious effort by organizations like FIDE, The USCF and The CFC to generate interest in Chess amongst girls and women. There are female exclusive titles, female tournaments, female clubs (so none of that nasty make atmosphere turning women off from Chess), female leagues online, female mixed doubles prize pots (as in a team event where one entrant must be female and one must be male). And scholastic Chess programs and events are targeted evenly at both genders. I mean what's more likely at this point? That men are going out of their way to make Chess unpleasant for women or that women simply aren't as likely to develop an obsessive interest in Chess?

!

We're straying from Shakespeare, but I'm curious: why do you think women aren't as good at chess as men? I've read theories about "spatial intelligence" and perhaps competitiveness is a factor.

I've never played chess at a high level, but I play tournament bridge. More women play bridge than men (bridge is an aging game, and I am one of the youngest competitors in some tournaments, despite being in my 50s). At the level on which I play, the women are just as good as the men. Nonetheless, women have never won world championships in bridge. (There are several forms of world championships in bridge, and perhaps women have won one or two pairs titles, but they haven't won in the Teams Championship, which is the most prestigious title. Two or three women have been on second-place teams.)

The world team championships have been around for 65 years, and each team consists of at least four and usually six players (you need four, because each "team" plays the North-South cards in one room, and the East-West cards of the same hand in another and six allows the team to substitute and avoid getting tired). So that's 300+ players, all men.

Of course it is also true that most experts think that at least half of the champions cheated (the famous Italian Blue team, which dominated bridge in the 50s, 60s and 70s was caught cheating a couple of times, and probably cheated when they weren't caught, too). The famous British team of Boris Shapiro and Terrence Reese was busted for cheating. So maybe women are more honest and honorable than men. (It's harder to cheat today, because the players use "bidding boxes" to signal bids, and screens prevent you from seeing your partner.)

In the lower levels at which I play, many of the men (not me, of course) are more "competitive" than the women, but it doesn't help them much. In fact, since bridge is a team game, cooperating with and encouraging one's partner generally leads to better results than being TOO competitive. Maybe women have better things to do than waste their time on games. What's your theory, Clopin (and since Morpheus is a professional Poker player, perhaps he can chime in, too.)?

[MorpheusSandman]

Gah, had most of this post typed, took a little break, came back to a "token expired" message from the forum that erased it. Sorry if this one isn't nearly as good.

haha okay buddy, only twenty percent of households make six figures in the States, and that includes everyone who works in the family.

The bottom half own less than 1% of America's wealth, so mentioning that only twenty percents of households make six figures isn't saying much. The immense gap is between the wealthiest 10% (even wealthiest 1% of 1%) and everyone else. I'll give you three guesses as to what demographic predominantly makes up the latter groups.

I know that men are genuinely more fit for labour positions regardless of cultural bias and I believe it's pretty much incontrovertible that women generally are simply more patient and better with children, as taboo as that is to say nowadays.

Men are, on average, physically stronger than women, which would make them better at manual labor jobs. However, given the obesity problem in the US, a 400-lb man is far less fit for manual labor than a healthy, muscular woman. I'm open to the possibility that women might be generally better with children, but I don't know of any studies corroborating this (not that I've looked).

I still think this is missing the point. Other than the physical differences, men and women are far more similar than dissimilar, especially when it comes to cognitive abilities. The vast majority of the wealthiest in this country are wealthy because of their mental faculties (investors, software engineers/designers), not because of their physical strength. Men have slightly better spatial reasoning, which might explain the absence of women in Chess. But take something like the NFL. Decades ago, the majority of women didn't watch. Now, women are the largest growing demographic and have contributed immensely to the huge growth of the league's popularity. What else can you possible chalk that up to other than cultural norms? The notion that, for years, football was thought of a man's game for men; and now that it's become more acceptable for women to like sports we see far more women, well, watching sports.

First of all no, you can't prove that "rape culture" exists because "rape culture" is a totally meaningless phrase. And okay with rape the statistics suggest that there are few prosecutions but it's probably not because all of the judges, jurors and police officers in the world have conspired together to make sure rapists always walk and women can be raped without consequence. Have you considered the nature of the crime? Perhaps it's difficult to prosecute. Let's imagine a situation Morpheus:

First of all, I don't know why you think "rape culture" is a "meaningless phrase." It describes how culture normalizes and trivializes rape through a variety of means. You can argue that those things don't happen, thus the rape culture theory is wrong, but it's certainly not meaningless.

