[Closed] Gender privilege

Well, I suppose it depends on how much weight you put on societal expectations.

The tools to make change exist, but behaviour change takes a lot longer. Women have legal equality now, but the judiciary, the Police, society (juries) and the system is still weighted against them. Likewise in employment and even down to leisure activities.

If you believe they really do have equality across the board and just aren't that bothered about changing things, then the views of the women who have spoken up about their injustices aren't going to change your views.

In the meantime, I'm quite happy to listen to the feminist arguments and support them as I can, because it seems to me that there are significant discrepancies in the way women and men are treated, and there is very little difference between what men and women are capable of (disregarding the obvious).

In the meantime, I'm quite happy to listen to the feminist arguments and support them as I can, because it seems to me that there are significant discrepancies in the way women and men are treated, and there is very little difference between what men and women are capable of (disregarding the obvious).

why haven't half the population organised themselves politically into something they could have voted for to get into power?

http://www.womensequality.org.uk/

The Women’s Equality Party contested seven seats in the general election:

In Shipley Sophie Walker won 1.9% of vote share

In Tunbridge Wells Celine Thomas won 1.3% of vote share

In Vauxhall Harini Iyengar won 1% of vote share

In Hornsey & Wood Green Nimco Ali won 0.9% of vote share

In Stirling Kirstein Rummery 0.7% of vote share

In Manchester Withington Sally Carr won 0.4% of vote share

In Vale of Glamorgan Sharon Lovell won 0.3% of vote share

So who amoungst you have joined/will join and vote for them?

So who amougst you have joined/will join and vote for them?

There's a few out there trying to make the situation better:

http://www.5050parliament.co.uk/

is another one. A quick Google suggests there are others. I start to get a bit lost when it comes to the Transactivists involvement (see Green Party equality for loads on this) though. Must try and understand the opposing arguments on that...

the acceleration in the change of retirement date meant the increase to 67 was 3 years notice for some women that their retirement date would be 67

The Pensions Act 2014 brought the increase in the State Pension age from 66 to 67 forward by eight years. The State Pension age for men and women will now increase to 67 between 2026 and 2028.

So how does that equate to 3 years notice?

Did you know that according to data from the ONS, the difference in total earnings between all men and all women only emerges in workers over the age of 40.

Before this, all men and all women in full time employment earn the same; i.e there is no evidence of discrimination at all in what companies pay men and women. (There is some variance but it is well within the margin of error and not always in men's favour. Also note that this is all workers, not just like for like roles).

Link for this data is: [url= https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/adhocs/006411annualsurveyofhoursandearningsasheestimatesofthegenderpaygapformediangrosshourlyearningsexcludingovertimebyageukapril2015to2016/gpgbyage20002016.xls ]here[/url]

So something happens around the age of 40 that changes this it could be related to having children and the pressures associated with balancing careers and childcare. It's interesting to see that the gap became quite prevalent in the age range of 30-39 as recently as eight years ago but this has shifted over time to the 40+ category. This might be related to the increase in average age that a woman has her first child, but actually, although women are having children later, the shift is only about four years, so this is unlikelty to be the reason.

The data shows that the reason men's earnings pull so far ahead (it's about 12-15% difference in the age range of 40-49 and widens more beyond that) is because they end up in higher paying roles. But why is this; why do men's careers carry on the same trajectory but women's don’t?

The most common response to that is 'discrimination' which has been received wisdom for some time now and I have no doubt that this plays at least a part in the issue. But it is odd that there is no evidence of discrimination below the age of 40; why is that? Why would a company suddenly start acting in a discriminatory way with 100% of its female employees over the age of 40 but not below that? That would be very odd behaviour indeed.

Similarly, the idea that the difference is the result of a coerced decision by women to leave because working full time doesn't make sense when offset against childcare is also strange. It is commonly argued that women are the ones to step back because they earn less; discrimination in pay means men earn more and therefore they are the ones to remain in full time employment. But the ONS data disproves this, there is no difference in pay at about the time when couples decide to have children; it shows there is no pay gap below 40. So what is going on?

Vickypea suggested in another thread that it was a hangover from past years of discrimination and the shift in the gap appearing from 30-39 to 40-49 does seem to bear this out. It will be interesting to see if the gap moves another decade of so in the future.

Otherwise, the other most likely explanation is life choice. One thing we kow is that women tend to select someone of equal or higher social standing (usually equated to earning potential). If you have two people earning a good salary, the option to deselect yourself out of a challenging/demanding job in order to achieve better work like balance is both available and quite tempting. It has been suggested that doing so is the smarter decision!

