General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Man-bashing." My favorite DU pule.
Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:32 AM - Edit history (1)
The staggering, flatly embarrassing ignorance of unconscious privilege.
The old saying - "He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple" - never had more purchase than it does in this absurd push-back over the appalling concept of male privilege.
How dare anyone claim men have it better? How dare anyone claim that even well-meaning non-abusing good-hearted liberal progressive men enjoy an elevated status in society thanks entirely to their gender, and to the 2,000 years of history that have established the advantage so thoroughly as to make it - somehow - invisible to anyone other than some angry women who apparently just have a hate-on for the boys.
Hm.
But but but I'm a feminist, too!
No. No, you're not. You never have been, and you never will be. You can be an ally if you try, but a man claiming to be a feminist is the equivalent of a hammer claiming to be a nail. You might be made of the same materials, but the differences in experience are a gulf too vast to traverse.
Fact.
Psst...
It's me. I've been wrapped in the warm embrace of the privilege since my arrival on the planet.
It's you, too, brother.
Maybe stop harshing on those who point it out. Maybe recognizing the glaring existence of the privilege in your own life is the outside edge of the beginnings of wisdom.
Y'know...just maybe.
ON EDIT: Please see post 201 for elaboration on men being feminists.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftstreet
(36,117 posts)The essence of these discussions is the lack of equality
Power vs Powerless
Abuser vs Victim
Class
Tom Rinaldo
(22,917 posts)Yes to every point you made. Just because there are some women who in some ways are more priviledged then some men doesn't change the basic facts. Just because some men abhor the existance of male priveledge doesn't make it non-existent - it still exists and it exists for us too. Well said Will.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)Some men abhor having to ACKNOWLEDGE that they benefit from male privilege. I *think* that's what you meant, but not to put words in your mouth or anything 
Tom Rinaldo
(22,917 posts)So thanks for the addition. I actually meant that although some men would rather live in a more egalitarian world, and are even willing to work toward eliminating male privilege, it continues to exist even for them with or without their blessings.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)And thank you for your acknowledgment, without conditions. It's appreciated.
duhneece
(4,118 posts)Even tho' I abhor white privilege, fight to eliminate it & reduce its effects, at the end of the day, I acknowledge that I, as a white woman, benefit from it.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,917 posts)...Though I wish they did not exist. White straight male American, the major one I wasn't born into is Class - I come from a Working Class background. But I still started life with significant advantages regardless of my attitude toward them.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And I think it largely is.
... but that's not the point of this OP.
duhneece
(4,118 posts)All men benefit from male privilege just as all white folks benefit from white privilege. I was just making a simple comparison for those men who took it personal about male privilege.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Blacks;
- have less access to education
- are more often singled out for discipline in school
- are more often the victims of violence
- are discriminated by the courts
- are 6x more likely to go to jail.
- control less net wealth
- are minorities in the voting booth
- suffer more unemployment
- are more frequently injured and killed on the workplace
- have shorter lifespans
- have less money spent on their behalf for healthcare
I think these phenomena pose an excellent argument for the existence of institutional white privilege. It is hard to make the opposite argument using the exact same phenomena in defense of male privilege.
... one slight difference, though. Men are 11x more likely to go to jail than women.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)When males are disadvantaged when it comes to most social privilege, they can't make the argument so muddying the water becomes the tactic.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:21 AM - Edit history (1)
It seems conflating white privilege with "male privilege" seems to lose its luster once mutually exclusive reasoning is pointed out.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The only response I have gotten is "I wish you would stop talking to me, you're boring"
And today we learned that US men have the shortest lifespans in the entire OEDC.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)apples. they ought to know better.
it's ironic and telling how they twist things and make it ALL about themselves.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)in the US in order to have privilege? I'm not getting these comparisons. "If any person of color and/or woman makes more money than I make, I am not in a position of privilege." Is that just entitlement?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)than their wives. No shit, that's every guy I know.
They feel fortunate enough to have a woman who is really successful so they can take it easy and spend more time on their art or music. And there's nothing wrong with that. Why would that poster assume there is? Why would they assume that has anything at all to do with larger inequities at play?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that their citing to that expectation (i.e., men SHOULD earn more than their wives) is evidence of MP.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)like their boxers fell down or something, LOL.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that no one should be advantaged by race; but when the white, of two equally qualified candidates, gets the job it's merit ... no issue; but when the Black candidate gets the job, well no one should be advantaged because of race.
The first step to quality is an understanding that white/male is the default setting; non-white/non-male is outside of the societal expectation.
BainsBane
(53,074 posts)His position is indefensible. Probably he even realizes that. Do you wonder how old some of these guys are? I'm guessing over 80.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I'm hearing that they should make more money than Beyonce'. Beyonce' makes more money than they do, therefore there is no white male privilege.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I have never ever heard so many argue that exceptional examples prove anything at all.
But that's been the meme. Moronic.
BainsBane
(53,074 posts)While women and minorities earn more, with no conception of the legal restrictions that made those privileged white wages possible, and despite that fact that white men as a group still earn more than the rest of us. He talked about it as the result of "revenge." Truly bizarre.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I said "men". I did not say "white men".
Men earn less than their fathers. Here's the picture.
BainsBane
(53,074 posts)but you ran away. DU guidelines prohibit calling out other members in forums other than Meta.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The passive-aggressive stage whispering is rather annoying.
Admittedly, when your intent is to lie about me, it's less risky to do it in another thread.
I stopped posting in the other thread for numerous reasons, including the fact that posters were beginning to feign illiteracy.
BainsBane
(53,074 posts)rather than the person who brought you up? There is nothing passive aggressive about it. The ideas you put forward provide an extreme example of reactionary thinking. It's like it was written by someone in the 1910s. It is If you want to defend something, defend your ideas. I could care less if your ego is bruised. That appears to be a continuous state of existence for you.
FYI, I certainly have my share of faults, but inability to be direct is not one of them. I am perfectly willing to present my criticism directly, which I did in the thread you fled from.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's simply too stupid a rhetorical tactic to merit response, and it's a pointless exercise anyway because the ignorant poster in question "knows better than me what I think".
But when someone tells DU what I said, knowing that I said something else, they deserve an uncivil response.
BainsBane
(53,074 posts)So people know what you did mean. This response doesn't achieve that goal.
Again, I don't understand why you chose to express your frustration at me rather than the person who introduced your post into the conversation.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I even helpfully provided a picture. If you still didn't understand it, you would have sought clarification in that thread.
Instead, you peddled this libel in a this thread. You did know what I said, and were clear about what it meant.
Contemporary male privilege as a belief system is difficult to argue on its own merits, so proponents bring race into it, as you have done - the difference is that most people won't resort to misrepresenting others to do it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)wouldn't you say that:
has no place in the argument, just as pointing out African-Americans that enjoy more wealth/power than their white brethen/sistern; because that wealth/power was attained DESPITE the presence of WP, just as the wealthy/powerful woman attained her wealth/power despite being faced with MP.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,917 posts)And yes it always pops up regarding race also. We see this the same, I'm just calling it out as a false argument knowing full well that there always are, for one reason or another, instances that run counter to the prevailing truth - pointing out one or another doesn't change the predominnat truth though it is often the first dodge used to deny it.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)If X has white privilege or male privilege and Y doesn't have white privilege or male privilege, then either X should be better off than Y, OR white privilege or male privilege apparently does not count for jack squat in the face of other factors which are far more important.
Further, how is it NOT insulting to wag your finger or woefully shake your head at the foolish working class white males in the bottom 20% who just do not realize how privileged they are?
It is not a dodge. It is a perspective. A perspective of not having any privileges that amount to squat.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,917 posts)The fact that there are numerous variables at play in a situation that can counter and offset each other in different instances does not negate the influence each variable has. Every time there is unusually heavy snow somewhere some FOX type uses that fact to ridicule global warming. Complex dynamics, and American society qualifies, can not be predicted on the basis of a single variable - but the effect of ALL of the variables are at work - including those that end up eclipsed in certain situations by more powerful variables at that moment in that place.
In Track and Field a tail or head wind always effects the ability of an athelete to set a world record. Sports authorities arbitrarily define what degree of tail wind can be present before a line is crossed and new records are not counted. Obviouisly other variables are at play also; skill, conditioning etc. but Track recognizes that a tail wind helps whatever athelete is running or jumping with it, but even there "low" tail winds are discounted while "high" tail winds disqualify a record breaking achievement.
But a truly superior individual might still break a world record even though a gust of head wind might work against them as they sprint. And NO, in this example all athelets are not competing under the same cirucmstances. World records are composites of all qualifying performances, some with head winds and some with tail winds.
In South Africa under Apartheid Race was an overwhelmingly strong social variable. In the U.S. in the 50's in the South it was still very powerful but not quite as decisive as it was in South Africa, some Southern Blacks managed to live better than many Southern Whites - but that did not disprove the negative impact of Segregation. Meanwhile in the U.S. North in the 50's more American Blacks were able to thrive despite racism than in the South. Again race was not quite as decisive a variable in New York then than it was in Alabama - but it still remained in play.
That is clearest in hindsight. Sitting in New York today looking back on the 50's I can see that racism was more powerful then than it is now. I believe, based on how society is evolving, that should I be around to reflect on 2010 in 2040, I will find race to be a weker variable in the future than it still remains today.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)to first wag a finger at the privileged. Shame on them for being privileged. Then to wag a finger at the people who do not believe they are privileged. Shame on them for trying to "dodge" the facts by talking about their own unprivileged lives.
The OP starts out bashing people who "whine thinly" when every problem is blamed on MEN, or negative sweeping generalizations are made about MEN.
First line of the OP
"The staggering, flatly embarrassing ignorance of unconscious privilege."
Nope, no finger wagging there.
And your response "yes to every point you made".
But yes, if a variable is fairly insigificant then it really does not merit any discussion at all. Because then male privilege is not at all like "being born on 3rd base" it is more like "being born six inches past home plate". And if some people end up on third and others get thrown out halfway to first, it is a little bit absurd to call it "being born on 3rd base".
Yes, sure, being born male is such a privilege that 17.7 out of 100,000 opted to end their own privileged lives. Compared to 4.5 out of 100,000 females in the US. Apparently they just did not realize how privileged they are.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)There are quite a few associated with being female. That's why white privilege shouldn't be conflated with "male privilege". Jeff provides a few examples. There are several more. The reason why people conflate white privilege with "male privilege" is because "white male privilege" wraps the "male privilege" argument up in the same box and delivers both at the same time making one impossible to reject without rejecting both. It's intellectually dishonest.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022155252#post168
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)reality
The Male Privilege Checklist
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).
8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).
12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.
21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).
25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability. (More).
26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).
27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).
28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).
29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.
37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).
39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.
40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).
43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).
44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.” (More: 1 2).
45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)
45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Whoever you chose to cut and paste from (no doubt some kind of echo chamber where those ideas aren't challenged) obviously has a poor understanding of what privilege is and isn't and you only get the perspective from one side of the coin. Civil rights aren't privilege, they are rights. That eliminates quite a few from your list. Some of the things on your list are gross misrepresentations. Others are simply conjecture. Others are extreme exaggerations. Others exclude homosexual men in order to narrow the group and make it sound better. Others single out very small subsets of women which has little to do with how the entire gender is privileged or not. Others identify problems that women face, while ignoring reciprocal problems that men face. No examples of female privilege are included like longevity, incarceration, access to health care, homelessness, parental custodianship, disease, alcohol and drug addiction, suicide, occupational injuries, occupational deaths, crime victimization, access to education, and dozens more. You know, most of the things that actually primarily define social inequity rather than whether the toilet seat gets left up or down or whether someone gets offended while the other side is told to "man up" (as seen on DU). The last one is the best. Since the problem is "male privilege" if I don't accept the argument for "male privilege" then I must be part of the problem. Circular reasoning at it's finest.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)...not much of that around that I can see.
Would you really be willing to trade places with a woman? Could you even imagine being female? Most men can't, whereas it's easy for women to imagine being a man. Because it's a more desirable state of being in our society.
Duh.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If you are homeless, chances are you are male and if you are unsheltered the chances are even greater.
If you die sooner, chances are you are male.
If you commit suicide, chances are you are male.
If you die of heart disease, chances are you are male.
If you get less federal funding for gender predominate cancer, chances are you are male.
If you die of HIV/AIDS, chances are you are male.
If you die on the job, chances are you are male.
If you die in an accident, chances are you are male.
If you are injured on the job, chances are you are male.
If you are in jail or prison, chances are you are male.
If you die from cancer, chances are you are male.
If you have less access to health care, chances are you are male.
If you are a victim of homicide, chances are you are male.
If you aren't granted custodianship of your kids, chances are you are male.
If you are addicted to drugs or alcohol, chances are you are male.
If you die of diabetes, chances are you are male.
If you didn't graduate high school, chances are you are male.
If you are enrolled in college, chances are you are not male.
If you die in an automobile accident, chances are you are male.
If you are registered for selective service, chances are you are male.
If you have ever died in a war, chances are you are male.
The lopsidedness of most of these things isn't even close. If that's privilege, I don't need or want it. You can have it.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)a male is STILL more privileged.
How about some positives about being female, instead of just a list of negatives for men? Yours is still a male-centric POV. Got any positives to being a woman?