Secondly, nobody is suggesting that all judges, jurors, cops, etc. have conspired against women and for rapists, but this isn't how the effects of rape culture (or privilege) happen in general. You don't even need a majority of society to be racist, or sexist, or harbor rape culture beliefs, in order to see the deleterious effects on a statistical level. Take a meta-study like this http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/25/11/2010 that positively correlated acceptance of rape myths (things like, eg, the frequency of rape, the statistics on false-accusations, etc.) with hostility towards women, racism, heterosexism, classism, and ageism. By the time it gets to, say, a judge, a judge doesn't even have to be consciously or unconsciously sexist in a way that favors men overall, but such myths are held by him (or even her; women can believe the same myths) then they are far more likely to do things like victim blaming, of which there are many documented cases of. By that I mean cases of judges focusing on what the victim did wrong: what they wore, who they were with, how they acted, etc., usually things which are neither legal or moral justifications for rape, and that, if we weren't in a rape culture, a judge wouldn't feel compelled to point out when the woman did nothing wrong but enjoy the right to wear what she wants, be with who she wants, and act how she wants (within the bounds of the law, of course).

Finally, yes, rape is a difficult crime to prosecute in general anyway. If there is no physical evidence or witnesses (like there is in most forcible rape, but isn't in date rape or other forms of intoxication, or coercian where the rapist is a family member or friend) then it's entirely a he-said, she-said scenario, and I absolutely agree we can't just believe every claim and arrest, prosecute, and convict every accused man. We absolutely need the evidence. However, because of the effects of rape culture, amongst them being things like victim blaming and the non-education on what actually counts as rape (eg, having sex with an intoxicated woman is rape; she is not capable of consenting) and the social pressure put on women to not be open with their sexuality (most women report feeling "shame" after rape; where do you think that comes from?), we often end up in a situation where women don't even report it to present the opportunity for getting that evidence. When you combine the under-reporting with the difficulty of having evidence, prosecuting, convicting, the perpetuation of rape myths amongst authorities, and the statistics that show that false reports are in the minority, you're in a situation where the vast majority of rapists go free, and most never even spend a day in jail. That's a horrible reality, and there's no way it couldn't be helped by fixing various elements about how we, as a society, think about rape and treat potential victims.

Elevatorgate is going to be your citation for male privilege?

It wasn't used as a citation for privilege, but a citation for how men regularly dismiss the anecdotal experiences of women expressing their discomfort in a male-dominated area. Whether you agree with her or not (and, frankly, I think she was a bit over-sensitive as it's hard to imagine a reality where no men will ever approach women in a vulnerable situation), you can't deny that that's precisely what happened.

The double standard is that you presume men are systematically elevated and women systematically oppressed.

This isn't a presumption, it's an inference drawn from a wealth of statistical data. BTW, I'd hesitate to use the word "oppressed" as women have achieved a far closer-to-equal society than what we once had. I'd say they're still, on average, disadvantaged compared to men. This is mostly what privilege is anyway; not necessarily oppression, but the recognition of arenas in which one group has an innate advantage over another because of society.

Yeh, the cops are all KKK dragons just looking for cherubic black orphans to murder. By the way, white and black are not the only ethnicities. Can you tell me why Asians outperform whites in school and under commit crimes if whites are the privileged group?

Firstly, as I stated above about rape culture, it is not necessary for all (or even most) cops to be racists in order to see the deleterious effects of those that are, especially when those that are are concentrated in certain places.

Secondly, the reason for the success of Asians probably has a lot to do with the completely different backgrounds, histories, and cultures of Asians compared to blacks. Besides the temporary internments of Asian Americans during WW2, America has generally had a peaceful relationship with the Asian community (they were never slaves, eg). After WW2 many Asian countries radically Westernized before immigrating (this was well-documented in post-WW2 Japanese cinema) so there was less of a culture shock. This history is quite different than the one where a little over a century ago whites were buying, selling, and owning blacks; or one where even half a century ago, blacks were segregated from the rest of the population and had to struggle and fight for equality.

So you're going to argue based on an episode of a TV show?