So women who have children have less potential to earn, and then have little chance of making that up in income/pensions so will by default be behind from that point. They are then lead to

select someone of equal or higher social standing

In many ways it depends how you think society should function. Sounds like a bad deal to me.

A new mother wants to give up work to care for her child full time. Her partner, the new father, wants her to return to work part time so he himself can cut back to part time in order to provide care on a 50/50 basis.

I wonder which side equality sits on.

I wonder which side equality sits on.

society as it stands does not reward or compensate women for having children

Nor should it. The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

It does seem a bit odd that in a democracy 51pc of the population are being discriminated against by 49pc.

To make societal change quickly (in a reasonable timescale) one needs to be elected and the major parties have that controlled with a system that prefers the 49% over the 51%.

Starting from a new body to effect change will take a very long time as the established organisations will close ranks to keep out the interloper seeking to remove their advantage/privilege.

Nor should it. The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

If you have two people earning a good salary, the option to deselect yourself out of a challenging/demanding job in order to achieve better work like balance is both available and quite tempting.

In my peer group without exception this is what's happened. Women have Children and immediately reduce work, switching to part time work or a hobby-job.

It's well accepted that's what happens in the financial industry - I wasn't allowed to take Mrs OOB's earnings into account for a mortgage application when she was on Maternity leave and when I questioned the female about the sense of that policy she said "Women often prefer not to return to work after maternity leave.".

Perfectly reasonable - I'd expect most blokes would do that if their wives let them - but let's not pretend it doesn't happen.

Nor should it. The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

but you do need some kids born

Since too many kids are being born without financical incentive, incentivising it would be a mistake.

Someone needs to prop up the whole ponzi scheme of house prices and pensions.

Funny, because it's true.

The rate of domestic violence and the numbers who stay in dangerous situations could be related to the fact that society as it stands does not reward or compensate women for having children and instead locks them into a relationship they may find hard to leave

I think that's very true though I think there are also other reasons that people remain in abussive relationships and they are probably the same reasons why men also remain in abussive relationships where these happen (and let's not argue that they don't because I just won't agree with you).

For those with children and no partner it must be a lot worse.

Well it is indeed a lot worse and the data shows the impact of that unequivocally; children in familes where one parent, usually the father, is not [in some instance but not all, allowed to be] involved do far worse in life than those where both parents are actively engaged.

We should really do something about that. We could start by examining just how much society really values fathers and take steps to redress that inequality. But that is just one thing that needs fixing, there are others.

In many ways it depends how you think society should function. Sounds like a bad deal to me.

Again I agree.

Nor should it. The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

So who is going to pay your pension and contribute to the tax take if we don't have children? If I raise a productive and contributing member of society to full adulthood, can I send you the bill when it comes to retirement?

Nor should it. The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

So who is going to pay your pension and contribute to the tax take if we don't have children?

When any ponzi scheme ends the last guys in get kicked in the goolies. That doesn't mean ponzi schemes should be encouraged.

...but my post wasn't advocating reducing the birthrate. Merely not accelerating it.

Women often prefer not to return to work after maternity leave.".

Perfectly reasonable - I'd expect most blokes would do that if their wives let them - but lets not pretend it doesn't happen.

This.

All my 'couply' friends are in good jobs and in a few of them the woman earns more than the man....hasn't stopped any of them (without exception) from grinning smugly once pregnant and declaring that they won't be going back to work...much to the horror of the male partner as that sinks in, going from being comfortable as a couple on two good salaries to having three of you and only one bread winner.

Notice the woman can make this choice unilaterally without needing consent from her male partner, a couple of my mates have planned to have children with their wives at pre agreed later dates, only for the woman to decide it's now time and to take herself off the pill without telling her partner....yey for equality!

Yeah, 'cos that's what literally all women are like - sneakily having babies so they can sit around all day while their partner goes off to work.

All my 'couply' friends are in good jobs and in a few of them the woman earns more than the man....hasn't stopped any of them (without exception) from grinning smugly once pregnant and declaring that they won't be going back to work.

Which is why I had to break into a sympathetic smile at poor, naive Fin25's post:

She's due to have our first child in 4 months, then she'll have a year off before I quit or massively reduce my less well paid, less important jobs and take over the child rearing while she goes back to her career.

geetee1972 - Member
...So who is going to pay your pension...?

pension?

pretty much irrelevant to anyone young enough to be thinking about kids - already facing a retirement age of 70, and that's only going upwards.

we're working now to pay our parents/grandparents pensions. Who'll pay for our pensions? easy: we're not getting one.

you know when you can't find the right caveman cartoon, yep that is where we are.

we're working now to pay our parents/grandparents pensions. Who'll pay for our pensions? easy: we're not getting one.

