This comment was from NickMostly on the post When Angry Commenters find Common Ground
I think patriarchy was a useful term that has since become dilute to the point of being nearly meaningless. But if we narrow its scope a bit to describe a society organized around the principle of men (specifically white, land-holding men) holding power to the near exclusion of all others, I do think it apropos.
Over time that power imbalance has shrunk (due in no small part to the efforts of early feminists), and comparatively the privileges men have today are but shadows of what they once were. While some privileges remain, most that do appear to be largely due to lingering effects (e.g. there’s no law preventing women from becoming CEOs, but antiquated attitudes keep some women out of the job).
At the outset feminism did (and still does, theoretically) have as its goal a more egalitarian society. The idea that “Women Are People Too” is more than mere platitude. But women are people too, and this is one problem with feminism as a movement. It has its rifts, its factions, and its extremists. And while in the main feminists try to pursue a more egalitarian society, they do so having been socialized in the society they are attempting to change. Meanwhile the more radical elements are pursuing an altogether different agenda, one that is explicitly about inverting the balance of power rather than equalizing it.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that women are at both extremes – at one policing the gender norms in society, and at the other trying to transform those norms to their advantage. After all, they’re just people.
–
photo: joeshlabonik / flickr
About the Editors
Nick — So awesome, so true, and really gets to the heart of my problems with feminism lately. Though I still call myself a feminist, I’m battling that internally as I wonder if the movement is now causing more harm that the good it does. It used to be so important, and I still think it is, but the movement is really being tarnished by the efforts of a vocal minority of radfems and Internet extremists.
Thanks for this. So thoughtful and articulate.
What does “patriarchy” mean? It is a term invented by feminists to blame all men of the world for everything bad in the world. As such it’s only real equivalent would be something like the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. It’s pure nonsense invention of a ridiculous and prejudicial idea — namely that a birth group / minority group is actually running everything secretly and for their own good.
The feminists decided to use the same word that originally had a specific meaning in anthropology, namely the idea of a society where fathers rule. Anyone in their right mind think that fathers rule today? We know that fathers are one of the most screwed groups in our legal system. So, no, it doesn’t have anything to do with the original meaning. It’s an entirely new meaning created by feminists.
Associated with the ridiculous and sexist term “patriarchy” is the equally fraudulent idea that all men have “male privilege”. Funny thing about male privilege is nobody can ever say what it is. Like the Emperor’s New Clothes all the smart people know it exists and if you can’t see it then that just means you’re stupid or sexist. It’s almost considered rude to actually ask what it means. Which is why I always ask what it means. If I ever get a good answer I’ll tell you.
Apparently according to the OP it means all men can become CEOs. If you’re a man and not a CEO I guess you’re just a pathetic failure because that’s your “male privilege”.
The word “patriarchy” goes back further than feminism. Like, the 1500s. Perhaps it’s appearance on our modern vernacular can be attributed to feminists, but it has real meaning.
Second, Nick doesn’t say that patriarchy is alive and thriving today. In fact, he says pointedly that things are very different today:
And you’re extrapolating this CEOs thing he says ad absurdum, David. He says antiquated attitudes can keep *some* women from becoming CEOs. He doesn’t say that all men can become CEOs and all women can’t. Nowhere does he put any shame or mojo on men for not becoming CEOs. He’s simply talking about antiquated attitudes. And frankly, you should agree with him, as you’re against the antiquated attitude that a man *should* be a CEO.
Nick, in my opinion, here doesn’t even speak to men being able to be CEOs. Certainly not all men are going to be encouraged to be CEOs as there are *many* other forms of privilege, and different forms of privilege are shifting and taking hold at different times. Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka has WAY more privilege than, say, even a white man who was raised in poor Appallachia without access to “coastal” American dialect or orthodonture, as far as becoming a CEO. In many ways, the class privilege and educated-family privilege are way more powerful than race or sex. But to say male privilege doesn’t exist is as blind as saying female privilege doesn’t exist. Or class privilege.