No, I used the episode to illustrate how both black and wealth privilege can co-exist, and even if the latter can mitigate the effects of the former in certain situations, those situations are rare, especially when blacks make up a larger percentage of the poor in this country and a miniscule minority of its wealthy.

I mean why is white society tying itself into knots to make sure blacks are extremely underprivileged and Asians and Jews are overrepresented at the top.

Not all white society is. In particular, blacks thrive more in states and cities where there is a much higher degree of multi-racial integration (ie, not the south). However, most of those states and cities also have a higher cost of living (ie, not the south) and blacks make up a large percentage of the poorest. When you're poor and live in a part of the country where you are much more highly likely to face discrimination it makes it extremely difficult to overcome that initial disadvantage without having some extraordinary talent (intellectual, physical, etc.), luck, or something else. It's not so much that white society has to "tie itself into knots" to keep blacks underprivileged, it's more like we're engaged in a vicious cycle made worse by the fact that the majority of whites are completely ignorant about (as the saying goes, one of the effects of white privilege is not knowing about white privilege).

What's in it for the white folk who "run society" to orchestrate this massive conspiracy?

What's in it for the wealthiest 10% to keep themselves the wealthiest 10% and make the poorest even poorer so they'll have an even greater share of the wealth? Hmmm, let me think about that brain teaser.

Beyond the actual money/power element, there's also the simple fact that racism is a byproduct of humans being a species of tribal primates. We unconsciously create "us" and "them" groups, and there's no more obvious way to group than by race. We need to recognize that this is an innate aspect of our cognition and not ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, etc., but rather address it, consciously acknowledge it, and then consciously override it. It's the old thought that you aren't responsible for what thoughts your brain conjures, but for how you act and reason based on them. We might can't reprogram humans, but we can teach them how to better deal with that programming. When you combine that natural proclivity with the well-documented history or racism you end up what we have today; a situation that's better, but where racism is still prevalent in both obvious (the shooting and race riots) and less-obvious ways.

Ah, and now we bring IQ into the mix. Well I have an IQ of 185 so there tough guy!

Firstly, you brought up intelligence, not me.

Secondly, good, now that we've compared brain penises can we agree that we're both adequately well-hung and dispense with the juvenile strategy of suggesting the other has a major mental handicap by comparison? While you're at it, stop with the Pavlovian somersaults every time I mention a term you understand vaguely enough to dislike but not well enough to actually understand.

[MorpheusSandman]

What's your theory, Clopin (and since Morpheus is a professional Poker player, perhaps he can chime in, too.)?

Well, again, I've read women poker players talk about how they've been made to feel uncomfortable when playing at a male-dominated table, and I've witnessed this first-hand myself. However, because of the pioneering of players like Jennifer Harmon, Annie Duke, Vanessa Selbst, and even Jennifer Tilly, there have been many more women coming to the game now than before the exposure. I suspect that many women would like to, especially those that are good at math and problem solving, but are then turned off by the sexism they're bound to face from the more boorish players. Really, since the advent and popularity of internet poker I'd guess that there have been even MORE women playing poker and we just don't know about it. Selbst was one of the first to make a huge name for herself as a dominant online player (enough to reach the #1 ranking by the Global Poker Index, which is extremely impressive) and she's since made the transition to live games as well (though at a much higher level where there are probably fewer drunken, misogynistic, testosterone drenched idiots). So women are certainly more than capable.

[Clopin]

We're straying from Shakespeare, but I'm curious: why do you think women aren't as good at chess as men? I've read theories about "spatial intelligence" and perhaps competitiveness is a factor.

I've never played chess at a high level, but I play tournament bridge. More women play bridge than men (bridge is an aging game, and I am one of the youngest competitors in some tournaments, despite being in my 50s). At the level on which I play, the women are just as good as the men. Nonetheless, women have never won world championships in bridge. (There are several forms of world championships in bridge, and perhaps women have won one or two pairs titles, but they haven't won in the Teams Championship, which is the most prestigious title. Two or three women have been on second-place teams.)

The world team championships have been around for 65 years, and each team consists of at least four and usually six players (you need four, because each "team" plays the North-South cards in one room, and the East-West cards of the same hand in another and six allows the team to substitute and avoid getting tired). So that's 300+ players, all men.

