Privilege

[Hammer]

The richer man only has to stay aggressive if he chooses to gamble.

The third option is refusing to gamble on wealth, refusing to join the table/game.

But the poor man has the option not to gamble as well. Here is the thing about wealth: wealth in simply cash will depreciate in value over time, becoming gradually more exhausted at an increasing rate. So by not "playing the game," the rich man is gradually losing his privilege. He would at the very least need to invest in some inflation protection funds, and/or a source of income that exceeds his living costs.

It's all based on privileges; and everybody seems to demand and reassert privilege. Even those who fight hardest against "inequality" would sell-out if given the opportunity to enjoy some limited amounts of privilege. What liberalism fails to attack, as its goal, the primary source of inequality ~ and that is privilege itself. Liberals ultimately don't want to destroy inequality and privilege.

Because then nobody would work for anything. There literally would be nothing to "work" towards. This is reflected by the capitalist and communist economic manifestos of Century XX. These economic ideologies were constructed to reinforce different types of class privilege.

I wholeheartedly agree. Actually it reminds me of an interview I read of some black metal artist:

"...equality is the worst thing in the world. Equality is stagnation. It doesn't let anything grow. It holds back."

You seem fixed on money as privilege. You should consider the other types, too. Consider a beautiful woman, and her privileges in life… she doesn't even need to gamble! Instead the poor and wealthy gamblers at the table, are gambling… to impress her! She has the most privilege of the group, as a beautiful woman. She has more privilege than the rich man even.

Actually, I do want to move on to female privilege, as that was my point to begin with, was that, in my opinion, wealth is a bigger privilege than gender or beauty. I agree with your argument that people WANT privilege in society.

First off, you state that privilege is by definition rarer, but here in the United States, women are over half of the population. Being female, though it certainly has benefits, would be an "edge" that the majority of the population has!

They do compete for men, through other methods than physical dominance. You listed some of the more backhanded ways, and yes beauty itself is their competition.

Many women spend a lot of time and money on beauty products, with the hopes of "winning" the man. The portrait you've seem to have painted has a dozen men, each on a knee, each with a dozen roses, to appease a female. But there is no scarcity of women, and in many situations that scenario is reversed. I've personally had several women competing with each other for my attention often enough, and I bet that many guys here have had this experience as well.

Women do need to compete for men, their fertility is quickly diminished with age, especially compared to men. A female is considered sexually attractive if she looks young, because she looks fertile. Yet a man is said to look distinguished when his age shows. He is still as much, if not more, of a desirable partner for a later period in his life.

For women though, youth is beauty. This privilege is fleeting. Most will need jobs, even many of the gold diggers will likely find themselves replaced with younger, (aka more beautiful) women. Consider how many more homes need two incomes to support their family today as well as feminist ideology diminishing this privilege for women today for equality.

Which brings this full circle back to wealth, a wealthy woman will look young/beautiful for a longer time, sometimes much longer. It's a rough comparison, but lower class women in developed countries, of course, also look young/beautiful for a good deal longer than those in poor conflicted countries.


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2002/04/afghan-girl/index-text

[Vadim Verenich]

"...equality is the worst thing in the world. Equality is stagnation. It doesn't let anything grow. It holds you back, bro."

(с) Gaayl of Gaygoroth aka Black Overlord

http://image-upload.de/image/8KvV6a/bac1520624.jpg

[Unome]

Some great points Hammer, I'll think about that.

(с) Gaayl of Gaygoroth aka Black Overlord

http://image-upload.de/image/8KvV6a/bac1520624.jpg

Quit trolling, Vadim…

There are many other low-brow threads for your level of intellect to infest, go find one elsewhere.

---------- Post added 2012-07-10 at 06:45 ----------

Hammer,

That's correct about Privilege and females. I did say that Privilege by definition is rarer. But in the context of women, you should put the value/privilege of one man against one woman. Which has more value in society? And it appears that the woman does… the man is the one who is supposed to fight (in war), and die, for her, protecting her, and protecting any offspring they may have together. So this demonstrates the inherent value and privilege of the woman over the man. She has more worth in this sense.

So the value of the woman, in this case, is more than one man.

Now the feminists and liberals will claim that "all are born equal". But this is false. Does the woman fight and die in war, for the man? Is the woman the 'protector' of the family? No, she is not a warrior. And this goes against the nature of women. Men are the "competitors".

So assuming the value of men is lower than women… you would need to put two men against the value of one woman… or several or a dozen men, against the value of a woman. Is a woman worth the cost of 10 soldiers dying in war? What does history demonstrate? History shows us: yes, the value of one woman may "equal" 10 soldiers dying in war, for her, to protect her.

If you can ever show me just one case in history of women going to full-scale, industrial war, to protect men, then you will have a point about gender-equality. The closest examples I can think of are Russian/Slavic women fighting on the Eastern Front of WWII… or the other stereotypical case are the "Amazon" women tribes, who had female warriors. But these are still rare cases. And with the Russians… they have a Matriarchal society/culture; and they were defending themselves and not aggressive. You would need to find examples of female leaders starting wars, of aggression, and fighting in them.

It simply does not reflect history… meaning, it is not true. One woman, in most societies, have more inherent value/privilege than men. You mention Courtship. That is different. Because even if a dozen men court one (beautiful) woman, or a dozen woman court one (powerful) man, then it doesn't change the general context of inherent value/privilege based-upon gender. Rather the disparity becomes reinforced.

That disparity is this:

Women do not need to compete for sex in the same way men do.

Men are more violent, physical, and aggressive. Men are more willing to fight, and die, for sex. That maybe one of the fundamental reasons why wars exist in the first place. Wars are fought over access to exterior populations of women. If a society cannot protect its women & children then what will happen to this society? It will fall to the first foreign society that decides to invade it. This is why militaries (of men) are necessary.

[Kwestos]

Privilleges will always be there, the question is who do they serve. Usually the strongest ones at the moment, sometmies the best, sometimes the worst. at the same time, achieving something by a privillege is not that much achievement as doing it with no backgound, however its profits are lesser than it seems.