And now I’m going to tell you what privilege is: It is the bias given toward a person, in a given situation, based upon a characteristic. Yeah, that’s a broad and shifting definition, but that is because privilege is a broad and shifting term. Male privilege refers to the biases afforded to men because of their maleness. Yes, that man can be poor, then he loses the “class” privilege. Or that man can be “uneducated” which loses him the “educated” privilege. Or he may be fat, which loses him the “fit” privilege, and he may also unattractive, which loses him the “handsome” privilege. But he still retains his male privilege. Even if all those other ones outweigh the male privilege and lose him a job, or lose him respect by someone, they all exist together and are ever-shifting, always weighing differently in different situations.
David, you and I agree that “privilege” is one of those trigger words, and that often it causes problems in conversations. But it doesn’t *have to* cause problems. You can look past the term and let it mean something to you as an individual, coming from an individual, and being about and individual in an individual circumstance and not let the term stop you dead in your tracks.
I don’t think you disagree with Nick here. But I think you’ve chosen to focus only on his use of a term you don’t like. But that isn’t addressing a problem with his message, that is addressing a problem with a word.
And while you may do that, choose to focus on just one word of a few hundred, I fear that doesn’t help get the conversation moving forward toward equity of the sexes, which is what we want. Both of us. All three of us.
Since it seems to be impossible for anyone to give an example of male privilege maybe any feminist could answer a more general question about this so-called concept of privilege. Basically my hypothesis is that the entire word is just made up by feminists to attack men, and has no other use. If you disagree and think it has some real use then please answer this question. How can you figure out if a given birth group has “privilege” or not?
Please see my post. I also like Joanna’s answer.
Thank you.
This definition troubles me because it seems to contradict what feminists have often said here at GMP (rather less anywhere else) that women have privilege too.
That definition says it is not possible for men and women to both have privilege.
Either that or you are saying a phrase like “male privilege” is meaningless unless a specific context is given. Like “men have privilege when it comes to writing their name in the snow”. But I don’t see the phrase used that way. It’s been “male privilege” with no context of any specific situation.
Yes, it’s true, the term “male privilege” is only ever true in a specific context.
It IS meaningless without context, you are so right.
And yes, “male privilege” would not be able to exist at the same time as female privilege if they wer ein the same context and situation at the same time. That is the binary nature of gender privilege: if you’re being given privilege based upon your sex, I cannot, in that exact same situation be using female privilege in that specific way. I could, however, have gender privilege in a different way in the same situation. It’s hard to think of an example, but perhaps you and I are both going for a job wherein the boss thinks men are more suitable for the position (consciously or unconsciously). You then have male privilege. If, however, my class or cultural privileges override your maleness (say he hates Englishmen) then my privileges will override yours, as a person with some particular education, and being born American.
I know it’s a stretch to imagine someone being against a person for being English, but I’m just using it as an example. We both have Western privilege, but we sorta have to imagine otherwise for that example.
So in that case, the different privileges work simultaneously in a dynamic way to create an outcome. In some ways it’s skills (obviously if I’m a plumber and your’e not, it’s just logical that I should be hired over you, and vise versa. but if i didn’t get hired because ‘girls can’t be plumbers’ and you have less experience, that’s your male privilege).
When people say, “Your Privilege is showing” it’s a really awful way of derailing a conversation and insulting someone. Part of the insult is in saying, “you’re too dumb to know that you’re preferred sometimes based upon things neither of us can control”.
But feminists are often frustrated that some men can’t see when privilege exists for them. Just as often men are frustrated that women can’t see our privilege.
The other day I went to rent a car because mine was being fixed. I got a Lincoln MKX for 22 dollars a day. Normally it rents from 85-110 a day at this place (this is LA, I’m sure that’s high for anywhere else). I said, “Oh man, I don’t want that Chevy Cobalt, it’s so small for my kids and I and I have to drive on the freeway a lot. Is there anything bigger?” and I said it smiling. And I’m a cute little blonde thing (sorry, true). The guy whispers, “How about the MKX? I’ll give you the insurance rate. Don’t tell any other customers.”
And I took it. I was psyched. Am I a bad person because I took advantage of my privilege? Should I have said, “no, if you don’t give it to that guy over there I’m not taking the deal.” I don’t know, I’d hear arguments on that. But I was given the privilege of femaleness and cuteness and motherhood. They were all at work there. I didn’t even have to work it, I just stated it.