Of course it is also true that most experts think that at least half of the champions cheated (the famous Italian Blue team, which dominated bridge in the 50s, 60s and 70s was caught cheating a couple of times, and probably cheated when they weren't caught, too). The famous British team of Boris Shapiro and Terrence Reese was busted for cheating. So maybe women are more honest and honorable than men. (It's harder to cheat today, because the players use "bidding boxes" to signal bids, and screens prevent you from seeing your partner.)

In the lower levels at which I play, many of the men (not me, of course) are more "competitive" than the women, but it doesn't help them much. In fact, since bridge is a team game, cooperating with and encouraging one's partner generally leads to better results than being TOO competitive. Maybe women have better things to do than waste their time on games. What's your theory, Clopin (and since Morpheus is a professional Poker player, perhaps he can chime in, too.)?

I think I have a pretty good grasp on why women don't excell at Chess. First of all women have weaker spatial awareness compared to men and spatial awareness is basically all Chess is when you get down to it. By comparison women have stronger verbal reasoning and possess a mental skill set which advantages them in schools. It's my opinion that women grossly outperform men at school because they are simply better suited for it. I mean what's more likely, the idea that society is arbitrarily choosing to disadvantage boys and men in the classroom but then also turning around and holding girls and women back in certain STEM fields, Chess, and videogames, or that men and women really do just naturally excell in different areas (generally). The former inference showcases the sort of logic you have to accept when your position is to immediately assume that if women (or any other group) underperform in any area it must be due to discrimination or sociological factors. I'm pretty thoroughly convinced myself that men end up in prison more often than women because men are more aggressive and often tend to be stupider (yes, stupider, the vast majoroty of people who comprise the lowest and highest ends of the inteligence spectrum are men, this is an important point), and not because men are "pressured by society" to be more violent and aggressive. Testosterone is a real enough thing guys. It would be nice if everyone were equal but i don't see why it would be true.

Anyway women actually aren't much worse at Chess at the club level, and in fact I'm not even sure if their aggregate rating is lower. Basically where you see the real disparity between women and men in Chess is at the very top, where you need to be a very specific type of genius to excell. World chess champions routinely clock in at 190 IQ's and frankly there are just more male geniuses. I have no idea why, but there are more.

As to why fewer women play Chess? I have no idea, but it's quite a niche anyway right? I live in a town of ten thousand inhabitants with maybe another few thousand seasonal guests at any time and our chess club sees a turnout of between three and eight players per week! You need to be a little obsessive to play the game well and it's my own experience that men are much much more likely to develop obsessions around niche hobbies. Chess is also a competitive game and men are more competitive.

By the way I've taken a couple of tests (some quite reputable and some not so much) which have consistently indicated that my weakest intellectual attribute is the exact spatial awareness which is of such enormous importance in chess and apparently so lacking in women. Despite this when I was serious about the game eight years ago I went from a 900 elo rating (absolute beginner) to 1800+ (class A and very respectable, even amongst tournament players) in about eighteen months. I don't think there is anything hindering most women from doing something like this as well, except they have to play chess for maybe two hours everyday for well... eighteen months. The point is that I can never be Magnus Carlsen, in fact I might not even have it in me to reach GM level, even if I had started early (say five) and studied hard for my entire life. It might not be possible for me to ever attain the grandmaster chess title because I think I'm a little deficient in the area where you need to be strongest to play Chess really really well. For this reason i think we see fewer women at the peak of Chess.

[Clopin]

The bottom half own less than 1% of America's wealth, so mentioning that only twenty percents of households make six figures isn't saying much. The immense gap is between the wealthiest 10% (even wealthiest 1% of 1%) and everyone else. I'll give you three guesses as to what demographic predominantly makes up the latter groups.

At the absolute elite/billionaire level, fine, white men rule the world. But it's a bit absurd to suggest this helps me out any. It doesn't. These wealthy billionaires are not helping out other white guys like themselves anymore than they are helping out black or Native American women. And I believe you have a higher chance of winning the lottery than becoming a billionaire anyway, no matter how white and male you are.

Men are, on average, physically stronger than women, which would make them better at manual labor jobs. However, given the obesity problem in the US, a 400-lb man is far less fit for manual labor than a healthy, muscular woman.