It'd still be nice to have young people about to do stuff, though.

You know I was going to pose something vaguely on topic but instead I'd like to apologise for my part in breathing life back into it. Whilst there are some valid points being raised frankly the amount of misogyny is frankly depressing.

Notice the woman can make this choice unilaterally without needing consent from her male partner, a couple of my mates have planned to have children with their wives at pre agreed later dates, only for the woman to decide it's now time and to take herself off the pill without telling her partner....yey for equality!

*troll mode on* This is why men need legal abortion with a time limit, where they can practice their right to choice by financially absolving themselves of childcare in a legal sense *troll mode off* 😈

Also, shouldn't having sex under a false pretense be classed as rape?

The world and the UK are not overpopulated, just over consuming. Reduce the consumption and far more life can be supported (not just humans).

Interestingly, the more equality there is, the lower the birth rates. Women get choice in their reproductive and bodily rights and populations tend to stabilise. Of course, this seems irrelevant when we're talking about couples in middle class professions making handsome salaries in financial services before popping out a sprog and resting on their husbands laurels. I don't doubt this happens, but to pretend it's a trend across the entire population makes no sense and goes against the evidence from many other sources outside of your friends and professional contacts.

The UK (or the world) is bigger than the people you regularly come in to contact with and can't be equated with your own personal life experience. Certainly some of the testimonies I have read and heard I haven't experienced, it does not make them false though, and the sheer number suggests these problems aren't going anywhere fast.

The world and the UK are not overpopulated, just over consuming. Reduce the consumption and far more life can be supported (not just humans).

Considering how idiotic people are, I'd say it'd be better to just sterilize 6 billion of them.

Too many morons on a daily basis as it is...

... and then legalize.... or stop taxing.... drugs, tobacco, booze, driving without a seatbelt, privateering, 18th century style mercenary/private armies, gladiator combat, slavery of thickies so we can launch them into the kuiper belt to mine asteroids... to reduce the tax burden a bit 😈

One of our friends had herself sterilised before she got married without telling her intended.
If someone says this story is bullshit fair enough as I too , find it unbelievable.
Mrs Zip did tell me so I have reason to believe it's true.

Tom_W1987 - Member
Considering how idiotic people are, I'd say it'd be better to just sterilize 6 billion of them...

I have sharpened my secateurs.

What date and time would be convenient for you? 🙂

I have sharpened my secateurs.
What date and time would be convenient for you?

Assuming you have a time machine, I'll meet you in 2012. I'll bring my own TCP and cotton wool.

I have sharpened my secateurs.

My GP is famous in the GP community for having done his own vasectomy:

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1495944.stm ]Doctor performs his own vasectomy[/url]

😯

All my 'couply' friends are in good jobs and in a few of them the woman earns more than the man....hasn't stopped any of them (without exception) from grinning smugly once pregnant and declaring that they won't be going back to work...much to the horror of the male partner as that sinks in, going from being comfortable as a couple on two good salaries to having three of you and only one bread winner.

Another one living in a narrow social circle. I earn more than my husband and am working full time because I can't afford not to. Yes, I've had kids.

Les hommes et les femmes sont égaux. C'est pourquoi 340 profs vont désormais enseigner que les hommes et les femmes sont belles (info TF1).

All my 'couply' friends are in good jobs and in a few of them the woman earns more than the man....hasn't stopped any of them (without exception) from grinning smugly once pregnant and declaring that they won't be going back to work...much to the horror of the male partner as that sinks in, going from being comfortable as a couple on two good salaries to having three of you and only one bread winner.

Just as a counter to that a couple at my work have just had a child, she's been out on maternity for 5 months and is now back. He's now taking the next 4 months of her maternity off. Not sure what they'll do after that but I doubt she's going to be quitting...

I'm old enough to remember when a breadwinner's wage was just that.

Enough to support a spouse and several children.

When it came to wage equality, the baby got chucked out with the bathwater.

I'm old enough to remember when a breadwinner's wage was just that.