Is it fair? No! Is it fair that many, many hiring bosses believe men are better at most jobs? Male waiters systematically get tipped higher because there’s an air of perceived “competence” even when service and food are the same? No. Not fair, but if we can say, “yeah, you know in X situation I had an advantage due to A, B, and C privileges” then we are all going to be better able to address the inequities in our society.
People may use it as an attack, but it is not, inherently, an attack.
Ugh, the Internet RadFems are making life harder on all of us once again by abusing terms they don’t understand. “Your Privilege Is Showing” and “Check Your Privilege” are just derailing techniques, meant to shut men down.
Great answer Joanna.
Didn’t the radfems invent the term?
Yeah, no. The vast majority of these types of terms were ‘invented’ by various social scientists throughout the ages. I’m willing to bet that the term ‘privilege’ was first used in this way with reference to African-American civil rights, though I’m not completely sure on that. At the minute, anthropologists are the ones usually defining terms like ‘patriarchy,’ ‘matrilineal,’ etc…and it’s sociologists who are defining ‘privilege’ in this context. So basically, it’s academics developed most of these terms.
My experience of seeing the term privilege used simply has no point in common with what you are saying. I almost never see “male privilege” used with a context. In fact the whole point seems to be that there is no context but rather it is saying something about men as a whole. For example it’s called “the male privilege checklist” not “a list of situations where men have privilege”. As you say with “check your privilege” (which is actually a new slogan to me) the insult is apparent and I have never heard of that slogan being used with a context.
So how do we proceed? You’re saying this slogan means one thing and I am saying I have almost never heard it used that way.
Btw I don’t think that’s true about male waitresses.
I don’t think there is any such thing as a male waitress…
There are so many studies on tipping and {gender, ethnicity, drawing smiley faces, touching customers, various combinations thereof} that can be found with a Google Scholar search at your nearest research library.
I’m sure I can Google any number of bad “studies” but perhaps you think there is a good one? Or are you saying if I find a bad one and use it to say — see, it doesn’t happen, that would satisfy you?
The main issue is that men tend to do those jobs more often at restaurants that are more upscale and demand their staff hold a very large tray of food high in the air with one hand. If you factor out the cost of the meal I highly doubt that men would be tipped more. But I bet your “studies” never do that.
And you’d lose that bet.
Well apparently it would always remain hypothetical.
Right well my sister’s a waitress, and she’s worked at quite a few upscale restaurants, actually. Also, her husband is a chef and he’s worked at a variety of restaurants, both upscale and cheap. Oddly enough we were just having a conversation about this. Turns out, in their experience, it’s really just coffee shops and cheap diners where you get like, no male servers. Upscale places usually have a good mix of men and women.
Also, as for the reference to holding large trays of food, it’s really balance that plays a huge part. Well, balance and strength, of course….but balance is key. My sister does just fine, so the physical side of things isn’t a very good point of contention.
First, it IS true about waiters vs waitresses, and it has been addressed a billion times, and you can look it up if you want. Or I will tomorrow when I’m less exhausted and grumpy at you.
Second, radfems did NOT invent that term, privilege is an old term, it is an academic term, and in academia, it is not an insult. Internet radfems turned in into an insult and you know — I KNOW you know, David — that I understand what it triggers when people say it. That does NOT mean that you should stop trying to understand what equity feminists mean when we say it. I don’t usually say it (on the Internet), because it triggers people (because of how it’s been used against you guys), except to explain what non-dickish people mean when they say it. It is not a perjorative in it’s definition anywhere in the world outside of internet feminism.
You know, outside of the Internet, people talk about privilege all the time with people of all persuasions and ideologies, it isn’t considered offensive. This is a really specific problem that I never knew existed before I met MRAs.
If you want us to understand that you feel it’s offensive, I get that. You know I understand that, David. But then you need to make an equal effort to understand that the majority of people in the real world, and Julie, Nick and I specifically here do NOT mean if offensively. You need to step out of what you’re expecting from us and let us be individuals and hear what we’re saying without clinging to one frickin’ word.