Like I said, you would not choose to be female, I'm sure. Being a girl has been ingrained in you as an undesirable thing to be since you were a child. It is very prevalent.
Are you aware that when a couple has a boy as the first child, people STILL say--"Oh good, now you've had your BOY!" by way of congratulations. This is still widespread.
Look at women as they are portrayed on TV. Would you want to be one? I don't think so.
Nuff said.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I can also disagree and point out relevant facts that support my assertion. That's what discussion is all about.
Turn all those negatives for men around and you have positives for women. Every single one of them. Women are 24 times less likely to be homeless and unsheltered. Women are 4 times less likely to commit suicide. Women are 3 times less likely to die from HIV/AIDS. Women are 13 times less likely to die on the job. Women are 2 times less likely to be addicted to drugs or alcohol. All net positives for women. The list seabeyond posted (several times just in this thread) listed the female-centric POV so I'm pretty sure that one is well covered if you want to see it. If she can count as privilege that women have more trouble finding a pants suit that fits, I think I can counter that with a list that points out that men are 12 times more likely to be incarcerated.
I have looked at how women are portrayed on TV. Generally they are mythologized while men are pathologized. More often than not men are portrayed as dumb apes that are slaves to their sexual desires and need to be shown how to empathize. Women are portrayed as more intelligent and more emotionally stable almost without exception. Look at "chick flicks" in the movies. In practically every one, men are portrayed as sex addicts that just need to be fulfilled by a good woman in order to achieve normalcy and peace. Even in guy films, men are portrayed as canon fodder that love violence. So yes, great example and I'm glad you mentioned it.
This very day I was talking to a married, childless co-worker. He told me if he had a boy he would be out on his own at 18, but he'd let a girl "stick around for a while". And you probably don't want to even get me started about the advantages that girls have over boys growing up both at school and at home.
Whether I would prefer to be a man or a woman is an utterly ridiculous and meaningless argument unworthy of response that would add exactly zero to the discussion regardless of how I responded. I've lived the better portion of my life as a man and don't really care to entertain alternatives hypothetical or realistic and I suspect most women my age wouldn't care to either. Regardless of how you think gender works, men and women aren't identical units that you can just swap the naughty parts and arrive at the same perspective. Gender is both physical and mental. Ask someone in the LGBT community and I'm sure they can explain it better.
And "nuff said" is the typical response men get if they try to counter "male privilege" arguments with reality and facts. After all, we are just dumb apes that don't get it and never will. That's why we need to be taught empathy (as seen on DU), and that's why we can't be feminists even if we strongly believe in gender equality (as seen on DU).
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)to imagine being the other sex. You proved my point. You can't do it. It is an unimaginable state of being for you. And yet the opposite is easy for women. Imagining being the "Other" is a means of developing empathy. Maybe you can't do it because you know it's bad. (Why feel bad when you can feel good?)
So you conclude that I don't know "how gender works" -- (gee how pompous, as if I have no idea 
I will agree there are pressures on men that may not be very positive, but not to see the obstacles society throws in the path of women is just...backward. Not to mention the lopsided rates of real abuse of women by men.
You think women are portrayed realistically on TV and movies? Yikes. And you think girls have advantages at school--geez. OK I see. You have NO idea.
Give me ONE positive thing about being female in this culture--that has no negative correlate with men.
One desirable thing that is not just a lower statistic--eg. the lower rate of suicide (despite the higher rate of depression in women). One thing that would make a man feel envious of a woman (in the way that women often feel envious of men). Just one. Bet you can't.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)You can fill in the blank if you like and pretend that's my answer, but that doesn't mean it has any validity whatsoever. It's nothing more than strawman rhetoric that builds the strawman by pretending the answer you provided for me is what you wanted and then argues on that behalf burning the strawman down and claiming victory. It's an example of intellectual dishonesty.
There's plenty of intelligent discussion on the disadvantages boys face in school and the results speak for themselves. Claiming it doesn't exist is certainly a response, but not a particularly meaningful one. Claiming I have "NO idea" is no better. Just because you claim I'm wrong and offer no evidence to support your assertion doesn't mean I'm wrong. It just means you disagree. Claiming your opinions are authoritative and immediately disqualify my own is another example of intellectual dishonesty. For the record, I never claimed you were wrong.
I provided you with numerous examples of exactly what you asked for. Privilege means one gets an advantage the other doesn't. That's how it's defined. If you want to talk gender and privilege, it's impossible to identify a positive for one that isn't a negative for the other. Asking me to provide an answer to you that is impossible from a fully literate standpoint is not good faith discussion. You can't provide a net positive for men that isn't a net negative for women either under the context of privilege.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)for example--"Men are stronger than women" (and some men can even do heavy labor like mix concrete). This is not a negative for women.
OK--your turn.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Social privilege is the advantage one group receives at the expense of another. I was born with a penis that allows me to urinate standing up without pissing myself. That is not social privilege either.
Once again, I'm not going to get roped into a game where you dictate rules that make absolutely no sense.
Have fun, but I'm not playing.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Being perceived as physically stronger gives one social privilege, whether over females or weak males, but especially females. OK how does that work? It could be reasonably argued that females need physical protection, at least from male predators or predatory nations. Generally this bad job falls to men. Many men believe that the fact that they fight "for" women makes them entitled to power over those same women. Men give protection to women, and women are beholden to them for it. Would you deny that this attitude runs through our society?
Your penis allows you social privileges. Never mind pissing, it is a symbol of being the right gender, the better gender, the preferred gender. Womens' body parts are not so exalted.
Maybe you should play sometime. You're all about rules and rigid roles. Lighten up maybe? Right now I can't figure out what side of the fence you're on...you seem so combative and defensive I'm not sure you're on the feminist side, no matter what label you want to give it. You seem to believe in equality in theory, but you don't really like women maybe? Women are wrong to discuss male privilege? WTF. Sorry I don't get your point. Too dumb I guess.
Care to enlighten? I'm listening...make it For Dummies, OK?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'm not "combative and defensive" because I don't agree with you, and that certainly doesn't make me a misogynist. You managed to work in two, if not three of these all in one post.
As far as enlightening you goes, I really don't have much hope for that. You ask for examples of what I'm talking about, and then you reject them outright by moving the goalposts and inventing your own definitions. If I can't disagree with you without baseless accusations of misogyny, anger, and combativeness in a transparent attempt to shame me, I really have no interest in discussing anything with you. I find such behavior counterproductive to intelligent discussion and frankly annoying. I've decided to no longer be party to your bad behavior. I won't be replying to you here or anywhere else. Feel free to have the last word as it appears to be quite important to you.
Cheers!
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)you have nothing to say on the points I made...no response to my rebuttal (of your odd assertion that men's greater strength does not entitle them to privilege in our society). I still don't get where you're coming from--are you trying to argue that that women in our society today have equal privileges to men? If that's what you believe then how can you be an ally to women? Are you not aware of the whole history of oppression of women--is it all lies? I mean, if you think there's NO problem ...then yeah, I guess there's no point to any conversation.
myself for such "BAD BEHAVIOR" 
cheers
Talking to myself rhetorically here. I don't expect you to reply.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Civil rights and privilege are two different things and shouldn't be confused, yet many manage to do it. Race and gender are two different things and shouldn't be confused, yet many manage to do it.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But if you want to count up all the errors, we can certainly do that. Civil rights and gender privilege are two different things. When someone talks about domestic abuse of women, they are talking about civil rights, not privilege. When someone talks about job opportunities and pay, they are talking about civil rights, not privilege. When someone talks about race privilege, they are not talking about gender privilege.
If you want to talk about gender privilege, name the laws which grant men privilege. If you want to talk outcomes rather than opportunity, I can do that too.
If you want to talk about privilege, then do so intelligently. Simply expecting everyone to believe an argument you have provided no evidence for and then patting yourself on the back when someone kicks your thread doesn't do much for intelligent discussion.
Just sayin'
trumad
(41,692 posts)Is that OK?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)no bashing brady....
we are talking the quaterback, right? lol
trumad
(41,692 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)nobody misses with my whitten.
everything sweet. my baby. lol lol
oh, my boys chuckle.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
Iggo
(47,572 posts)
edbermac
(15,947 posts)Go Pats!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)A little quick reading shows me that there are two schools of thought on this, but to flatly state that men cannot be feminists is to declare a matter settled when it's not. I agree with the remainder of what you've written.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)There are two schools of thought on just about everything. I have expressed my own personal belief, which is - for me, on this issue - an entirely settled matter. Feel free to post the opposing argument; I've held up my end of the bargain.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I mistakenly thought you were posting what you believed to be expository, factual information. The opposing argument would include the notion that for real equality to take place, men would also need to make sacrifices, as necessary, on behalf of women who are struggling for equality. Whether that's called feminism or alliance probably isn't that important in the long run; was just curious about what appeared to be a flat assertion. thanks.
tomp
(9,512 posts)...i also read it as an bald assertion of fact.
GOTV
(3,759 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)So.
GOTV
(3,759 posts)opinion = fact. My opinion is that pizza tastes better than broccoli. Does that make it a "fact" that pizza tastes better than broccoli? It's a fact that it's my opinion but that's different than it being a fact.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)and "opinion" when it suits him.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's basically promoting the idea that equality for women is beyond the scope of reason.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
Definition of FEMINISM
1
: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2
: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
I dunno, seems pretty simple to me.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)You're claiming membership in something without having to pay any of the dues...and the dues are heavy as Hell.
It does not work like that.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)I never got whipped for not picking cotton fast enough either; does that mean I can't be for racial equality?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)on feminism is regularly attacked, insulted, demeaned, degraded, bullied, called out. yet, the men that say the very same thing are not, even if others disagree. so, it does cost us, and doesnt cost others, to speak out.
i think this is an interesting perspective i am going ot have to think about.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)I'm just saying, there's this word "Feminist" and it has a meaning. That meaning is "someone who believe in the equality of women." It is not "someone who took a lot of shit for that belief" or "woman who has suffered oppression."
I am not a woman, nor do I claim to know just what it's like to be one. I am, however, a feminist.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i appreciate and value all men that speak out
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)...and the dues are heavy as Hell.
and that is what has been bothering me over the last year.
not that ALL understanding, insight, voice, solidarity is not valued... tons.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm asking you this question directly, because I know you're very connected to the feminist movement. Among feminist women, can men be feminists, by definition, or is being female integral to feminism? I understand you have an appreciation for, and respect for men who do what they can to get women to a more equal place in our society. But are those men rightly called feminists, or something else? thanks.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)a little is in subthread starting with post 70. but, it is not really where i have gone over the last year. i will get back to you.
like i said below. i year ago i would have argued this with will. i use to have a strong stance that men are equally feminist.
but, what i see and have heard has shifted my perception. and i can honestly say, i am a voice for minorities with race, and for the gay community, but i do not feel equal in voice. i feel more a back up to their voice. so maybe it has a little to do with how i stand in opposition, with other groups.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)right to claim state.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)He fought his damndest for women and children in our state, only to be fired when some fucking repukes cut funding for abused children and he called them out on it. He's more of a feminist than I am.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)WillP, love ya, but "men cannot be feminists because they are not women" is a bit sideways. Granted you said it's your opinion, but this notion is a bit silly.
joeunderdog
(2,563 posts)
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)And use this as a graphical explanation:
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
hunter
(38,334 posts)And I'm taking that.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)Thanks for sharing both, I'm sure they'll come in handy in the future. 
jobycom
(49,038 posts)
Zookeeper
(6,536 posts)"Remember when I said that you could choose your difficulty setting in The Real World? Well, I lied. In fact, the computer chooses the difficulty setting for you. You don’t get a choice; you just get what gets given to you at the start of the game, and then you have to deal with it."
I had a wingnut threaten to punch my face when I used the words, "Accident of birth."
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
ThoughtCriminal
(14,049 posts)
Just like real life.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)yardwork
(61,712 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Attempted thread-jack on the play. 15 yard penalty and loss of down.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,505 posts)
In case anyone is unfamiliar with my views on the subject.
The Magistrate
(95,256 posts)It is not just that the complaint at seeing the fact of privilege being pointed out amounts to a loud announcement of blinkered existence, it is that generally the complaint is couched in a whine....
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)BALDERDASH!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)evidence of its existence.
How convenient.
The Magistrate
(95,256 posts)I find the sound of privileged people trying to pass themselves off as victims quite amusing....
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)TygrBright
(20,772 posts)"Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.
This means that the default behaviors for almost all the non-player characters in the game are easier on you than they would be otherwise. The default barriers for completions of quests are lower. Your leveling-up thresholds come more quickly. You automatically gain entry to some parts of the map that others have to work for. The game is easier to play, automatically, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get."
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
I've stopped arguing this one, and just send out that link. It says everything I'd like to say, and better, funnier, more concise, and more, uh, vernacularly.
helpfully,
Bright
Throd
(7,208 posts)White male privilege exists in American society. Anyone who disputes that is being willfully ignorant.
Pointing out that it exists is fine, but some people seem to believe that being a straight white male is something to feel guilty about.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)Please go and tell a white guy how privileged he is when he is digging a ditch, worried if he will make enough for the rent and to feed his kids.