Enough to support a spouse and several children.

average wage = £27,195

average house price = £151,672

that is not achievable on one wage never mind the other mouths to feed

Yes it can be done but realistically it cannot for the majority

average wage = £27,195

average house price = £151,672

that is not achievable on one wage never mind the other mouths to feed

Yes it can be done but realistically it cannot for the majority

This.
This is the reason I voted Labour this year. It's a complete disenfranchisement of an entire generation that will never be able to accumulate any kind of wealth and will remain in a perpetual tied half light.
This is a return to feudalism and really, it's very wrong.

that is not achievable on one wage never mind the other mouths to feed

I am astonished disappointed and appalled with the misogynistic attitudes and downright chauvinism on this thread.

I didn't know such attitudes were still so prevalent. Some of you really should be ashamed of yourselves.

for what its worth I know personally no one with these attitudes. Every woman I know works full time and every couple is a true partnership of equals

Well I'll tell that to my brother who seems to manage.

Every woman I know works full time and every couple is a true partnership of equals

No one on average wage can buy an average house. There is no real debate to be had,you can either count/do maths or you can troll.... the decision is yours.

Been reading this thread with interest, as a 54 year old bloke with 4 grown up kids and only having one income (me) I know how financially tough that has been.

Fiscal accountability has always sat with me, we have always shared chores and kids stuff fairly equally. This has never been a shared responsibility relationship.

The point I would like to make is that for a lot of men in my position have neither equality or a quality of life and virtually zero options for example no career break, going back to university, no wandering around the world etc. We are literally shackled to a job for 50+ years and many of us carry an unreasonable burden.

The only thing that annoys me is that my other half has unlimited time and opportunity for education work business whatever? Yet does nothing with that time and opportunity. I once said that I would like a summer off (4 months straight) to just ride a bike, walk, explore whatever? Fact is it won't happen until I have banged in my 50+ years of work.

bencooper - Member

It'd still be nice to have young people about to do stuff, though.

Maybe*

It just strikes me as just a little selfish to suggest we should have kids so they can work to pay our pensions....

(*welcome young human, to this amazing experience called 'life'. Now if you'll sit down at this desk for the next 70 years you can drag our civilisation one more bored, exhausted, pointless generation towards oblivion. Don't you worry about happiness or enriching satisfaction, just watch the adverts, they'll tell you what to do)

My wife was happy for me to quit my job and take last summer off.

Just saying.

Been reading this thread with interest, as a 54 year old bloke with 4 grown up kids and only having one income (me) I know how financially tough that has been.

It's because of examples such as your that the idea of 'white male priviledge' makes me very angry.

I understand the point you're making and I understand that this does not make your a chuavanist or misogynist.

£140k mortgage (to buy above average house) at 2.5% rate, over a 35 year term is £500/month.

The average salary gives you a take home of £1814, leaving you £1300 to feed/cloth yourself and your other half.

If you have kids, costs are higher but the benefits would cover a good chunk of them. Would you be wealthy? No, but is it manageable? Yes.

This is the reason I voted Labour this year.

Corbyn & McDonnell would/will fold the economy and willfully destroy the lives of anyone with a mortgage in order to 'fix' the disparity. So what happens when they create too many skint and homeless 'victims' for the country's credit card to bail out, and not enough evil rich folk left to squeeze?

Viva la revolution comrades.

you missed the kids out there but 35 year mortgages is a new one on me

Can you really get a mortgage on greater than x 5 of one salary?
genuine question BTW and what sort of deposit do you require?

You also have to remember that 50% of the population do not earn [ and 50% of properties cost more than this as well] this so we have a more serious problems for them? Probably doable up north I doubt you can buy a house for that in the South. A possibility for some but not for the majority and it is only getting worse as house prices outstrip wage increases.

Minimum Income Standard for the UK suggest 2 adults and 2 children (one pre school and one in school) costs £800 a week which would take the 2 adults making £20k a year each, so £40k in total. This is to provide a decent standard of living.

Weekly outgoings 800.17
Food 102.91
Alcohol 9.25
Clothing 46.60
Water rates 10.04
Council Tax 24.51
Household Insurances 2.14
Gas, electricity, etc 18.25
Other housing costs 1.92
Household goods 25.92
Household services 12.73
Childcare 234.56
Personal goods and services 39.80
Travel costs and motoring 85.05
Social and cultural activities 95.44
Rent 91.05

Assuming one adult works and brings in average salary, then you can take away childcare, half the travel costs and cut back on the social and cultural activities and you could support a family on one average wage. Many people do, either through choice or through forced circumstances, so I don't know why people would dispute that. Maybe they live in a different world.

It's because of examples such as your that the idea of 'white male priviledge' makes me very angry.