It didn’t start as a perjorative. It isn’t used regularly as a perjorative IRL, and here we (these three people before you) are not using it that way. Join us in this moment, here, right now, on this page.
Nothing in this conversation is going anywhere when you do that. Julie is frustrated with you, other people are frustrated with you, because you’re hanging on one single word. I am still here, I’m still engaging you, because I get you. But you need to hear me right now: this is not serving you.
I have tried to understand you. I have changed because of things you’ve told me. Do the same for me, and just try to hear me and let your mind open a little bit.
oops, typed “perjorative” and obviously i mean “pejorative” which is obviously just totally different. i’m clearly tired!
Here’s an example from the comment threads:
http://goodmenproject.com/men-and-feminism/i-have-female-privilege/comment-page-4/#comment-100336
So in that case Rebecca Cohen (Gynostar author) is making it clear that to her “privilege” does NOT mean what you say it means but does mean a context-less overall state of being male which expressly excludes women also being privileged.
So this sort of statement is common even on GMP. But I have never seen any feminists dispute the meaning of this word the way you are with me.
It just seems to me that if you are angry about this words meaning being misused then you should be taking that up with the feminists who misuse it.
For that matter she is also misusing the word “patriarchy” from what you say, which again, I have never seen anyone use patriarchy and mean “society where fathers rule”.
Just as ‘egalitarian’ is a better word than ‘feminist’ when you want to talk about promoting equality…
So “repressive gender roles” is more meaningful and less biased than “patriarchy” when discussing societal pressures and expectations. It’s simply more descriptive and more accurate than the radical-feminist terminology.
I totally agree that “egalitarian” is a better word, which is why no longer refer to myself as a “feminist” and instead choose to identify as a “fierce egalitarian.” Supposedly they have the same meaning, but “feminist” has been corrupted by the internet feminists and rad-fems whose goals aren’t gender equity.
And yet I find the term “feminist” useful when describing those who describe themselves as such. Most of the feminists I know personally are for gender equality, don’t like the ways some have used feminism as a bludgeon against men, and are upset at a family law system that discriminates against fathers. None of those feminists have blogs or post comments online so you never hear their opinions, you never hear their voices of support for men, you never hear their disagreements with the anti-men feminists.
In fact, all of them say I’m wasting my time trying to engage the radical feminists and anti-men feminists. (They also say I’m wasting my time trying to engage the MRAs who share a common motivation of anger and bitterness with the rad-fems.) These friends are women educated at Smith, and Wellesley, and Mt. Holyoke. They know these people, they went to school with these people, and they think these people are every bit as crazy as you do.
If you’re not a feminist then you probably ought to say so first because you use feminist buzz words which will just guarantee you offend people first thing.
Did you miss the nuance of what I wrote there or did I not describe my beliefs well? Just because I don’t use the label to describe myself doesn’t mean I don’t find common cause with those who do choose to use the word and are interested in gender equity. But the label doesn’t actually matter to me; I only use it when someone asks if I’m a feminist. What matters more to me is what I mean when I use any label, and that can only come by explaining my position on things, including things like what privileges (if any) men still retain.
And you write things that are deeply offensive to me. Some of the invective you hurl at “feminism” without first qualifying that you mean “anti-men feminism” or “radical feminism” is quite an irritant. But if I spent all my time reacting to being offended because someone used such and such word I’d be the poorer for it. I’m trying to understand what you believe. It’s your ideas that are important to me, and it’s quite the challenge to find them amidst your anger-filled rhetoric when someone uses a word and even qualifies what they mean when the use the word.
How about you agree not to use the words “feminism” or “feminist” and I’ll agree not to use the word “patriarchy” and “privilege?” Would that be acceptable to you?
That sounds like a reasonable trade to me.
Nick, I think that was very well-sad. And I’m with Lisa that that’s a fair trade!
Fine. That sounds like a challenge that would be good for me. Starting now. But the offer isn’t symmetrical.
Saying negative things about a political movement isn’t the same as saying negative things about a birth group. Now is it?