Those days of "White Male Privilege" are over. It is now 'haves' and 'have nots'. The issues of race and gender are being used to distract us now. Keep us busy with this and we end up not watching what they are up to.
It is a lot like what they do with Conservatives with the bible. The upper echelon feed them the line that "They Want To Take Your Bibles Away" and they follow wherever they lead.
With the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, they had to get a bit more clever. They had to find a way to use mutable issues to hide what they are up to. Keep us busy and they can get pass.
My question, are we really going to keep letting them get away with it?
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)hypothetical) person in a vacuum, such as your ditch digger. The idea of privilege is to explain the differences in baseline potential between individuals or groups of people.
A white guy rich guy will likely have class privilege over your ditch digger. But your white male ditch digger will likely have privilege over your white female ditch digger.
Race and gender differences are still used to divide us, but we also use them to divide ourselves. I personally believe that economic equality through unionization is an excellent way to combat that, but it's still important to be aware of privilege and be aware of the effects it can have in our lives.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)What I mean is that if you take a White Male and some one who is not a white male, and you place them in the same social or business setting, and you hold everything else "equal" ... the white male will have an advantage in MORE situations than the non white male.
What you really described is a situation in which 2 or more white men are placed in the same situation, and then some of them, the "haves", will do better than the white men who are among the "have nots". Which is also a true statement.
Both realities can exist simultaneously.
I'm a white male, and I know that in most business situations, it has been either advantageous, or at worst, a neutral factor. That is changing, and it scares some.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)sounding names.
maybe the ditch digger had fewer competitors for that job cause the black sounding names were eliminated and he was totally unaware of his benefit.
the point is. the ditch digger, that got a job, may not have if he was black or had a black sounding name, though more qualified. so there is not a chance to feed the kids and pay the rent.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--are more likely to get a callback if they are white and have a prison record than if they are black and have no prison record.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It shouldn't even be a point of debate.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)got it major
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just one example is fine. If you can't provide one I suppose it's just another example of your willingness to unapologetically defame other DUers in order to make your points, so a non-response works fine too.
When you regard your point of view as the only one that's valid, the fuckups are not hard to find. For further reading see...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you do not need to beat me over the head anymore. you make it clear, racism is an issue, womens issues are not an issue.
got it.
i am done.
does no good to even begin to have a conversation and i am so fuckin tired of the faux argument.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Brilliant!
Your non-response (as expected) is interpreted accordingly.
Stay classy, sea.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)What you are in fact talking about is class, not equality, which is and of itself is a completely different argument. As someone else offered, lets put some people in the ditch with your white male ditch digger--a woman and a minority male. Guess who's getting paid the least in that ditch? More than likely, the woman. And the white male is probably being paid more than your minority male and more than likely if all three of these people are in line for a promotion, it'll be the white male that has a better chance at getting it--along with a raise.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)A Union works to make sure everyone down in that ditch is treated equally.
spooky3
(34,484 posts)or hired, even with equal or better qualifications. They didn't even get their proverbial feet in the door.
If we use a job that has fewer physical demands (like the vast majority of jobs in the US today) the point is even more clear. Many jobs remain sex-stereotyped and sex-dominated, and the same may be true for other groupings. While applicant "choice" does have something to do with it, the evidence is very clear that this "choice" is socially influenced, and that other factors such as discrimination on the part of the hiring organization often are involved.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)What we are saying, however, is that social markers, such as gender and race, mean that class impacts people of different genders and different races....well, differently.
Something to think about...take a look at the general population, and note the distribution of gender, sexual orientation, and race. Then, take a look at the poorest Americans, and again, note the distribution. Finally, take a look at the richest Americans, and note the distribution.
You will find that a disproportionate number of the richest Americans are straight white males, relative to the general population. Likewise, for the poorest Americans you will find that a disproportionate number of them are not white, and/or are women, and/or are not straight-again, relative to the general population.
Furthermore, the idea of "haves" and "have nots" doesn't mean that there aren't varying degrees of "have somes".
There's a whole spectrum of relative privilege in American society.
Finally, why are you invalidating people who have been and are discriminated against based on the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation, their religion-the list goes on! Because in order for there to be under-privileged groups, there have to be over-privileged groups.
I, for one, applaud WillPitt and others who recognize that they have social class privileges simply by their gender, their sexual orientation, and/or their race, etc. Like he said, that takes wisdom. But it also takes some courage, IMHO, in this society, to own up to your own privilege.
And for the record, I'm a straight white male.
spooky3
(34,484 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Great word, I'd rec this OP just for resurrecting it.
Warpy
(111,367 posts)The problem now is that white males have seen their wages fall more rapidly than women have, so naturally they assume there is no more white male privilege.
Sorry guys, but it's still there and as strong as it was in the 1950s for many of you.
That doesn't mean it makes you all successful. It just means you have escaped much of the hard work and many of the additional problems women have to face.
Taking a long, hard look at something you always took for granted is really tough. I know I've done it when I've worked with women of color. It can be done, though, and once your eyes are open, you start treating other people a lot better.
Or you can continue on in that haze of false persecution. Your choice.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)It shamed me and filled me with wonder that any people could endure such a thing without going stark raving mad.
Then I realized that those who had privilege had already gone stark raving mad because they couldn't see what they were doing.
Insane people are always sure that they are fine. It is only the sane people who are willing to admit that they are crazy.
~ Nora Ephron
I have mixed feelings about white male privilege, as white males are a diverse group. Some grow up and some don't. I consider the insane ones to have never grown up. Since I don't get angry at children so I find it hard to get mad at them.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)*responds with knee-jerk, over the top vitriolic comment that has nothing to with the OP, other than reinforcing the point made by the OP in the first place*
Seriously though, you're right.
pscot
(21,024 posts)is a fact of human society. It always has been. It still is today over most of the planet. Only in the last 100 years or so has much vilified white, Euro-American culture embraced the idea of equal opportunity between the sexes. It's a truely novel idea. The fact that some guys don't get it is hardly surprising. There are many women who don't get it either. Just sayin'.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)true that.
sally5050
(151 posts)I miss Andy Stephenson. this is something he would write.
This is just awesome.. now post this far and wide so that even liberal guys understand they can't understand what us gals have to go thru!
Keep up the awesome writing Mr. Pitt. it is an entire sub culture's only perk of each day! ; 0
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Great job illustrating the issue!!
I hate it when I see thread crashers jump into good analytical discussions with that cry. They are uniformly closed to any useful dialogue. No matter how clearly anyone tries to get them to self examine or empathize with a different reality, they whine and attack to protect their little piece of turf.
blueclown
(1,869 posts)25 year old straight white male who still works a crappy, close to minimum wage retail job. Please tell me how I am privileged.
While I do understand the concept of white privilege, I think it's important to narrow down who exactly is privileged and not to use it as a wedge to divide people on this forum. Many times, the concept of "white male privilege" is an intellectually lazy argument. You might want to further define that concept socioeconomically.
Scout
(8,624 posts)you are privileged over a 25 year old gay white male who still works a crappy, close to minimum wage retail job, you are privileged over a 25 year old straight black male who still works a crappy, close to minimum wage retail job, you are privileged over a 25 year old gay black male who still works a crappy, close to minimum wage retail job, you are privileged over a 25 year old straight white female who still works a crappy, close to minimum wage retail job,...
starting to get the picture???
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL your whiteness and your maleness give you privilege
DLevine
(1,788 posts)yardwork
(61,712 posts)
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But I'll give you an example of what is meant with that phrase.
Your job may be crappy but someone who is black or a woman of any color may not even be able to get that job because you are a white man and they aren't. You don't know if that happened in your case, but perhaps you can understand that it happens a lot. No one should take the term personally because it's basically a relative situation.
I'm a white woman and as such I have certain social privileges, whether I like them or not, in that chances are I'll get hired over women of color. And as a white woman I'm less privileged than a white man who would probably get hired over me because I am a woman.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)You get pregnant. Maybe from rape. Unless you're one of those women whose bodies have a way of shutting that down unless you enjoyed the rape. Or you weren't deemed a rape victim because your vagina wasn't shredded properly. Or you didn't qualify as a rape victim in your state because you weren't married. None of those circumstances matter though - you won't report it as a rape because the time off work for the trial will get you fired.
Or maybe you weren't raped and it was just an unplanned pregnancy and you can't afford to raise a child on your crappy minimum wage job. But you're in a location where abortions are so restricted that you can't get one without taking multiple days off work, which will get you fired, so you're unemployed now.
Or maybe you could get one legally but you can't scrape up the money for it, and insurance (if you have it) doesn't cover that procedure.
Or maybe you want to be pregnant. You get fired for being pregnant.
Or hey, maybe you aren't even pregnant at all, never have been. You just get fired for being too attractive.
Wait no, we'll stick to being pregnant. You're pregnant, you have complications and as a result the doctor orders you to drink more water. Now you get fired for having water during a nonscheduled break.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)It explains societal white privilege and discusses your very issue.
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)Since I also enjoyed the content I wish I could rec it twice. Well said and well written. 
tblue37
(65,490 posts)privilege reminds me of the Republican whining about the "lucky ducks" who don't even have to pay income tax, since their income is so low. (Romney's 47% comment was actually just a repetition of that outrageous complaint that was floated some years ago by the RW punditocracy.)
In both cases the privileged group redefines "privilege" to mean its exact opposite.
The same thing happens with domestic abuse. Yes, women are sometimes the abusers, and their male partners are sometimes the abused--AND NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE ABUSE OF MEN BY WOMEN IS OK. (Had to cap--Nook doesn't allow formatting, so I could't italicize or underline.)
But women are overwhelmingly the victims and men the perpetrators in domestic abuse cases, so it is not unreasonable for women to focus on that reality.
Furthermore, men are usually larger and have, on average, 70% greater upper body strength than women, so unless a weapon is used, a woman beaten by a man is more likely to be killed or at least to suffer severe injury than is a man who is physically assaulted by a woman.
Yes, there ARE exceptions, and we want ALL abuse to end, regardless of who is the abuser and who is the victim, but to pretend the numbers are eqivalent is not just absurd, it's obnoxious.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)This maybe isn't man hating, but it sure looks like man obsessing. Every day more "male privilege" threads.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)I guess that makes you part of the "problem," doesn't it.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)So we don't need a second thread saying the same shit when this inevitably sinks to the second page.
Maybe we need a white male privilege forum
lunatica
(53,410 posts)This is the first time I've seen this subject discussed in a while.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)who break your over simplified mold.
We all are dealt cards at birth, and while white men in America obviously have an Ace in the hole, not all of us play those cards the same way. Privilege shouldn't make me feel guilty - but abusing privilege should.
And you're right. I'm not a feminist. But I try to be a humanist
And maybe, just maybe, if I make the right choices, I can use some of that privilege for the common good.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)"It's me. I've been wrapped in the warm embrace of the privilege since my arrival on the planet. "
... how did you manage to come by this conclusion:
"...men enjoy an elevated status in society thanks entirely to their gender..."?
Suicide rates
Life expectancy stats
Alcoholism rates
Mental illness rates
Murder-victim rates
Drug-addiction rates
Stress-related disorder stats
combined with a hundred other metrics beg to differ. That is one interesting "elevated status". What an advantage!
Unrec.
For ( uncharacteristic, from YOU) simplistic ranting on a complicated subject.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
s-cubed
(1,385 posts)
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)jobycom
(49,038 posts)
Solly Mack
(90,789 posts)
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The double standard on this board sometimes is depressing.
K&R. Your OP is right on, I applaud it. I just wish all of us could say these truths and there wasn't so much push-back just because we aren't Will Pitt.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
(Highlander reference)
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Now I really love ya!
rivegauche
(601 posts)planetc
(7,841 posts)I used to work for a great eastern university, and I worked every day with men who felt they were fully informed about the intellectual underpinnings and aims of feminism, and who assumed that they themselves were guiltless of perpetuating the patriarchy. But they were in error. They actually knew very little about feminism, and harbored attitudes that perpetuated sexism every day.
On this board, many men assume that since their politics are liberal, then of course they couldn't be sexists. They think of themselves as fair-minded and devoted to justice. Some of those men are in error too, on the subject of feminism.
So my question is, how do we go about informing men, and women, about what the main tenets of feminism are (especially that a patriarchy exists, and has for thousands of years), and further inform them about how attitudes on all sorts of things, large and small, can feed into the perpetuation of the patriarchy? Can we tell them to read a book or three? Do we encourage them to talk the subject over with one or lots of women? How do we move off square one on this subject?
I've observed that men who seem most defensive and angry about feminists having their say seem to feel that recognizing just about anything a feminist might say as valid and useful is threatening to them personally. They seem to feel that women's achievement of full pay equality will necessarily take something away from them--as though equalizing men's wages with women's will result in men forever having less. This is an attitude that guarantees little or no learning will take place.
My own understanding of feminism says that when men and women finally recognize each others' contributions, then a lot of bad stuff will disappear--rape, domestic abuse, pay discrimination, the constant need to prove your manhood to every other man. In the utopia we haven't yet achieved, both men and women should benefit, and benefit abundantly.