I understand the point you're making and I understand that this does not make your a chuavanist or misogynist.

you have not even tried to address my points and here is my orignal point

Yes it can be done but realistically it cannot for the majority

DO you wish to maintain that its possible for one bread winner on average wage to do this in the south?
What % can do this?
etc
£91.05 rent [£392 per month rent]for a family seems a tad unrealistic here in the north never mind anywhere else- DwP prices - which are well known to be an underestimate of the true cost is £110 where i am

I have never said its impossible i have questioned how realistic it is for the majority. My answer remains not very

DO you wish to maintain that its possible for one bread winner on average wage to do this in the south?

I have never said its impossible i have questioned how realistic it is for the majority. My answer remains not very

For statistical purposes, Southern England is divided into four regions: South West England, South East England, London, and the East of England. Combined, these have a total area of 62,042 square kilometres (23,955 sq mi), and [b]a population of 28 million[/b].

Mikewsmith there was nothing lucky or privileged about my position, lots of hard work, huge personal sacrifice and hours that I would never dare add up got me through.

I hope you are being sarcastic? And as for choices they tend to get overridden by reality.

Mikewsmith there was nothing lucky or privileged about my position, lots of hard work, huge personal sacrifice and hours that I would never dare add up got me through.

I hope you are being sarcastic?

Did you even read his post? You are off your rocker.

Yes I did, it has nothing to do with equality that he has chosen to work and his wife has not. Privilege is that as a white male in the UK it has been easier to progress a career where you choose, more jobs are open without a lot of hard work and barrier pushing.
Being able to bring up 4 kids on one income does seem like a kind of utopian dream these days though, factor in current house prices and wage stagnation and that will be a lot harder.

The point I would like to make is that for a lot of men in my position have neither equality or a quality of life and virtually zero options for example no career break, going back to university, no wandering around the world etc. We are literally shackled to a job for 50+ years and many of us carry an unreasonable burden.

The only thing that annoys me is that my other half has unlimited time and opportunity for education work business whatever? Yet does nothing with that time and opportunity. I once said that I would like a summer off (4 months straight) to just ride a bike, walk, explore whatever? Fact is it won't happen until I have banged in my 50+ years of work.

Privileged- my background think Billy Elliott without the dancing - left school in 1979 with one O level, took me 11 years of part time education to get to an Engineering degree (mostly funded by me) outside my day job.

First house cost £35k and I was on £7k a year, borrowed £24k and saved £12k by working 60 hour weeks.

Doing it today? Well my youngest son age 24 has just bought his first house at £180k and he and his other half saved £24k in 3 years to achieve this. Like many things in life it just depends how bad to want it.

I do accept your point on equality, choices were made.

I was never privileged or lucky, although i do know lots of people who are both.

oldmanmtb - Member
Privileged- my background think Billy Elliott without the dancing - left school in 1979 with one O level, took me 11 years of part time education to get to an Engineering degree (mostly funded by me) outside my day job.

I would probably rise at 9 have coffee watch Tv have lunch take the dog for a walk and knock up a quick sandwich for my husband who had just put in a 16 hour day...

Sorry you have to read a much earlier comment to get the above.

And how would the outcome have been if you were born a women?

I understand the point you're making and I understand that this does not make your a chuavanis (sic) or misogynist.

I still don't get the 'point'? Is the point that some men choose partners that don't work (or wish to work) outside of domestic duties and child-care?

Isn't that simply an agreement between a couple? A 'traditionalist' agreement, but still an agreement? If you feel 'aggrieved' by traditionalist roles then why choose a traditionalist arrangement?

23 years ago when I bought my flat it was twice my earnings. Now the flat is worth 6 times my earnings

would probably rise at 9 have coffee watch Tv have lunch take the dog for a walk and knock up a quick sandwich for my husband who had just put in a 16 hour day...

This (assuming not purely facetious) comment suggests one or more of the following to be true:

1. Women are 'naturally' idle compared to men?
2. Some women have been 'allowed' to be idle and so expect their partner to do the heavy workload while they do nothing other than make the odd sandwich?
3. Some men choose to pamper idle women and then assume that 'all women are idle and pampered'?

^ I've heard similar from women, also spookily coinciding with their choice of husband/partner. Simply swap the words 'women' and 'men' around in those three scenarios.

I wonder how gay/lesbian relationships get around this? Probably quite a simple task to assign traditionalist gender-roles/stereotypes/grievances to one another?

And how would the outcome have been if you were born a women?

or black, or disabled, or openly gay etc, etc,.