I am a communist. You know what? Sometimes people in the US say unpleasant things about communism. It doesn’t matter to me because either (1) I do endorse the ideas they are criticising and I can debate / refute their criticism or (2) I don’t endorse the ideas they are criticising so I don’t take it personally.
If someone says something attacking me for how I was born I can’t say “Well I don’t believe that”. I also can’t say “I do believe that but you’re wrong”. I’m just screwed. And that too wouldn’t be a big deal except that with anti-male attacks often the rest of society happen to back up those prejudices.
So, apropos of ancient terminology (perhaps Ozy is reading here) comes a quite timely post fromNSWATM. In particular this quote:
Here is someone who identifies as an egalitarian, who has a masculist blog specifically focussed on the concerns of men, who still has trouble breaking free of the narrative. But mostly it’s Ozy’s practical but lighthearted take on language and terminology that I think is most fitting here.
Love that site.
And we all have thoughts like what Ozy’s saying here, but we can reason through them. Well, some of us can. The narrative of how we were raised, which is unfair to men, really (but also unfair to women) is going to sit within us. It’s how we’re willing to open up and look at the stories we tell ourselves that makes us able to try to do better.
What would you think about this?
Bleh. Only 1st paragraph meant to be quoted.
You think that is a masculist blog?
It’s a feminist blog. Even uses the word “patriarchy” right there.
If I recall correctly, the first post they had, first commenter was an MRA and they attacked him.
Yep comments 2-5 attacked him including this gem:
“Welp, you just opened a nice new swimming pool, and already someone’s shit in it.”
“While some privileges remain, most that do appear to be largely due to lingering effects (e.g. there’s no law preventing women from becoming CEOs, but antiquated attitudes keep some women out of the job).”
No where in that sentence does it say, all men can become CEOs? And we’ve had a number of emails discussing the concepts of privilege and it does not mean that all men get everything they want all the time.
As we’ve discussed, privilege is not a tangible item or reward, it is or can be an experience of being the default.
Privilege simply means “default” Male, white, straight, middle class, able bodied. The average American family. Normative. It means you can go through life not having to think about how other people might feel. You think the way you live is the right way the normal way, the American way etc. You are straight, you see images of straightness everywhere reinforcing that that is the norm. It used to be images of whiteness, straightness, etc. Now things are becoming more and more diverse in terms of images etc. It’s….not money per se, it’s not a gift card.
A white man driving a car through a white neighborhood is less likely to be pulled over than a black man (wrong, by the way). The white man may be considered to have privilege from that. He doesn’t need to do anything with it. He should probably be aware of it and make political decisions based on how he feels about it. Given a changing context, that same white man may have less privilege in a different location.
Privilege is not an attack on character (or that isn’t the intent). To say to me, Julie you have white privilege, is not the same thing as saying, Julie you are a cracker racist.
Not at all. For me to take it as the same, would mean I was irrational. I do have white privilege. I am white. I don’t have any choice over that. I do have choice over how I live my life in my white body. Or my straight body. Or in my middle class abled body that has the ability to get highly educated.
That the concept doesn’t translate well? Well, that’s a problem obviously and one that I am increasingly frustrated with. It’s become a terribly difficult thing to discuss especially when it very specifically doesn’t mean a concrete, hold it in your hand, advantage.
If someone lobbs the word “privilege” at you sarcastically or accusatorily, it’s not the theory’s fault. Not any more than a sociopathic abuser using “feminism” to beat a child. That’s not feminism. That’s sociopathy. That person could have easily used “christianity” or “race” as a torture device. And they’d be completely damn wrong for the abuse and the justification of the abuse on a concept. But people, as we’ve discussed, can be shit.
I’ve got privilege and it’s not a dirty word. What I do with it is what counts. I feel no shame for the roles I play and gifts I have inherited, but I would be remiss if I thought my place in the grand scheme of things will always be a default.
I can honorably say, “Yes I do have privilege, and here is what I am doing with it to make the world a better place. Here is how I examine it to make sure I am creating spaces wide enough and diverse enough for other people to kick ass and take names.”
As for Patriarchy….it is an old concept. It is not a term invented by feminists to blame man for everything bad in the world. It’s a very old word meaning rule of the father but you know that. It may be a concept as well as a way to frame political debate utilized by feminists during the late 20th century, but it, as a family or governmental structure, has existed far longer than the feminists pushing against it.