O... kay? Why are you comparing four hundred pound men with healthy, muscular women?

First of all, I don't know why you think "rape culture" is a "meaningless phrase." It describes how culture normalizes and trivializes rape through a variety of means. You can argue that those things don't happen, thus the rape culture theory is wrong, but it's certainly not meaningless.

Culture doesn't normalize and trivialize rape. We do not live in a society which accepts or encourages rape. Morph I've seen people cite the fact that precautionary methods for women have been encouraged to help prevent rape as evidence of this so called "rape culture", with the idea being that society should teach potential male rapists "not to rape" before it teaches women not to accept random drinks from strangers or to walk down a dark alleyway alone at night. Do you believe this is indicative of normalized or trivialized rape yourself? When I was a child a not insignificant amount of classroom time was spent on "stranger danger", when we were taught not to accompany strangers to private locations, not to enter the cars of strangers, and basically not to allow ourselves into situations where we could potentially be victimized, murdered, raped, kidnapped, or otherwise abused. Isn't this indicative of "child predator culture"? A society where children are taught to protect themselves instead of potential predators simply "taught" to not a abuse or molest children? The notion is absurd right? Do I live in a thief culture because I've been taught to lock my valuables up when I go to the gym, let's say? I mean shouldn't people simply be taught "not to steal" my things? Why is the onus on me to defend myself and my property? Sure in a perfect world there would be no rapists, murderers, pedophiles, kidnappers, thieves or gangs but all of these things exist and educating people not to rape, murder and steal can't erase rapes, homicides or thefts, it just can't.

Secondly, nobody is suggesting that all judges, jurors, cops, etc. have conspired against women and for rapists, but this isn't how the effects of rape culture (or privilege) happen in general. You don't even need a majority of society to be racist, or sexist, or harbor rape culture beliefs, in order to see the deleterious effects on a statistical level. Take a meta-study like this http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/25/11/2010 that positively correlated acceptance of rape myths (things like, eg, the frequency of rape, the statistics on false-accusations, etc.) with hostility towards women, racism, heterosexism, classism, and ageism. By the time it gets to, say, a judge, a judge doesn't even have to be consciously or unconsciously sexist in a way that favors men overall, but such myths are held by him (or even her; women can believe the same myths) then they are far more likely to do things like victim blaming, of which there are many documented cases of. By that I mean cases of judges focusing on what the victim did wrong: what they wore, who they were with, how they acted, etc., usually things which are neither legal or moral justifications for rape, and that, if we weren't in a rape culture, a judge wouldn't feel compelled to point out when the woman did nothing wrong but enjoy the right to wear what she wants, be with who she wants, and act how she wants (within the bounds of the law, of course).

I would love to see a citation for say, ten (if this is endemic, ten should be laughably easy to find!) court cases where the rape victim's clothes have been cited by the judge as a mitigating factor in the rapists defense.

[QUOTE=MorpheusSandman;1301399]Finally, yes, rape is a difficult crime to prosecute in general anyway. If there is no physical evidence or witnesses (like there is in most forcible rape, but isn't in date rape or other forms of intoxication, or coercian where the rapist is a family member or friend) then it's entirely a he-said, she-said scenario, and I absolutely agree we can't just believe every claim and arrest, prosecute, and convict every accused man. We absolutely need the evidence. However, because of the effects of rape culture, amongst them being things like victim blaming and the non-education on what actually counts as rape (eg, having sex with an intoxicated woman is rape; she is not capable of consenting) and the social pressure put on women to not be open with their sexuality (most women report feeling "shame" after rape; where do you think that comes from?), we often end up in a situation where women don't even report it to present the opportunity for getting that evidence. When you combine the under-reporting with the difficulty of having evidence, prosecuting, convicting, the perpetuation of rape myths amongst authorities, and the statistics that show that false reports are in the minority, you're in a situation where the vast majority of rapists go free, and most never even spend a day in jail. That's a horrible reality, and there's no way it couldn't be helped by fixing various elements about how we, as a society, think about rape and treat potential victims. [QUOTE]

Well if bolded is all you need for a rape to have occurred then I am both a rapist and a rape victim! Okay if every time sex occurs and both parties are drunk this counts as rape then I guess we do live in a rape culture! This only applies to women? Why? If I get really drunk and have sex I've not been raped, yes? I had better turn myself in, lol, I'm a rapist by your definition.