How do we get everyone working on the same project?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I used to work for a great eastern university, and I worked every day with men who felt they were fully informed about the intellectual underpinnings and aims of feminism, and who assumed that they themselves were guiltless of perpetuating the patriarchy. But they were in error. They actually knew very little about feminism, and harbored attitudes that perpetuated sexism every day.
i tend to agree. can be along side the battle and struggle, and much appreciated, but...
redqueen
(115,103 posts)and instead refer to men who support the cause as allies, pro-feminists, etc. Thank you for spelling it out.
On this board, many men assume that since their politics are liberal, then of course they couldn't be sexists. They think of themselves as fair-minded and devoted to justice. Some of those men are in error too, on the subject of feminism.
Without living through the experiences that girls go through, that women go through, it is simply not possible to fully understand and appreciate the ideas and issues that feminism deals with.
planetc
(7,841 posts)using it to learn something. To say no man can be a feminist is to exclude nearly half the human race from a fruitful and useful category, and in some cases, to insult as well. Especially if we haven't arrived at a definition of feminism we all agree on.
Are men incapable of understanding sympathetically and empathetically what women experience? If they're human, surely some can. Perhaps a great many can.
Right now, of course, lots of women don't want to admit to feminism, because they understand the cultural consequences of declaring their allegiance.
Could we start by stipulating that "feminism" is a charged term, that can negatively affect your career if you're a woman, and perhaps embarrass you in front of your friends if you're a man?
Personally, I'd rather say that men can be feminists, and women can be scientists and astronauts and silly people, just like men.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It's a very important and serious issue. Men are incapable of understanding completely what girls and women go through. Yes, they are. It is impossible.
Unless they are lied to about what sex they are, and they are raised as girls, and therefore subjected to the different treatment girls get as they grow up, there is absolutely no way for them to fully comprehend what it is like.
Just as it is impossible for me, as a biracial woman, to understand completely what it is like to grow up as a black person, or an Asian person, or a native American person, male or female.
This is not a difficult concept.
Add to that fact the tendency that so many men have of trying to step in and run things, often with the best of intentions.
I feel the need to share this now.
WASHINGTON—After decades spent battling gender discrimination and inequality in the workplace, the feminist movement underwent a high-level shake-up last month, when 53-year-old management consultant Peter "Buck" McGowan took over as new chief of the worldwide initiative for women's rights.
McGowan, who now oversees the group's day-to-day operations, said he "couldn't be happier" to bring his ambition, experience, and no-nonsense attitude to his new role as the nation's top feminist.
"All the feminist movement needed to do was bring on someone who had the balls to do something about this glass ceiling business," said McGowan, who quickly closed the 23.5 percent gender wage gap by "making a few calls to the big boys upstairs." "In the world of gender identity and empowered female sexuality, it's all about who you know."
McGowan, who was selected from a pool of roughly 150 million candidates, made eliminating sexual harassment his first priority before working on securing reproductive rights for women in all 50 states, and promoting healthy body images through an influx of strong, independent female characters in TV, magazines, and film.
...
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Thanks for the chuckle.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Unless you're gay, you have no concept what it's like to live as a gay person. You can sympathize, you can empathize, you can rail against the injustice of it all but you'll never, ever know what it's like to live in a gay persons' skin unless you're gay yourself. Same thing with gender. You can sympathize, you can empathize, you can rail against the injustice of it all but you'll never, ever know what it's like to live in a woman's skin. I think that men can make great allies to feminists but once you get a man proclaiming to be a feminist then telling women that they are wrong when we argue you can't be a feminist, well, you've lost the battle right then and there.
Besides, we've not even defined what kind of feminism you're talking about. Depending on the feminist philosophy depends on how your argument will pan out.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The male only draft for instance, is definitely an artifact of the patriarchy, but it sure isn't privilege.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)
What I mean by Complementary is often what one sex is bad at, the other is good. Thus a man and a woman is superior to two men or two women. The problem is how to make the differences between the sexes that ar as fair as possible.
Notice I did not use the term "Equal" for that means treating people the same and that is a problem when they are not the same. Are we treating people Fairly, when we demand that everyone piss standing up? Such a requirement would treat everyone equally, everyone would have to stand and piss, but is that fair?
Similar problems occur due to the physical differences between the two sexes. Is it fair to treat everyone equally, providing they can keep their shirts clean while lifting heavy dirty items? Women whose center of gravity is two inches below their belly button, tend to want to hold heavy items close to their chests, thus the wieght of the item is closer to being nearer right above her center of gravity. Men, whose center of gravity is in the middle of their chest, want to hold the object a little bit away from their chests, so that their center of gravity counterbalanced the heavy object so that the combined center of gravity is over their legs.
Do we treat people fairly when we want to hear them from the further distance? Male's deeper voice travel further then women's (and children's) higher pitch voices (on the other hand, it is easier to locate the exact location of a higher pitch voice then a lower pitch voice, so if demand that the voice be easy to locate in deep brush, how is that "Fair" to men?).
Woman's smaller hands permit more intricate weaves then men's larger hands, is thus fair to use how tight a weave a person makes?
Now there are other differences, but for some of them there is a dispute if it is innate or cultural (And the cultural influence is notso ingrained that for most people it is innate for all practical purposes). Some of these include:
1. Women find it easier to learn a new language then men as adults.
2. Women tend to have a better feel for the need of young children (i.e. babies).
The above seems to be innate, but some people dispute those findings. The evolutionary explanation is simple, Women bare children and thus relate to them better then men (and since only women produce breast milk, babies have to be close to their mother until they can eat solid foods).
Women in primitive societies would have to leave the family they were born in, and enter another family as the mate of a male member of that extended family. This often require women to have to learn a new language, thus Women evolved to learn new languages. Given this background is it FAIR, to treat people who have a harder time learning a new language? Is it fair to treat people, whose native tongue is not what is being spoken, on their ability to speak the language being used?
Now, cultural influence may be great. For example I often give the example of a Study of Males and Females in the 1970s in regards to their sense of direction. Various males and females were put on buses and blindfolded and then driven around and when stopped asked to show in what direction they came from. Males did a much better job then females in the test.
A few years later, I read of the Autopsy reports on the brains of London Cab Drivers. It was found that the part of the brain believed to deal with direction was enlarged in such cab drivers. This implies that they had no better innate sense of direction then most people, but because they used their sense of direction, they developed that part of their brain, thus its larger then normal size and they better ability to determine direction. Given that in most cases, women are guided by their parents, then their brothers, then their Boyfriends and finally their Husbands, who most women end up leaving driving or otherwise leading them on any trips, would that NOT discourage use of that part of the brain by women, and thus it is for cultural reasons women have a worse sense of direction then men?
Worse, what is fair can become unfair over time. The classic case was the right of a husband to 100% control over his wife's real property. Sounds unfair today, but when the rule was invented was fair, for ownership of real property was tied in with military service and what was needed were knights and men at arms, strength more then anything else. Thus the Husband obtain full use of his Wife's real property, but that was due to the fact he had to perform the duty tied in with owning that property (i.e. he had to serve as a knight or man at arms that was tied in with ownership of that property). The wife "lost" use of her real property, but then she did not have to go to war whenever the King called his knights and other men at arms out. The reason Women lost that right to their own property, was they were incapable of performing the related military duty (And this relationship was an invention of Feudalism around 900, as the Kings took the land from its previous owners and gave them to knights who would defend the area from invaders in exchange for the land, by 1000 it was legal for women to inherit such lands provided her husband performed all required military duties tied in with the land). This was viewed as fair, and even mentioned in the Magna Carta (The King could NOT convert military services to taxes if the land owner wanted to perform the military duty).
The above was fair, until the Kings of England decided to ignore the Magna Carta and change all of the old Feudal Dues to taxes. Women can pay taxes as well as men, when it all comes from the production of the actual workers in the field. This conversion made the right no longer "Fair" to women, but couple of centuries to be abolished (The Renaissance saw a massive drop in the rights of women as Roman and Greek Law came back into fashion and the rules of law of the previous 1000 years was viewed as "Barbaric" or worse Catholic in Protestant England after the English Civil War of 1640, the older rules tended to give women more rights then the new reinstatement of Greek and Roman Law, through some aspect of the older law were kept, if the law gave men more rights then women, or a noble more right then a commoner).
Side note: Does it really matter if an advantage of one sex over the other is a product of Culture, when the Cultural influence affects actual physical development of the brain? For example, take a group of people and put them in an situation they never have been before, and see how they handle it, and compare that to a group of people who had plan and trained for such a situation? Culturally we do this a lot, but if we ignore it so we can treat both groups equally, is that fair?
A lot of male bashing (and some women bashing) are arguments over not only innate differences between the sexes but cultural differences. The differences exist, but not in conflict. Most men leave the house to their female mates and with it primary care of the children. Men want to use the house and be involved with their children, but generally defer to the women in their lives on how the house and children are to be handled. Women, tend to deferrer to the men in their life, issues outside the home, including any groups the couple want to be a member of. At the same time, women do want a say in such outdoor activities, but tend to defer to the men in their lives in regards to such matters. Some of this is innate, some of this is cultural, but not to address it is NOT treat both sides fairly (while technically not addressing either issue is equal treatment).
Just a comment is that what both sexes want is fair treatment for both know true equal treatment is a fallacy. On the other hand, ideal equal and fair treatment is a concept most people want, but how do you treat two unequal people equally and still be fair? Comes up in divorce cases all the time, each side puts different value on jointly owned property, dividing the property equally is not fair to either side thus it is divides equitably instead. The real issue is not equality but fairness, and what is fair changes all the time, thus a constant source of problems.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Do boys lose out when girls start to do better in math? Do girls' successes lead to a "boy crisis"? An important new study says the answer is a definitive no. When girls do better in society, both sexes benefit. Gender equity is good for everybody. And boys and girls are becoming more equal, globally, in math performance. The study by Jonathan M. Kane and Janet E. Mertz of the University of Wisconsin analyzed scores from more than half a million fourth- and eighth-graders from 86 countries. It found essentially no gender differences between girls and boys in math performance.
The students came from Western and Asian democracies and developing countries, as well as Muslim countries notable for their sex-segregated classes. But the really surprising finding was that the more equal the societies were around gender, the better everybody did in math. As the researchers conclude, "gender equity and other sociocultural factors … are the primary determinants of mathematics performance at all levels for both boys and girls."
The news about girls' increasingly better performance in math has been trickling in for years. But the findings were often dismissed by those who claimed that boys were inherently better at math and science. One argument was that the countries studied were cherry-picked to find girls doing well and therefore the results were not representative. If you buy that argument, putting resources into improving girls' math and science abilities is a waste of time because you are going against "nature."
As Ethan Siegel, a theoretical astrophysicist in Portland, Ore., notes on his blog, Starts With a Bang: "You know how prejudices and confirmation biases work: If you think things are a certain way for a certain reason, then when your reasoning is shown to be incorrect because your premise is flawed, what do you do? Do you question your conclusions, or do you just find a new explanation that brings you to that same conclusion? Most recently, the argument goes something like, 'Even though men and women are equal on average in math ability, men have a greater variance in their abilities. So there are more very dumb men, but also more very smart men, and those are the ones who become scientists, etc.'"
more studies done, the more bullshit these roles we condition each gender in, fly to the wayside.
but, we have liked to pigeon hole our girls, telling them how they cant do math, limiting their opportunity. but, that would be wrong.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)
Study after Study have shown that women do as well as men in math till puberty. At Puberty, when it is permitted, women drop behind men for about two years and stay two years behind them.
Now, where adolescent girls are NOT permitted to drop behind boys in math, then no difference occurs.
Thus, Math is an area where you can have equal treatment provided people watch for adolescent girls who falls into the trap of being afraid of being smarter then boys (i.e. we have to give the girls additional support during that period in their lives).
It is one of the reason I separated physical difference from mental differences. Physical difference can be clearly defined and seen, mental difference are often related to physical differences (women often do mental acts differently then men, due to the fact due to men and women's physical differences lead them to think in different ways). Best shown in a show I once saw, that had a man and a woman climb the same cliff. This required not only physical ability, but mental work in deciding how to climb the cliff one step at a time. The man tended to depend on his physical strength to climb the cliff, the woman tended to look for toe-holes, finger holes and other ways to climb up the cliff. Both arrived at the top of the cliff about the same time, but HOW they did it was completely different. The how was the mental outlook, but it was governed by their physical difference.
Another area of differences is riding a bicycle. Men's center of gravity is in the middle of his chest, thus when he leans over and grab the handlebars, he ends up with his center of gravity right over the center of the bicycle, which permits him to be one with the bicycle.
Women's center of gravity, when riding an upright bicycle, ends up being behind the seat and up in the air if they assume the position male bike racers assume (Muscle weigh four times the equivalent volume of fat and the single largest muscle in the Human Body is the Muscle to give birth, thus why woman are bottom heavy when compared to men). Can women ride like men? Yes. Is that they best position? Given that recumbents are banned in bike racing, Yes. If recumbents were not banned? Then a Recumbent would be a much better bike for women to race in, even with a recumbent's weakness at climbing hills compared to upright bikes (but Recumbents are superior on the flats and going downhill).
In the class room, the physical differences between the sexes is minor, in offices it is minor, but working outdoors it is a major factor, working with others doing a physical act it is a factor (Nursing for example).