If you don't have to think about or deal with challenges for those without the privilege then you are privileged.
That doesn't mean you will sail through life successfully without having to try, it just means you have a headstart without doing anything at all other than being who you are.

Mikewsmith there was nothing lucky or privileged about my position, lots of hard work, huge personal sacrifice and hours that I would never dare add up got me through.

Oldman, the facts are irrelevant here. You have the wrong opinion! 😉 accept it, you were lucky and privileged!! Others have told you so.

If you don't have to think about or deal with challenges for those without the privilege then you are privileged.
That doesn't mean you will sail through life successfully without having to try

Gender and Wealth privilege are so deeply embedded that many people cant see either.

Obviously I have not appreciated or understood how lucky I was as a piss poor white working class kid with a piss poor education.

I must go and thank someone for my family, home, business, education, pension fund etc, could some of the righteous folks on here tell me who to send that letter to?

Note . The house I bought for £35k (and renovated completley) was recently sold for £190k so there has been a shift in property/income however I didn't have the equivalent of an £11k tax free allowance and my first interest rate was 10% and became 12% so it's not apples for apples.

If you don't have to think about or deal with challenges for those without the privilege then you are privileged.
That doesn't mean you will sail through life successfully without having to try

+2

Gender and Wealth privilege are so deeply embedded that many people cant see either.

+1

The difficulty seems to be that "privilege" is quite a loaded word, it implies that you have obtained something without earning it. Simply by being who you are. This applies across the board, I am experiencing privilege by having being born in a Western country with a pretty good set of safety nets if I end up in trouble (financial, health etc.), I haven't earned this, it's just the luck of the draw.

Apply that concept to someone who has worked hard throughout their life, has made choices they may have regretted, been put through situations that are unpleasant etc. and it's going to get their back up. Doesn't make it less true though.

Obviously I have not appreciated or understood how lucky I was as a piss poor white working class kid with a piss poor education.

I must go and thank someone for my family, home, business, education, pension fund etc, could some of the righteous folks on here tell me who to send that letter to?

It's not a personal attack, pretty much everyone here has experienced benefits of one form or another by virtue of who they are and where/when they were born.

There has never been a level playing field in society.

My brother is 55 and does a full week of manual labour.
His wife is 54 does 2 days a week and will stop that next year.
This doesn't sound odd.
Reverse the scenarios and my brother would be deemed a scrounging parasite.
Even I would think it and I'm the one moaning about it.
We've all been indoctrinated.

I think things have got a little confused in this discussion. Just being a white male doesn't necessarily make you more privileged than a white female. Wealth has a lot of influence on the outcome. I happen to be a white female and because of family wealth and a good foot on the ladder plus lots of hard work I feel extremely privileged and have no grudges to bare. We need to stop bringing up individual examples of either a privileged women or unprivileged man in this argument to argue a point which is not about an individual person but an overall group.

Things are going in the right direction and equality hopefully will get there at some point benefiting both men and women along the way.

Hopefully the changing of traditional roles means there will be less unhappy men feeling they are carrying the burden of work but this requires more work on equality in the business world and around maternity and child care costs.

Zippy hits nail on head.

Has that video of the race where people are asked to step forward been posted yet?

Obviously I have not appreciated or understood how lucky I was as a piss poor white working class kid with a piss poor education.

The singularly most disadvantaged group in terms of education right now are white working class boys. This is something that many people on this thread seem to ignore or just don't know about. You weren't privileged at all and your position today is as much to do with luck and hard work as anyone else.

But here is the real issue with the small group of people intent on levelling the 'white male privilege' accusation at people.

A disproportionate amount of crime, in particular violent crime, is perpetrated by young black men. And 100% of radical Islamist atrocities are committed by people masquerading in the name of Islam.

Are those same people so quick to use the 'white male privilege' label, as keen to stereotype young black men as violent criminals or all Muslims as terrorists?

No of course they don’t and they don’t because to make broad, punitive judgements about a person based on their outward characteristic, regardless of what the big picture data may tell you, is the very definition of bias, prejudice and discrimination.

Why then is it ok to assume that if you’re white and male, you must therefore be privileged? It may well be true; it may well be that a person has experienced an advantage or a fortunate path through life. No one is saying it doesn’t happen, just like no one is denying there isn’t a problem with disenfranchised young black men and Muslims.

But to assume it is the case and then point a finger at someone at throw that vile comment at them, well that makes you a bigot, plain and simple and if you think it’s going to fix the problem, take a look at just how well that’s worked in the US.