It wasn't used as a citation for privilege, but a citation for how men regularly dismiss the anecdotal experiences of women expressing their discomfort in a male-dominated area. Whether you agree with her or not (and, frankly, I think she was a bit over-sensitive as it's hard to imagine a reality where no men will ever approach women in a vulnerable situation), you can't deny that that's precisely what happened.

Look I've dated a couple very beautiful girls and the amount of attention they can get at all times is astounding, and it can obviously be uncomfortable. However, on the flip side of the coin I am friends with several (three at my current count) young men, in their early to mid twenties, who have literally never had sex and not for any lack of desire or inclination to celibacy. I was reading some sort of analysis of T.S Eliot's The Wasteland and at the beginning of section III (Death by Water) the analyst remarks that the title is interesting in that death by water can occur in two ways: you can die by drowning as the Pheonician experiences in the third section or you can perish for lack of water, as can be seen in the landscape of the entire world in the second half of the first section. Basically I can understand female complaints about male attention being uncomfortable and unpleasant, they are literally drowning in it, but I think people need to understand that for a lot of men there is no water, there is no sexual attention, and this can be a very, very unpleasant thing to deal with in your life. It's easy to lack empathy but I will say that if I could reverse the male/female sexual dynamic (making women the pursuers and men the gatekeepers) I would hesitate for quite literally zero seconds before making the switch.

Secondly, the reason for the success of Asians probably has a lot to do with the completely different backgrounds, histories, and cultures of Asians compared to blacks. Besides the temporary internments of Asian Americans during WW2, America has generally had a peaceful relationship with the Asian community (they were never slaves, eg). After WW2 many Asian countries radically Westernized before immigrating (this was well-documented in post-WW2 Japanese cinema) so there was less of a culture shock. This history is quite different than the one where a little over a century ago whites were buying, selling, and owning blacks; or one where even half a century ago, blacks were segregated from the rest of the population and had to struggle and fight for equality.

I agree with your first sentence. Asians succeed because Asian values are conducive to success. I think blacks are overrepresented in crime statistics because they actually commit more crimes, and not because they are being picked out by racist cops. I noticed you decided to sidestep replying to my comment about Jews, however, so I'll repeat it. Why are Jews so successful as a minority group? Are Jews supposed to have a heavily privileged history or recent past? Was antisemitism not endemic as recently as, say, 1940?

Not all white society is. In particular, blacks thrive more in states and cities where there is a much higher degree of multi-racial integration (ie, not the south). However, most of those states and cities also have a higher cost of living (ie, not the south) and blacks make up a large percentage of the poorest. When you're poor and live in a part of the country where you are much more highly likely to face discrimination it makes it extremely difficult to overcome that initial disadvantage without having some extraordinary talent (intellectual, physical, etc.), luck, or something else. It's not so much that white society has to "tie itself into knots" to keep blacks underprivileged, it's more like we're engaged in a vicious cycle made worse by the fact that the majority of whites are completely ignorant about (as the saying goes, one of the effects of white privilege is not knowing about white privilege).

You've very crucially missed my point here. I'm not asking why a predominantly white society would want to underprivilege its black citizens, that would be perfectly logical. I'm asking why a predominantly white society wants to underprivilege its black citizens while simultaneously over privileging (if results are an indication of privilege as you probably believe) other minority groups like Jews and Asians over white people themselves.

What's in it for the wealthiest 10% to keep themselves the wealthiest 10% and make the poorest even poorer so they'll have an even greater share of the wealth? Hmmm, let me think about that brain teaser.

More wealth and power! Was that a trick question?

Beyond the actual money/power element, there's also the simple fact that racism is a byproduct of humans being a species of tribal primates. We unconsciously create "us" and "them" groups, and there's no more obvious way to group than by race. We need to recognize that this is an innate aspect of our cognition and not ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, etc., but rather address it, consciously acknowledge it, and then consciously override it. It's the old thought that you aren't responsible for what thoughts your brain conjures, but for how you act and reason based on them. We might can't reprogram humans, but we can teach them how to better deal with that programming. When you combine that natural proclivity with the well-documented history or racism you end up what we have today; a situation that's better, but where racism is still prevalent in both obvious (the shooting and race riots) and less-obvious ways.