Yes, today we do a lot of work inside offices, but we still have a lot of jobs, even inside, that require physical AND mental work. Physical and Mental abilities work together to do what is required. Thus we can NOT always ignore the differences between the sexes, and we will always have to debate if how we treat them is fair, but true equal treatment can also lead to unfairness, and generally that is at the cost of unfairness to women not men.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)difference which seems to be the only real argument, the women figured out a way to compensate for her lesser strength and they got to the same place, at the same time. and i imagine that in most circumstance that would be the solution.
there really is not significant in the differences that you pointed out.
except as i said, interesting.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Even if there may be some scientific truth to it.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)These concepts are total garbage, along with the Evo-Psych explainations for them. Evo-Psych is hack science masquerading as serious studies.
Example: "women are better with children" - there's no scientific basis for this statement other than Evo-Psych tripe. The reason women are said to be "better with children" is because this is a gender role.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)one was destructive in her parenting and one was disconnected. both brothers had an innate since in nurturing.
took me from our role playing we do and made me look at conditioning. when push came to shove, my brothers fell back on the environment they grew up in.
i agree totally and dash...
thank you for so many of your posts i have run across of late.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Whether or not evo-psych has validity is beside the point. Assuming inherent qualities conferred by gender leads inexorably to sexism and bias.
True or not, there's no way to build an equal society around those stereotypes.
Are boys worse at language arts? It doesn't matter. If boys are failing in school, it's important to identify and solve the problem.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The studies of young children (generally under age two) keeps showing a preference of such young children for their mother and more interaction with their mother:
http://www.womanspassions.com/articles/127.html
Secure Attachment can only be between a baby and one other person:
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/parenting_attachment.htm
Nor are fathers left out of the oxytocin equation. It has been shown that a live-in father's oxytocin levels rise toward the end of his mate's pregnancy. When the father spends significant amounts of time in contact with his infant, oxytocin encourages him to become more involved in the ongoing care in a self-perpetuating cycle. Oxytocin in the father also increases his interest in physical (not necessarily sexual) contact with the mother. Nature now provides a way for father to become more interested in being a devoted and satisfied part of the family picture through his involvement with the baby.
http://www.attachmentparenting.org/support/articles/artchemistry.php
"At first the separation was something that was very hurtful, and the children were very unhappy and cried a lot. But after a few weeks in the hospital, as though they couldn't stand it anymore, they just closed the door psychologically.
"At first the child wanted to be with the mother and hug them. But if they Wwon’t see their mother for as few weeks, they would be completely indifferent to her when she did arrive."
http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/gallery/never_miss/nevermiss.htm
Mary Ainsworth was a major researcher in this area:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ainsworth
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16688123
Please note, the above paper also makes the observation that the closest thing to a Male's brain is a Female's brain. There are differences but also similar.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/maternal-instinct-is-wired-into-the-brain/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102124955.htm
You did mention a problem, that accepting the fact that men and women think "differently" can lead to inequality. On the other hand, ignoring the difference, will often put women on an "equal" plane with a man, but "equality" being defined as being a man. (i.e. women are graded as how much like a man they do the job, even when women can do the job better but NOT as a man would do it).
This is a problem, and will always be a problem. Perfect equality is NOT possible, but neither is perfect fairness. Any society has to constantly debate how to handle men and women, how and when to treat then equally, and how and when to treat them differently when that produces more fairness. One of the problem with a constant debate is people will argue for things that is both unequal and unfair, that is why we have to keep the debate open and constant.
When I was doing a quick net search to support my comment about Psychological support for how men and women think differently, I also found the following, interesting and maybe even relevant:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/like-mama-bears-nursing-mothers-defend-babies-with-a-vengeance.html
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)"Sexes" don't have inborn things they are good at and bad at; therefore, "sexes" can't be complementary.
People do have inborn things they are good at and bat at. Individuals of opposite sex can be complementary, but it isn't because of their genitals.
Skittles
(153,209 posts)*LIKED IT TOO* 
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)It's part of your charm.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)*it was awesome*
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)but this is the most fucked up thing you've ever posted.
So the white guy covered in grease and grime because he's working a sixty hour week to make ends meet is supposed to feel lucky that he was born white? So the white family that's facing their second year of unemployment and a loss of health insurance should be rejoicing because they're so much better off than the black family up the street?
Men can't be feminists? I'm genetically incapable of wanting a career or whatever kind of happiness my teenaged daughter might want some day, but her mother can do it because the two of them have ovaries? Does that mean only I can love my son and my wife should just stop pretending? Fucking seriously?
As progressives, we've been trying for decades to make people see that it's about class privilege -- that working class people (white and black) have more in common with each other than they do with the people who really were born on third base. We've been working for decades to erase the color line between working class and middle class folks, so they can see who it is that's holding them back. And now you're trying to reintroduce race and gender as a line of demarcation?
Pardon me while I climb back up the rabbit hole...
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)As if they weren't there before I made this post?
Your use of that one single word makes my point in Technicolor, old friend...and P.S., I made no mention whatsoever of race.
I think we can both be right about this, vis a vis gender and class. It's not either/or, but both.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)in a post I spent about ninety seconds writing. You're writer enough to know what happens when we compose too quickly. But never mind that.
While white male priviledge is not a figment of somebody's imagination (why life friggin' rocks), I don't want anyone to ever think that divides us is more powerful than what unites us.
Of course, there's this:
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)...race appears nowhere in the OP.
I love getting scolded because you composed to quickly, btw. That was awesome.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts) Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)I need to use that one next time I get called out for writing something inaccurate.
Hey---I wrote to fast.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)If I can't defend it, I say "I didn't think of that and thanks for the food for thought."
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Actually, the differing opinions offered in this thread are almost all great and add to what you said.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)with everything being exactly the same for both the white man and the black man except their color. Which one will probably get the crappy job? Your white man is more likely to get a job and end his unemployment than the black man is.
Rejoicing has nothing to do with it. Your personal happiness has nothing to do with it. As a white man you have privileges in this society over everyone else. The color of your skin and the fact that you are male is the reason. It's not your personal fault, nor are you personally to blame.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)but at least he can console himself that he is "wrapped in the warm embrace of privilege".
You see some interesting arguments here. Over on another thread, someone stated that "all men benefit from rape". When I protested that I certainly do not "benefit from rape" (as a father of 2 daughters obviously it is something I worry about very much) someone responded that yes, I benefit from rape because I can use the fear of my daughter being raped as an excuse to have more control over her. I kid you not.
retread
(3,764 posts)"law-abiding gun owner bashing" howls lately.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Can we exercise or exorcise our desire to oppress somebody that way? We can program the robots to not care. Or maybe that takes the fun out of oppression. Darn.
Well, there's always dogs. They think we're great (stupid dogs). And we'll never have to let them vote.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
yardwork
(61,712 posts)Anywhere you post it, it's true.
War Horse
(931 posts)Kind of caught me by surprise, as I've considered myself a feminist for decades, but it kinda made sense at the same time. I'll have to read more on those two "schools of thought".
And "pule". I had no idea that was even and English word. Means something else entirely in my native Norwegian
Sorry if this is incoherent. I'm overworked, running on almost zero sleep and a bit of wine right now
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)So it is *impossible* for a man to be "an advocate of social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men"?
Or is the dictionary simply wrong, in your opinion?
jimlup
(7,968 posts)...
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Seems to me they are 2nd on the totem pole of privilege but no one ever mentions it.
20 female senators out of 100 and there is only 1 black senator (and HE was appointed).
Seems to me that female white privilege is fairly potent too.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)Gender, race and what class you were born into is as much a factor here as in India.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Except for the unfortunate transposition of the words "hammer" and "nail" this is almost proof of the infinite monkey theorem.
Protip: "glaring" "facts" usually are accompanied by evidence supporting them.
Does your male privilege result in preferential legal treatment? A longer life? Better education? Better wages at a given job? Controlling most of the wealth? Freedom from violent crime? The expectation that your sister will die in the dangerous jobs? Dominance as a voting bloc?
Look, I get it; your livelihood depends on selling soap, and you know your marketplace.
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)I got onto this thread late because I left for work at 6am and I'm on my way home now at 7pm, will get home at 8:30pm like every day will be for the next 25 years, so I can read about how hideous my gender is. Most women I know who have jobs get paid more than me. Most people walking around enjoying the day when I'm working are women. Most people I'm SERVING are women. What more can I do? I'm willing to give more... I just need to know what it is.... Or is it that we just need to feel bad all the time.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)is that it drives a wedge between natural allies.
Rape is a horrible crime which should be prosecuted fully...
<damn straight>
... and all men are responsible and benefit from it because... something something.
<uh, wait>
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and that does not create a wedge, but unity.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Or any place else. I have advantage. How sad to say just hearing I have advantage is being kicked . If that is the case, what does it say about those at a disadvantage? Pummeled?
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)I understand that "Male Privilege" might be the topic of forthcoming books, blogs, coffeehouse discussions. My wife went to a very liberal college and said she used to talk about feminist issues with her girlfriends all the time, but the "male privilege" topic she never heard of before, so I'm guessing that the terminology is sort of new in popular discussion.
Interesting how no exceptions can be made. I'm must be even more of a loser than I thought, because if all the women I know are ahead of me, AND I had an 'advantage'. The owner of the business I work for is female. Wow. What a loser I must be!
In my own family, women pretty much run things. I don't know what kind of families other people have. No women in mine are treated with any less respect. And vice versa. Yeah I've seen many other families treat women like they are the maids, cooks, etc., but that does not exists in my circle whatsoever.
So I am simply not associated with whatever biased bigoted culture from which this term is derived. I know weird trashy environments exist but I try to avoid them.
If there is any way I can help, though, I'm happy to.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i knew well what i was talking about, but was going to have to be confrontational for me to get my way. stand my ground. what i have found over a lifetime is when a woman is assertive, aggressive, she is a witch. the man is simply handling the situation.
anyway, i told hubby, you call so & so. i do not want to go thru that macho posturing today. i do not want to have to deal with that being all sweet, nice, ditzy to not get his machoism up. and all he would have to do is tell the man what he wanted, and that would be the end of it.
i have men tell me, you women go all over the place to say something simple. a man gets right to it. when i get right to it, you should hear how men respond. i am a hoorible, mean, nasty person. that is not my role as a female. i must coddle to get my point across. there is a reason women go all over the place when talking.
i have literally ask male workers in my house a question and they look over my head, to my husband and answer the question. my hubby about fell on his ass and said, dont tell me, tell her, she is making the decision.
here is a list of privilege. read it and think about it. these are things you will not experience, so you probably would not recognize it unless it is brought to your attention. just a few, but it will give you an idea of what i am talking about.
The Male Privilege Checklist
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).
8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).
12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.
21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).
25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability. (More).
26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).
27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).
28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).
29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.
37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).
39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.
40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).
43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).
44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.” (More: 1 2).
45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)
45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Some insurance guy was supposed to come over but before he arrived, I had a crisis with my kitchen sink. The trap was leaking. So I was down underneath the sink problem solving when he arrived. My roommate let him in and he came into the kitchen. He asked me if he could help. I asked him if he knew anything about plumbing and he said no, he just thought he would offer.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is cute.
hey... are you getting settled, feeling a little better anyway?
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Last week was bad, this week not as much. Thanks for asking.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The Male Privilege Checklist
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor, if the job entails long hours, frequent travel, or dangerous and unpleasant conditions. The more prestigious unpleasant the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex, unless they are women, or are teachers and are thus unfamiliar with the concept of male co-workers even though that might be true.
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex. It is because of my fundamental unfitness, lack of intelligence, strength or work ethic. There are no excuses.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities. Which is why there is no men's advocacy industry dedicated to prevent that from happening.
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job. If I'm hired to do a full time job, I am expected to work 10% longer hours.
8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are, which is unfortunate, because I'm about 50% more likely to be the victim of a violent crime.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question, but if someone does choose to have children on my behalf, and I desire to be a caregiver instead of a breadwinner, it will.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care financial support for them, my masculinity will not humanity will be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent, and every female passerby is equipped to judge that "marginal competence"
12. If I have children and a career, no everyone will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
14. Except for my Governor, and both my senators, my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
15. Unless I'm at a school or in a government office, when I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters, except at school, where I was graded based on my ability to behave like my teacher did when she was a little girl.
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default, which was fortunate, because in real life, there was a severe shortage of real life male role models, leading to the appeal of "heroes of my own sex" who are caricatures of what it means to be a man.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention discipline than girls, and worse grades despite performing better on standardized tests.
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones, because I should man up. There's no one to blame but myself.
21. If I’m careless carefree with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex will raise eyebrows for the profligate way I spend my wife's money.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be is attributed to my sex, which is why my insurance is more expensive. When I'm pulled over, I am 23% more likely to be ticketed.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial, I'm up there all alone, if I fail, no one cares.
25. I do not have choose not to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability.
26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring, and it's my fault for choosing to wear less expensive, better constructed clothing.
27. The grooming regimen I choose to doexpected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. I'm also unlikely to worry overmuch about Hillary Clinton's hairstyle.
28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car, but that's immaterial, because the only price that's relevant is the price I'm willing to pay.
30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch. If I'm passive, unathletic, studious or quiet, I'm a wimp.
35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon, because my family status is immaterial to the expectation that I perform my dangerous and unpleasant job effectively
43. If I am heterosexual, it’s more likely incredibly unlikely that I’ll be struckever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If you are homeless, chances are you are male and if you are unsheltered the chances are even greater.