And yet this racist society has elected a visibly black man to be their president. White people are shot by the police too you know, it's not always a race thing. You're white I believe? And American? How about you go charge a police officer and if he doesn't shoot you come back and tell me about it. This is where confirmation bias plays a strong role in how you're perceiving data. If every single time a black person is shot and killed by the police you assume it's a race issue I have a lot of problems with that rationale. Like I said, white people are shot by the police as well, but when they are it's not a race issue right? The police must have had motives other than race when they pulled the trigger on the white guy, but every time a black person is shot it absolutely must be racially motivated? I mean... what?

Secondly, good, now that we've compared brain penises can we agree that we're both adequately well-hung and dispense with the juvenile strategy of suggesting the other has a major mental handicap by comparison? While you're at it, stop with the Pavlovian somersaults every time I mention a term you understand vaguely enough to dislike but not well enough to actually understand.

No. Phrasing like "privilege", "rape culture" and "victim blaming" are pretty much the liberal equivalent of Glenn Beck and Donald Trump. That's what you look like to reasonable people when you spout this kind of drivel. You look like Glenn Beck and Donald Trump.

[mortalterror]

Tell you what; since these replies are getting so long and I'm also replying to Clopin as well, why don't you choose one of the two discussions to continue (film VS TOTS/Shakespeare) and we'll trim it to one. I'll let you decide.

Don't worry about it. It's just a friendly discussion and you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to or which make you uncomfortable. We can just drop it. I'm sorry if things got a little heated and tense. I wasn't trying to team up against you with Clopin, or make you feel bad about your personal beliefs. For my part, I've been enjoying our debate very much. It's so rarely I find people I can talk to about Shakespeare or silent films that it's actually quite the treat.

We're straying from Shakespeare, but I'm curious: why do you think women aren't as good at chess as men? I've read theories about "spatial intelligence" and perhaps competitiveness is a factor.

That is weird, but born out by my experiences when I used to play chess. The girls I played were always weaker than the boys. I was never more than average or novice level, generally rating in the mid to low 1200s out of 2700+ but I always beat the girls I played. Things did get very competitive in my high school chess club, since we played other teams, and two of the players went to state level or something. I quit when they threw our two girls out for being the weakest on the team. For me it was always a social thing for fun, and I guess I didn't have the discipline for it either at the time.

I played a cute girl in college, who had her own board and was asking people to play her. I figured if she had her own board, then she must be really good, and she was just hustling me. But then I crushed her and she was sad. And that was the end of that. Another time, I'd just seen that movie The Joy Luck Club and thought every little Asian girl was a chess prodigy who played world class violin. So when this ten year old offered to play me, I thought "Sure, why not. Let's see what you got." And then I tore this little girls world apart. "It's like you're reading my mind," she cried. Oops. Come to think of it, I beat my older sister too.

I wonder if there are more women playing Go or Shogi than chess? Whenever I watch an Asian movie the women are always playing Mahjong. The popular games like the popular sports vary by region and time. Chess is probably a lot bigger in Russia than the US for instance. I was just reading a book about medieval sports and games. It was really surprising that I'd played most of the childhood games like duck duck goose, ring around the rosy, blind man's bluff, leapfrog, tag, etc. But what was really cool were all the variants of chess and checkers they had like Rithmomachy a chess like arithmetic game which is supposed to be even harder to play. The book mentioned that Romans were fond of dice games, and the Norse were fond of board games; so when they met we got board games with dice like say Monopoly though that came out in 1935. Apparently, in contemporary game construction Germans lead the field and have a different philosophy than American board games. American board games tend to be more adversarial, whereas the Germans are more cooperative. The American games are frequently martial or violent, whereas the German games are constructive about farming (Agricola), trains (Ticket to Ride), or building castles (Carcassonne). Oh, and American games are generally more luck based.

This is becoming a bit of a tangent, and I apologize, but I wonder if games have their own periods the way that literature does? I mean I can see early Tarot card games developing into Poker, Blackjack, and morphing into card games like Magic the Gathering on the way to something else.