If you die sooner, chances are you are male.
If you commit suicide, chances are you are male.
If you die of heart disease, chances are you are male.
If you get less federal funding for gender predominate cancer, chances are you are male.
If you die of HIV/AIDS, chances are you are male.
If you die on the job, chances are you are male.
If you die in an accident, chances are you are male.
If you are injured on the job, chances are you are male.
If you are in jail or prison, chances are you are male.
If you die from cancer, chances are you are male.
If you are a victim of homicide, chances are you are male.
If you aren't granted custodianship of your kids, chances are you are male.
If you are addicted to drugs or alcohol, chances are you are male.
If you die of diabetes, chances are you are male.
If you didn't graduate high school, chances are you are male.
If you are enrolled in college, chances are you are not male.
If you die in an automobile accident, chances are you are male.
If you are registered for selective service, chances are you are male.
If you have ever died in a war, chances are you are male.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)having to play nicey nice when a man could just be direct in the same situation, involving negotiation of some kind. It happens a lot with situations having to do with house or car maintenance. Women are at a huge disadvantage.
Men--if you are married or in a live-in relationship with a woman. How many times does your female partner ask you to deal with a house or car issue because she KNOWS the outcome will be better for both of you than if she tries to take care of it--even though she may be AS capable or better in dealing with it? I know this happens a lot. It also happens in business or banking situations. Any sticky issue situations.
The past experiences in my case have been so negative that if there is any work to be done on the house, I reserve the right to have the last word. In other words, if I get ANY vibe that the contractor prefers to work with "the man of the house"-- that he doesn't take direction from women--then it's no go. I've gotten so I can tell instantly in the first meeting if the guy has these issues. Thankfully the younger guys in the trades seem to be less prejudiced, at least they are better at PR. So I'm hopeful that things are changing....slowly.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the thing when older though, that i find. i do not mind being that witch either so, ..... i will probably as likely call a man out on it.
it has been an eye opener for the guys in my family.
i went to a car dealership dealing with an issue with a new car. my son, then 13, was with me. after conversation with the man, son told me, the man was really condescending and sexist to you.
honestly, i hadnt thought much of it... at that point, struggling to get answers, but was true.
in the future i dealt with that mans boss. and i had no more of that.
but yes, hopefully our young are understanding better, and just a given as they walk into work force, they will deal with women as co workers, bosses, ect....
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)I said "you are looking at him".
(I am a female-bodied person living alone.)
It is also interesting to me that I sometimes get called "Mrs." by people who have no knowledge of my marital status. (I'm a 40-something woman so I must be a "Mrs"???)
That one blows my mind but I don't make a big deal out of it. 
Around where I live, even when I was married (I was married for 20 years), I don't feel like I am often treated differently because I am a woman or that tradesmen would have rather dealt with my husband. It did happen ALL THE TIME when I was much younger, not so much in the last decade or so. I don't know if that is a cultural shift in my area, or because of my age, or what.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)the younger guys you deal with in general transactions are wising up. Have no idea if that is mainly because of parental input--father input, mother input--or society input, but I definitely see it as a cultural shift. Maybe they just realize that all business goes better when you don't operate out of prejudices.
My elderly Dad was kind of a renegade in the 50's-60's, a feminist before his time (probably because he was artistic and that was frowned upon as "female." These days he likes to say to telemarketers who ask for Mr. Doe:
"He's not here but this is the lady of the house" (in a baritone, sometimes modified by fake falsetto). They always hang up right away.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)According to the National Women's Law Center:
"The wage gap persists at all levels of education. In 2011, the typical woman in the United States with a high school diploma working full time, year round was paid only 74 cents for every dollar paid to her male counterpart. Among people with a bachelor’s degrees, the figure was also 74 cents. In fact, the typical woman who has received an associate’s degree still isn’t paid as much as the typical man who only graduated from high school.
A typical woman who worked full time, year round would lose $443,360 in a 40-year period due to the wage gap. A woman would have to work almost twelve years longer to make up this gap. A typical woman working full time, year round who starts, but does not finish, high school would lose $372,400 over a 40-year period, an enormous amount of money for women who are typically paid $21,113 a year. A woman would have to work over seventeen years longer to make up this gap."
http://www.pay-equity.org/
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)I think when one takes any generalization and pushes it to the absolute, problems arise. I will posit that there is inherent privledge in being born straight, white and male. I will also state that I have met many such men who have realized little if anything from it. I do not consider myself among them.
I have benefitted from the inherent and tacit privledge given my race, orientation, and gender. I have no doubt about this. My spouse worked longer, harder, and smarter than I ever have and ran smack into the glass ceiling. I watched her struggle with it for years and she never got past it. I on the other hand passed through the barrier the way water goes through a windowscreen. The choices and work I have done in life made that opportunity available, but to get there on roughly the first attempt, twice now in two different organizations, I have no doubt was more than luck and smarts on my part.
I was able to fill a role, because people could see a white male doing it more easily than the other potential options. The fact that I did better than other white males attempting the same thing is my fault, but I have no doubt that I crossed the threshold easier.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)not too many will detail it as well as you.
BainsBane
(53,074 posts)They don't care about defending men of color.
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)Your wife made you post this...DIDN'T SHE????? 
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Will.... 'You've come a long way, baby..."
That that was an actual Madison Ave campaign in the seventies gives dramatic evidence to the existence of collective male privilege. And that you're pissing off so many people by posting your OP gives even more dramatic evidence it still exists to one degree or another.
mahina
(17,710 posts)pule
1. nvt. Prayer, magic spell, incantation, blessing, grace, church service, church; to pray, worship, say grace, ask a blessing, cast a spell. (Probable derivatives are pulepule, pupule, and ʻōpulepule.) Many types of prayer are listed below. Lāpule, Sunday; lit., prayer day. Kahuna pule, minister. Pule a ka Haku, the Lord's prayer. Iāʻoe ka pule a kākou, will you say grace; pray. Ua hele anei ʻoe i ka pule? Did you go to church? hoʻo.pule To cause to pray, to feign praying. (PPN pule)
2. n. Week. Kēlā pule, kēia pule, weekly. Puka pule, weekly issue. Kēia pule aʻe, next week. Kēia pule aʻe a ia pule aku, week after next. Kēlā pule aku nei, last week.
http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/hdict?e=q-0hdict--00-0-0--010---4----den--0-000lpm--1haw-Zz-1---Zz-1-home-pule--00031-0000escapewin-00&a=q&d=D19197
little known fact
redqueen
(115,103 posts)feminists find this problematic.
The startling thing about this issue is that there really is nothing bad about being called a male ally or a pro-feminist man, yet many men will get upset at being informed that many feminists would rather they use such a term instead of identifying as a feminist.
One common retort is that they're just words, but that being the case, why the struggle to avoid identifying as male allies or pro-feminist men? Is this stubborn insistence not yet another manifestation of male privilege?
Men cannot ever completely understand what it is like to be a girl or a woman. Unless they were lied to about their sex, and treated like a girl as they were growing up, so that they would be subjected to the same different treatment girls and women get, starting in infancy.
I feel the need to share this now.
WASHINGTON—After decades spent battling gender discrimination and inequality in the workplace, the feminist movement underwent a high-level shake-up last month, when 53-year-old management consultant Peter "Buck" McGowan took over as new chief of the worldwide initiative for women's rights.
McGowan, who now oversees the group's day-to-day operations, said he "couldn't be happier" to bring his ambition, experience, and no-nonsense attitude to his new role as the nation's top feminist.
"All the feminist movement needed to do was bring on someone who had the balls to do something about this glass ceiling business," said McGowan, who quickly closed the 23.5 percent gender wage gap by "making a few calls to the big boys upstairs." "In the world of gender identity and empowered female sexuality, it's all about who you know."
McGowan, who was selected from a pool of roughly 150 million candidates, made eliminating sexual harassment his first priority before working on securing reproductive rights for women in all 50 states, and promoting healthy body images through an influx of strong, independent female characters in TV, magazines, and film.
...
gollygee
(22,336 posts)like feminism is a women's movement and has to be controlled and defined by women. Upthread, the one poster (can't remember his name) does sound like an ally, but he said something like, "We haven't even agreed on a definition (of feminism) yet." I think that sentence explains why feminists are women and have to be women. WE (women) have to decide what the definition is. And there's disagreement among women, but I really feel like we have to define it ourselves, and control the whole concept, even if we disagree. Our movement can't be defined by men.
I wouldn't expect, as a straight white women, to be in a position to define LGBT or African American rights issues. I will do everything I can to be a solid ally, and that includes checking my privilege in those areas and taking what people in those groups say and learning from them rather than reacting with offense if I need to learn something.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Being heard first, having your voice prioritized, having your ego catered to... the conditioning that women are conditioned to cater to ends up disrupting many feminist discussions. It's sadly common.
Fortunately most men who are supportive of feminist goals don't need much explaining to get it. It's encouraging for sure.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)There are several logical fallacies contained in your post.
Definition of FEMINISM
1
: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2
: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
— fem·i·nist noun or adjective
Feminist: advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men. noun. 2. an advocate of such rights.
Also, please consider the fact that there are females who were not "treated like girls" when they were growing up.
Are these females not to be considered women, or beyond possibility of being feminists, because they were not treated like girls when they were growing up?
From my point of view as an LGBT woman, it appears to me that there are a few other holes in your statements/logic as well, and I totally do not believe this issue is quite so black and white as you seem to portray it.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)that any girl could grow up without seeing or hearing ANYTHING that reinforces the conditioning that girls receive? It is theoretically possible, I'll give you that.
As for your "no", I'm happy you have your own opinion.
I have mine. You don't get to tell me it is wrong.
The dictionary definition is a nice touch, though.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)make it fit the definition they desire. It seems to me that it would be a waste of time and effort; we have much bigger fish to fry.
The thing is, I don't know that any woman can completely understand what it means to be a woman either. I don't seem to be able to, and I've never encountered one who has claimed to know, although I have discussed the subject in depth with quite a few of them, and read much conjecture on the subject. If you can accurately tell me exactly what it means to be a woman, I will be sincerely and eternally grateful, because at my age, I am still trying to figure it out. The interesting thing here is, in these aforementioned discussions, I have heard some men (and these were not women who were born transsexual, and who recognized their nature at any early age), these were men, who never remotely experienced the condition of growing up female, expressed what were, in my estimation, ideas/feelings that seemed to be more insightful and understanding about what it means to be a woman, and on the condition of women, than more than a few women were were able to express to me.
The venerable and prophetic Simone de Beauvoir, one of my favorite "feminist existentialist" thinkers/authors/characters, believed that existence precedes essence, which I believe to be the motivational idea behind her famous quote, "One is not born a woman, one becomes one".
Actually, IMO, the OP, although it was written by a man, and I believe is important and essentially true although somewhat technically inaccurate, is more insightful and knowledgeable about the condition of women (and feminism) than anything I have been able to extract from some women who appear to have done little societal analysis/self-analysis.
So I have been led to consider that consciousness and empathy can sometimes transcend experience with regard to assessment of phenomena or noumena. The concept of understanding appears to me to be a psychological process related to abstract or physical things, and generally requires thought.
Other than personal experiences and thoughts, I have no way to completely understand what it means to be a woman either. Most of what I believe I know is only what I feel and think.
I. Only me.
I only know what it means to be me, and I can only speak from personal experience.
Naturally, as a somewhat educated, very uninhibited and rebellious, primarily lesbian/but technically bisexual woman who has been sometimes described by others as someone who thinks too much, I have an enormous amount of unresolved resentment toward the continuing restrictive mores and conditions, of inequality that this patriarchal system forces upon me/us. Because of this, I'm grateful for any support from sincere male allies who have any reasonable empathy toward, and understanding, of the issues that face women in this society and on this planet, and if they want to refer to themselves as feminists, that's just fine with me, I'd prefer to nurture their interest, concern, advocacy, and participation rather than discourage them.
Part of this nurturing process is helping them to understand that they should never, ever try to co-opt feminism or assume that they can have authority over women in the feminist movement. IMO, it is imperative for any man who wishes to be recognized as a feminist to understand that we are sick and tired of this invasive and all pervasive systemic patriarchy that has caused the overwhelming majority of men to both consciously and unconsciously assume that they have some type of completely natural divinely granted authority/dominance over women. (Unfortunately, as you probably know, far too many women do not recognize or understand this stone cold fact of our past/present world reality either).
From my POV, a man being recognized by women as a co-feminist would necessarily be predicated upon this particular empathic recognition and understanding:
Never presume to know what women need to do in any area related to feminism.
The Onion satire that you posted was perfect.
If a man genuinely and completely understands the history and reasons behind this, I personally could possibly consider them co-feminists, respective of some other conditions as well. Much more so than more than a few women who grew up totally immersed in the patriarchal matrix and never saw it for what it was.
Redqueen, you have my sincerest thanks for your admonition regarding me telling you "no" in my previous subject line. I humbly apologize; I was completely wrong, I had no right to do that whatsoever, and will do my best never do anything like that again in the future.