I've played lots of board, card, and video games, plus whatever the Dungeons and Dragons type games count as with women at social gatherings with my friends, so they don't seem to be excluded like they may be in chess. However, a female friend of mine likes farming and fishing games, whereas I'm more fond of first person shooters. That may be a gender preference. I don't know anything about Gamergate, but I have a male and a female friend who build their own board games for us to play from time to time. And another friend of mine who worked on the Batman series of videogames is always taking pictures of himself at videogame exhibitions with his female coworkers. Anyway, it looks like women are involved in making the games, even if perhaps they don't play them as much or don't play the same kind as men do.

[Clopin]

Hahahaha, German people playing German games! Looks a little like:

[MorpheusSandman]

Don't worry about it. It's just a friendly discussion and you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to or which make you uncomfortable. We can just drop it. I'm sorry if things got a little heated and tense. I wasn't trying to team up against you with Clopin, or make you feel bad about your personal beliefs. For my part, I've been enjoying our debate very much. It's so rarely I find people I can talk to about Shakespeare or silent films that it's actually quite the treat.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I do consider these friendly discussions (the only "uncomfortable heat and tension" is between Clopin and I; not you and I). I just suggested we trim it to one discussion because the posts are getting so long and I don't always have time everyday to respond to everything. In my early 20s I had boundless energy and could face down entire message boards while standing alone like a conquering Achilles bathed in the textual blood of my Trojan adversaries... these days I'm closer to the grumpy old man in Up! If you really want to continue both I may have to limit myself to typing one lengthy response every day. We'll see. Real life can get busy sometimes (hence my periodic absences from this board).

[MorpheusSandman]

Short on time today, but let me address this:

No. Phrasing like "privilege", "rape culture" and "victim blaming" are pretty much the liberal equivalent of Glenn Beck and Donald Trump. That's what you look like to reasonable people when you spout this kind of drivel. You look like Glenn Beck and Donald Trump.

Yes, they certainly CAN BE when they're parroted by people that are ignorant of the actual research that's gone on surrounding the terms. In fact, when I first started reading discussions centered around those terms I encountered plenty of liberals that couldn't make a coherent rational argument without huge gaping holes and an inability to fill them with factual data. As someone who stresses the importance of rationalism in forming beliefs, I try to only be swayed by evidence and not rhetoric. It wasn't until I found some who were actually educated on the studies behind the terms that I came to see them as having substantial evidence supporting them. My offer to introduce you to the forum where I learned about them is still open, as there are definitely people there more educated than myself on the topic, but I hope you can agree that when discussing the issue I don't seem as irrational as Beck and Trump.

[Clopin]

I don't agree at all. What we've determined from statistics does not support your conclusions and you still haven't given my satisfactory answers to the following simple questions.

1. If men are privileged how are they privileged? There doesn't seem to be much disagreement around a few stats in this thread so let's look at them:

Men earn about 5% more salary for equivalent work.
Men make up the vast majority of elite positions in fields like finance and politics.
Women are underrepresented in STEM subjects and a few outlying interests like chess and video games
Men are underrepresented in nursing, childcare, teaching, etc.
Women live about a decade longer than men.
Girls and women highly out score men and boys in school all the way up to university graduation.
Men make up the vast majority of suicides.
Men make up the vast majority of prison populations.
Men make up the vast majority of combat deaths.
Men make up the vast majority of people who are homeless.

So none of that is open for debate right? All of those statements are simply factual. What I struggle with is your interpretation of the data. It seems clear as day to me that the facts suggest men are not, generally, privileged at all, but in fact seem to be quite disadvantaged in many areas of life, especially when you get down to the really lower classes of people. I know the standard social justice warrior tactic here is to say something like "well all of this can be explained by "patriarchy" (more buzzwords for you to use later if you want) and "gender roles" which negatively impact men as well as women". Fine, whatever, we can discuss that later if you want, but for the here and now I'm trying to convince you that your average, run of the mill, guy is not particularly 'privileged' compared to your average female. The elite of course, are white (or Jewish) and largely male, but that's pretty irrelevant when we're talking about the daily lives of average men.

2. If white privilege exists then why are whites consistently outperformed, in school and out, by Asians and Jews in predominantly white countries? Shouldn't white privilege lead to a system where whites are academically and socially elevated above all other races? Or are whites so genetically inferior that we only do as well as we do because of this privilege in the first place?

3. Well when you respond about rape culture we might have something here.