~ ~ ~
When feminism stops being a living, vibrant, changing movement, and morphs into a stagnant, exclusive, divisive, dysfunctional, authoritarian dogmatic religion primarily dedicated to reciting its own scripture over and over, it loses most of its power to grow as new information is gathered, and subsequently, it loses its power to significantly change itself and anything else as well. Regardless of the conditions I grew up under, and live under at present, I am still responsible for me and I take that responsibility seriously, and one avenue by which I do this is by successfully creating my own independent reality to the greatest extent that I possibly can, and by doing that which is most effective to change the environmental factors that have attempted to put oppressive and restrictive pressure on me as a woman, an LGBT person, and as a dark skinned person in a culture long dominated by light skinned people.
Change comes through individual and collective transcendence, not through puling immanence. Telling men they cannot be feminists is counterproductive and insulting, especially considering what feminist means as defined. Of course most men have not been socialized as females. This does not make them blind or stupid. I don't feel threatened by the few hostile and/or ignorant male poseurs. If a man sincerely wishes to identify as a feminist, or male ally, more power to him.
And to me as well. I cannot and will not be co-opted, so the basically harmless, positive self-identification of others does not affect me. Anyone who sincerely wishes and works to help me attain greater individual and collective freedom is welcome aboard my train.
My rights are their rights.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Notice that they ask other men whether they think men should be called feminists.
These are just two recent, DU-based examples off the top of my head (among many) which illustrate the importance of this issue, IMO.
This is not a new idea, and it is one that has had great traction with many feminists for years. You do not consider it important, but many other women and male allies do.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)When feminism stops being a living, vibrant, changing movement, and morphs into a stagnant, exclusive, divisive, dysfunctional, authoritarian dogmatic religion primarily dedicated to reciting its own scripture over and over, it loses most of its power to grow as new information is gathered, and subsequently, it loses its power to significantly change itself and anything else as well.
Obviously, arguing over the meaning and application of this word for years has not been noticeably productive in bringing about any changes in our condition.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It is evolving, which is why many feminists are attempting to refine terms in order to distill the essence of the meaning and goals of feminism.
As you can see from these discussions, we have a very, very long way to go.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We had three blessings when we were born.
Being born white, male, and in America.
*****************
I don't always get agreement.
It is fair to call that a privilege, but there are also many societal demands that come with that privilege, just as there are societal demands made upon anyone, born anywhere. We are all in this together and being divisive serves no one but the wanna be masters.
Everyone should make sure to read happyslug's posts above. Especially this one:
73. One of the problems is the sexes are complementary not equal
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I tell them that I have paid close attention to local politicians over the years and two among the top three are women.
They don't like that either.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)is debatable. The differences are not necessarily "complimentary."
For one thing we really don't know WHAT women or men would really be like if they grew up free of the cultural role restrictions.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
sekha68 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I read it here so it must be true. 
Good God...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The 51% of the population who cast 54% of the votes and control 60% of the wealth are not an oppressed minority.
Number23
(24,544 posts)The world is about more than the USA and even in the US, things ain't that great.
In an era in which women are still paid less than men even if more qualified/educated, and where on a global scale women control a whopping 1% of the wealth in the entire world, that you still feel that we are not an "oppressed minority" says a hell of alot more about you than it does about anything else.
Read this article (I can't get the direct link to the World Bank to work for some reason). I'd also be much obliged if you'd find someone else to simultaneously bore and annoy and left me alone for all DU eternity.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The simplest of which is "ignore". That doesn't shut me up - that is not within your ability, but it does enable you to maintain a blissfful state of stereotype and dogma.
The Op is definitely mainly about US society generally (where Beyonce lives fwiw) and du specifically.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Seeing as how you apparently believe that the United States has "2000 years of history."
And you don't challenge anything around here. You take the contrarian fool's position on every single issue. Me asking you to stop responding to me was a polite request in the hopes that I will no longer be pestered by an incredibly boring and gargantuanly uninformed gnat. And I hope you will honor it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
flvegan
(64,417 posts)Then could he be a feminist?
I only ask because that's what I've kinda sorta done here. For a while. That old chestnut. Rather not be written off entirely. Take your time.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)makes you an ally.
I probably should have elaborated more in the OP on the importance of being an ally. Being an ally is a very good thing, an important thing. I did not mean to dismiss the involvement of men in feminist issues. It needs to happen.
But a lifetime of personal experience, and encompassing the experiences of the women I've known, informs my opinion on who can and cannot be a feminist.
I've known several women who were raped. Never known a man who was raped. I've known a whole crowd of women who were sexually harassed at work, or screwed over in one form or another by an employer due to gender. Never known one man who can say the same. This list goes on.
There are exceptions to these experiences, of course, and someone here will chime in to say they know a man who was raped or sexually harassed...but the common balance of these experiences falls 1,000-1 on women.
As I said up-thread: a man claiming to be a feminist is claiming membership in a club without having to pay the dues. And the dues are heavy as Hell.
Be an ally. It is the best we can do, and it is damned good when done.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)That's just not what feminist means. Reminds me of the idea that minorities "can't be racist" because they don't have power. You don't need power to be racist. You need power to discriminate. Words have meanings.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Good one.
Awful once meant "full of awe" i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing.
Until the mid-16th century, abode was defined as a verbal noun; "the action of waiting." The vowel change is consistent with an Old English strong verb (ride/rode, etc.).
Accent originally meant "to sing" from the Latin, canere. It is a loan-translation of the Greek prosoidia, (pros "to" + oide "song" which apparently described the pitch scheme in Greek verse.
The aftermath was originally a second crop of grass grown after the first had been harvested. It was spelled "aftermowth."
An ambulance once brought the hospital to the patient. It kept the name when it reversed the process. It comes originally from French hôpital ambulant, literally "walking (hospital)," a mobile or field hospital.
An army's ammunition once described all of its supplies.
Apology once meant to defend against an accusation. From the Greek apologia, "defense."
Balderdash once described a frothy liquid.
Bimbo, from the Italian for "little child," once meant "tough guy" or "one of the boys."
Cute is a shortened form of acute, meaning "keenly perceptive; shrewd."
...that's a bit of A through a slice of B through a bit of C.
But tell me more about how words have meanings.
No, really, I want to know.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)Condescension is unbecoming. Ridiculing me for disagreeing with you doesn't speak too well of you as a serious thinker, my friend.
So, yeah, you're empowering yourself to change the meaning of this word? Good for you. I'm just gonna change it back then, k?
Again, "Feminist" means a person who believes in the equality of women, or someone who advocates for that belief. If you have a new definition, then give it to me. Seriously, how do you define the word? If you can't answer that question, you have no case.
What do you call a woman who believes in gender equality but has not suffered as a result? Or a woman who has suffered gender oppression but does not believe in gender equality? Or a man who has been beaten and imprisoned for his belief in women's rights?
Feminist does not mean "woman who has suffered indignities as a result of being a woman." Sorry, just doesn't.
Here, I'll post some emoticons. Perhaps they will convince you.
Serious debate, comin' at ya!
ps. If you ask me, "apology" still means what it used to mean, people just use it wrong consistently.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)dorkulon
(5,116 posts)Sad.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)and was applied to the selection and sorting of passages from someone's writings, a separation of the good from the bad.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)I guess you've realized you don't have much of an argument.
Yes, words change meanings over time---usually a long time. They don't generally change because you thought they should, though.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)I'm gonna just declare victory and put this thing to bed.
You know, I'm disappointed. You're not as good at this as I thought. I try to be big about being wrong, and admit it. It's the only way we learn.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)
You're the big winner.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)Your mockery has persuaded me, oh brilliant one!
This juvenile suckitude is beneath you. At least I thought it was, but I'm learning, Will.
Silent3
(15,291 posts)...but disagree that some specific issue X exemplifies male privilege, is caused by male privilege, can only be remedied by addressing male privilege, is nothing but male privilege, etc.
What happens, and can cause much frustration (whether someone pulls out a phrase like "male bashing" or not) is that once someone calls "male privilege" in regard to X... then it's settled. X is a male privilege problem, no argument about it. If you dare argue otherwise, that just shows you're ignorant, you just don't get it, you're in denial, or you're perpetuating male privilege.
Either agree X is a male privilege problem, or you're part of the problem.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)It is the first weapon of choice for the simple minded.
Cheers!
JAbuchan08
(3,046 posts)+1000
just1voice
(1,362 posts)Thank you for the rational thinking, it's extremely lacking around here.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Or a Black or Latino man.
You alienate good people by suggesting in such generalities. Some men do know what it's like to be second class citizens for hundreds if not thousands of years.
You'd probably contend that as men they still have it better. I'd contend that between gays and lesbians, the opposite is much more often true. Non-heterosexual women tend to be more accepted in society.
I'll let you know when my privilege arrives though, right after I can walk down any street in America holding another man's hand, love openly the man who means the world to me without fear or worry anywhere, and after my own nation recognizes that my love is just as valuable and just as tender as that of a straight couple.
A stereotype is a stereotype is a stereotype. And they're all negative.
-F
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Hope all is going well with the pregnancy.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Doesn't mean that white males have a conscious sense of entitlement (although many do). It means that that we get to walk around in the world without even thinking about things that other people have to consider all the time...and that's just the truth.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)...the word "white" never appeared in my OP. Nor did "race."
trumad
(41,692 posts)You managed to bring in all the poor aggrieved Mens.... in one thread.
There's more whine in this place than Napa Valley.
Poor Poor Mens.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Whether men are considered feminist is largely generational, though.
I consider myself a feminist, and will continue to consider myself one and conduct myself accordingly regardless of what other people consider me. To do otherwise would mean I'm not a feminist OR an ally.
The rest is spot on.
Burma Jones
(11,760 posts)In a "Letter to the Editors" (which were faked) and I paraphrase:
Sirs:
I am a College educated, American, White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Heterosexual Male and rule the goddamned world. If you have a problem with that, you can contact my Lawyer.
Sincerely,
E. Barret Whiteman III
Great Neck, NY
I've always been aware of my privileged position and I do not begrudge those that point it out.
This does not mean that I shun the opportunities that advantage has given me though, I have a Doctorate and I know had I not been born as a WASP American Male (albeit to a Working Class Family), it would have been much harder.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)adjective
1. advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
noun
2. an advocate of such rights.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminist
If you prefer your own opinion of the definition of the word, that's fine, but you shouldn't expect others to accept it. I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to say with 201.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)I speak my mind.
And I do prefer my own opinion to the simplistic dictionary definition guys keep re-re-re-re-posting here. Thanks.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)That's why you keep getting the literal definition which may seem simplistic to you but to others forms the basis of literacy.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just sayin'
libodem
(19,288 posts)It's donkey cheese. Did I miss a cultural reference? Think of the jennies.
Edit: Isn't it 'White male System'?
philly_bob
(2,419 posts)I think it means "whine." Never heard the term before.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Apparently it is expensive. And smoked.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)And since we're on the invisible privilege train, white men have more of it than any man of color, here in the US and I, as a white woman have some invisible privilege over my fellow sisters of color.
And as a generational middle classer, there was never any question that I would end up in the same class and so I have advantages that just aren't there for most poverty stricken people. We are a classful society that believes we are classless. Sure a few people eventually find themselves in another class of society from their parents but a few people also win the lottery and there isn't much difference.
theKed
(1,235 posts)with all these "white and/or male privilege" threads is that they are doomed to bring out the people who would rather bring white males down rather than bring the rest up. Is it not better for all to be privileged, rather than all to be unprivileged? White guy bashing is fun, but minority/woman/LGBT boosting is better for us all in the long run.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)instead of simply creating a strawman argument to derail
theKed
(1,235 posts)that it is not better that everyone be raised to the same level of privilege?
Or are you just content to bitch and moan?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)of bringing males down. it was your whine about duers in this thread, all about bringing men down.
i asked you for an example.
what i got was another fabricated argument "that it is not better that everyone be raised to the same level of privilege? "
since i did not saying anything like that, it seems just another lame strawman.
theKed
(1,235 posts) seabeyond
(110,159 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)1. Find the word "white" in my OP. Pssst: you won't.
2. Clearly, you're the victim in all this. Sorry for "bringing you down" by pointing out some basic truths.
Man, I really baited a hook with this thread. Unreal.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
theKed
(1,235 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)When I left the US in 1978 this was pretty well settled territory.
There was massive support for the equal rights amendment but it lost support somewhat because the issue seemed, well settled.
If you weren't, in your words, an ally, then you would be getting little attention from women.
When I returned to the US in the late 90's we were back to debating the whole question again, like a lot of things that I thought were settled.
I should point out that I came from a fairly conservative college and graduate experience, and it was well settled there as well.
Its kind of unsettling.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)
Among other unfortunate developments.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)I remember when he used to go around the country doing Lincoln Day parties to help raise money for the local Republican Party.
He was mildly amusing.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seems to me something happened in the mid 90's attacking all the forward movement.
my hypothesis is, with independence and freedom, women needed/wanted men less, and men felt not needed/wanted by the old standard that all were comfortable in.
action/reaction
it felt like in the mid 90's there started an effort t put geenie back in the bottle and it cant work. that is what we see today.
but, i agree. i have been looking for the last year at that time period to see if i find anything interesting. any interesting theory. havent found anything yet.
spooky3
(34,484 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am going to have to check it out.
reading the descriptions, sounds like it will make me angry, lol. sigh...
the comments were interesting. i was reading amazon review.
backlash. that is exactly what i feel.
i was single when there was a man shortage. didnt bother me at all. it was clear, in my world, that wasnt true.
thanks.
spooky3
(34,484 posts)they made lots of personal attacks on the author, and most claimed she misstated facts, but they didn't give a single, concrete example of where she got facts wrong. Gee, I wonder why not...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)We're debating it because the conditions of 1978 no longer exist. Further, the ERA is a non-starter because the remaining laws which would be subject to repeal are all laws that benefit women.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)K&R!
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Again, not only present and tolerated but celebrated.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Recognizing and challenging male privilege is not misandry.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)and male bashing which takes place here all the time.
patrice
(47,992 posts)makes all of the problems worse.
Emo progs are correct, each person has a right to his or her emotions, but this also means that all emotions are equally valid, even those of those horrible privileged white males. As emotions, per se, it's ALL indeterminate, 50:50, so, beyond that 50:50, some of us reject the point, because there appears to be none outside of the power of anger . . .
and (this) sissy don't play that game.
McDiggy
(150 posts)I hate this gender stuff.
White men have privlidges. But so don't women. I think that's the think that irks white men that are told their lives are so easy. Talk male privilege to the men that died in Vietnam after being drafted. Talk make privilege to the men that can't get custody of their children because our society allows women to have custody almost by default. Or how about how male genital mutilation is still accepted and encouraged in the US. And on and on. There is male and female privilege in this country. If you sit down and think about it, really it is ridiculous for both genders what is expected of them and only them. This "you don't see your privilege" stuff cuts both ways.
Personally, I'm a white male. I was born in West Virginia, lived with two crack cocaine addicts for parents, went weeks without heat, sometimes no food, I was always looked at with suspicion by the local cops because of who my patents were...long story short, I fought and clawed my way to college, professional school, and now to the upper middle class with only student loans and the desire to not be my parents to keep me going. I've always wondered WTF this privilege I was supposed to have is. I'm pretty certain my path was a harder one than the daughter of a surgeon. But for some on DU, apparently I had it easier than every women alive because of the technicality of having white parents and having a penis.
I find the entire concept of this thread so very, very stupid.
I don't know, maybe we could all just stop stereotyping. Saying all white men have an easy life is pretty insulting and void of logic. Some white men do. Some white men don't. Some women are pretty danged privlidged.
patrice
(47,992 posts)that I have no emotional corelate for the experience of fathering as fathering.
And, btw, what do we say to the LGBTQ community from OP's perspective? Shall we address whiteness or maleness or privilege?
It's not that I'm saying privilege has not accrued to certain demographic categories because of certain traits of history, just that that may not be as we have been programmed to talk about it. It IS possible that it could, in whole or at least in significant part, be something other than what "we" "think" "it" is.
Had those historical traits happened to be different, the privileged categories would be different, so it's not the categories themselves that are entirely driving the thing we are talking about. Whatever level of "privilege" white males may or may not have experienced, perhaps their skepticism about SHARING any of that has to do with their human instincts about how, were the course of history different, or if things were "changed" in certain ways, and the "privilege" accrued to a "different" categories, they'd be the ones inveighing against Just-Us to deaf ears. It doesn't make any difference TO THEM if they are right or wrong about that if they see no evidence to the contrary and just telling them doesn't make it so. If we were in their position, wouldn't we want to see that evidence before we believed you and your message are worth it? The situation is as though people want to say there is this absolute difference, but the different ones should just get over it on every one else's say so, so is the difference, however privilege is defined, a difference or not? If it is shouldn't it be addressed as such? If it isn't shouldn't it be addressed as such? I'm confused.
I agree, generally, certain things have tended to accrue to a cohort that happens also to be "white" and male and those acquired experiences can be called privileges, but saying that my little-brother's ability to get a taxi in a strange city is the same thing as legacy admission to Yale, just fucking doesn't work. Why doesn't the difference between those 2 experiences matter? My answer to that question has to do with bitterness and vindictive power and maybe that is what some of the resistance to the message about white male privilege is sensing, not the validity of the message itself.
We have another instance here of people kicking a dog, because it can't sing La Boheme. It makes monsters out of the dog and you and then those monstrosities make singing extinct altogether.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)to yourself. I don't care about debating it. Answer one question--
WOULD you want to be a woman given the choice?
Would you want to BE any woman on TV, or in other media? That is, what we are given as visible role models? (Not talking about the small number of female surgeons).
Would you want to be Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, or Hillary Clinton--given the obvious disrespect they have had to endure?
If you are successful in (whatever) your field--you KNOW that women in your field have had it harder than you, no matter your background. You KNOW it.
No need to reply. Just ask yourself.
McDiggy
(150 posts)...and I honestly think I'd be in the exact same place either way.
I wouldn't mind being a woman in some respects. Women do have certain privileges I wouldn't mind having. (Female privilege is something rarely talked about on here...and it certainly does exist just as much as male privilege exists) I wouldn't have to pay for dinner ever again on a date. Men would put themselves out there for me rather than vice versa. People would open doors for me. I wouldn't be expected to perform an act of submission to ask someone to marry me. I wouldn't be expected to spend 3 months of salary to buy a woman a trinket to ask her to marry me. I wouldn't be at risk towards being called up at any time to be thrown into a war. I would actually have reproductive choice (men who cause a pregnancy can have a child against their wishes...women have the option of termination, adoption, or having the child.) There are think about being a man I like. Stronger physically. Nobody looks at me weird if I'm mowing my lawn. I can pee standing up. No menstruation. No risk of pregnancy. Statistically, I get paid more (even though in my workplace everyone I work with in the same position, men and woman, get paid the same.) Obviously these are a small sampling of the various wrongs or unfairness in gender relations.
I'm just saying, honestly, both sexes get their perks and their lumps. I could see how the older generation would feel more strongly growing up with the "woman in the kitchen" dynamic. But my generation (gen y)? Young men make less, have higher unemployment rates, attain lower education levels (women now obtain the majority of college degrees)...I just don't see it as much in my generation. And in some respects, perhaps the feminists should call the dogs off a tad. Young men aren't as privileged as they they used to be. And this generation of young men didn't "lose" any privilege, they just never really had it like their grandfathers and fathers had it. Which is why, for someone of my background and age, it's pretty weird to have people tell me how much privilege I have. There should be an age cutoff or something. Because I'm tellin' ya...young men don't have that much privilege.
I'd love to be Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, or Hilary Clinton. Are you kidding me? Who wouldn't want to live the life of Hilary Clinton? Senator? Secretary of State...flying all over the world, seeing crazy, secret stuff like the planning of the bin Laden raid before it happened? That would be awesome. Yes, without a doubt, I would love to be any of those women.
As for what I do...I'm a pharmacist...its actually QUITE a women dominated field. My Managing Pharmacist is a female. My district pharmacy manager is a female. In fact, women tend to get all of the plum gigs now that I think about it. Men seem to always get the night shifts or the busy stores.
Sometimes I think women REALLY, REALLY overestimate this "being a man" thing. If you honestly think all of us wouldn't like to live the life of a Hilary Clinton, you are nuts.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I said BE Hillary. There is a difference. Would you really want people hounding you every minute for being a woman who is perceived as a feminist ("feminazi" ? I don't think you would want her struggle, that is--to try to make it in what is clearly a man's world. I wouldn't.
But OK. You say you're Gen Y and you're feel you have to put yourself out there for women too much?
It's the 21st century. You don't have to pay for every dinner date. You don't have to open doors for women any more than for a man. You don't have to give women expensive trinkets. Find some different women to go out with.
Young men today make less than their fathers but they still make more than their sisters. Not much has changed there. In a field that is dominated by women, like pharmacy, nursing, teaching--sorry if you find it rough--if more men were in those professions, well maybe things would be better.
As for advantages of being male--"nobody looks at me weird if I'm mowing my lawn." WTF. Where do you live? Where I live, women are mowing lawns without worrying about their image.
Think on it honestly some more, McDiggy. The longer you live, the more you will see that sexism is alive and well.
McDiggy
(150 posts)I never denied that sexism doesn't exist. I'm just saying that it cuts both ways. And just as men sometimes ignore what women go through, women sometimes ignore the plight of men. It seems that the feminist movement has this narrative that everything always favors men. This certainly isn't the case.
I'm all for gender equality. The problem with being for gender equality is that if you look at things objectively, you can't help but notice that men are wronged all the time. And its not always overt things like selective service. Look at the media. All you see are dumb, fat TV dads being propped up by their smart, attractive TV wives. You still see women on TV slapping and being violent towards men, yet (and rightfully!) men being violent towards women in any way is considered horrific, if a woman date rapes a man or if a teacher statutorily rapes a boy, the victim is seen as being "lucky." And in the case of the OP, white men get blamed for everything as if every white man shares a hive-brain. I'm a white man and I take heavy offense towards somehow being blamed for rape and gun violence. I blame rape on rapists, not white men. I blame rape perpetrated by white males on white male rapists. I really don't understand why I need to be lumped into the same category as sociopaths and rapists.
And it isn't some stupid competition like many feminists try to make it out to be. I don't care who is subjectively "more" oppressed. I want nobody to be oppressed. And if along the way for fighting for equal pay or ending rape I just so happen to notice that young men are being left being in education and employment, I don't think I should be judged as a blind fool that "can't see what its like to be a woman" because of it. Back when 70% of college degrees went to men, it was bad. Now over 60% of college degrees go to women. But this isn't a good thing, either...and it seems nobody cares. If you posted something like "Great news, more women are getting degrees than men!" on this forum, it would be met with cheers. But in an egalitarian society, it should be about 50-50.
There is a lot of work to be done towards reaching an egalitarian society, and feminists need to realize that in SOME cases, they are being very blind to reality. Just as male privilege needs to be addressed, as should female privilege.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)that many generations of male dominance and oppression of women needs to be completely reversed and that will take more than a couple of generations. So unfortunately we will not be living in the better "egalitarian" times to come--if you believe they will come, which I do. With work. But we can take heart from the positive changes.
I agree the images of men on TV are not always good. But I question whether violence towards men is a big enough issue relative to violence against women. Who would argue that it's OK for anybody? Women do not commit sexual crimes nearly as much as men--I'm sure you know that. As far as physical abuse, it's just hard to argue that women have an equal advantage (I might, since I've studied karate but women don't generally choose combat). I don't think anybody is calling you personally a rapist. Too much identification there. But as a man, you do have to take it on that your gender does this and work against it. For example in the Steubenville case, what about the guys who just laughed or sat around and did nothing? Now THOSE guys ARE complicit. You don't have to be complicit and that makes you a better man.
If "female privilege" means getting doors opened for you, that whole archaic thing--it's not worth much. I'm not sure what you would define as "female privilege"--I don't see much of it at all in our society. Certainly this is still a patriarchy. Your concerns certainly attest to the growing pains of changing to an egalitarian one tho. That's all to the good. If men are uncomfortable right now, they should be.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Feminism is a historical theory in addition to being a political and social movement. The theory states, in effect, that society considers masculine to be the default, generic human while feminine is constructed as a Saidian "other." Feminine was supposed to be weak, emotional, lustful, and dithering. Masculine, by contrast, was commanding, strong, rational, and decisive. In other words, part of its definition was that it wasn't feminine. Western historians described the entire non-white world in feminine terms as a rationale for colonialism. Once the androcentric historical narrative was deconstructed, women could be returned to their rightful places in historiy, however patriarchal a time and place might be.
Feminist scholars, drawing on Said and Foucault, explored identity and power relations. With masculine removed as the default gender, focus shifted from restoring the feminine to exploring the construction of gender identity in general. Unlike sex, which is physical, gender is a performative construct. One acts her or his gender by conforming to gender norms. Part of that is the idea of patriarchy. Under that system, men are in command of the nuclear family. Another man, an employer or landlord perhaps, is in command of that man, and by implication his family. Someone else commands that superior man. Ultimately the state operates as the father figure of society--perhaps embodied in a king--with each man and his family fixed in his proper place. The system is highly gendered, structured, and racialized. Since the patriarchy is modeled on the nuclear family, non-conforming gender models such as homosexual, interracial, etc. are a direct threat to the patriarchy.
So patriarchy does create an advantage for men in the public (non-domestic, not necessarily governmental) sphere, but an illusory one since the men of the ruling class command all in a patriarchy. Bringing it down, therefore, frees everyone, not just women.
By the way, the foregoing owes a lot of people footnotes. None of it is my original work.
benld74
(9,911 posts)juanalderete
(2 posts)Womanhood is a membership to which I cannot belong. Womanhood, while at the core of feminism, is not the same as feminism.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)"a man claiming to be a feminist is the equivalent of a hammer claiming to be a nail"?
Wrong. Dead wrong. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
A person who supports feminism.
Adjective
Of, relating to, or supporting feminism.
If you, as a man, support feminism, you are a feminist. Fact.
Telling men that they can not be feminists, can not be a supporter of feminism but only an "ally" is parsing words Will. It is in no way the equivalent of a hammer claiming to be a nail. A hammer is an object that can be touched. So is a nail. A feminist, no matter what sex, is "a person who supports feminism". Fact.
As for the rest, quite true. There is privilege.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Me for thinking I'm a "feminist" or you for thinking you're not?