Do you want to have actual conversations about this stuff or is it just more fun to throw virtual punches? Cause that’s how this looks to me.
One other way that I think about privilege. If I were to pick up and move to Taiwan let’s say. I would have a huge adjustment to make. All my modes of moving through a society would be up in the air. Some of that is culture shock yes? But it’s also similar to the feeling of losing privilege.
The people aren’t like me, and they are the dominant ones, yes? Their rules, their semiotic signs, their ways of being. I don’t get, as a white westerner, to tell them they need to adjust for me. I have to adjust for them. There is a very uncomfortable feeling connected to that at times, where one becomes aware of being the different one.
So, as a straight gal going into a gay community, I immediately could toss my privilege around (including tangible rights and rewards like marriage), or I could STFU and adjust to the culture I’m in. And in this case I’m of a privileged group (straight-the normative legally recognized class) visiting with a minority group.
I don’t suspect you’ll agree here, but that’s how I think about it.
It isn’t a tangible gift card you get which is why I think so many people get hung up on it. What good does the word do for a dude in Illinois, out of work, no insurance with a wife who has divorced him.
Privilege if he hears it, makes him feel like women are saying You Have More. And it’s a misuse. But I can’t do much about it at them moment. What I do see is people trying and trying and trying to talk to you about it.
Well are you willing to listen to what I am saying? Because what I have consistently said is that these words are insults and that they are offensive and the only thing I ever hear back is No, your feelings are irrelevant. Let me tell you what to feel. You say you have had feminists use these words as insults, but that’s not true. I alone get to define the meaning of terms and the meaning of your experience.
Could you start by simply saying that you heard me there? “David, I hear what you are saying that you find these terms deeply offensive and insulting. David I hear you when you say that your experience with these words is a lot of feminists using them as insults against you.”
Something like that please?
David. I honestly hear you. I see and hear that you feel these words are insults. I am trying, apparently uselessly, not to tell you that your feelings are wrong. Not at all. Your feelings are your feelings. I sense a great level of frustration in your words and in our emails. I feel relatively helpless to do anything about it and I also feel exceptionally frustrated.
I’m trying to offer a frame on this so that there can be a shift in understanding, not so you will immediately say “Oh, I believe this.” but that so you might say, “Wow, I hadn’t thought about it this way.” I do not want to place your understanding in a box of my own making, but to take the lid off a box you seem fixated on staying in. Perhaps that is wrong of me to do and as of this comment, I won’t try any longer.
You don’t want me to offer this, even though you keep asking feminists to give you information. You appear to ask, then we answer, then you say this that we aren’t listening.
So I will not answer any more. I can’t give a better explanation of my experience with those words than the posts I’ve written. They are there if you ever want to read them or not. If you want to ask me questions, you have my email.
Your experience is that people have lobbed these words at you (or people you know) as insults. I said, just below that anyone using any ideology as a bludgeon is guilty of being cruel and finding justification for that cruelty with some word or theory. That’s not kind or fair.
I still believe that the terms and concepts aren’t anything more than a tool to understand a place in the world that I can be aware of advantages I have (and yes there are female ones), and if I am told I have white or straight privilege my experience is not that of insult. I offer that as a bridge to more conversation.
I am aware, and I do hear, that you are frustrated and upset and I am not telling you what to feel at all. I’m sharing my experience of a theory and concept because I sense your feeling. My apologies for causing any offense are here for all to see, for causing you harm is something I would never want to do.
I’ll not comment on your posts on this topic any further.
OK now I don’t know if I should reply because you say you won’t. OTOH the same comment applies to Joanna too.
What you seem to be saying here is that OK, that word means something else to me, and OK the word is used as an insult by the people I hear it from, but you want to use it to mean something completely different.
I don’t understand why you’d do that? Why not just use a more neutral word like “advantage” that doesn’t have any messed up associations? A word with no pejorative association? Why would you say “Men have a privilege when it comes to writing their name in the snow”, instead of simply, “Men have an advantage when it comes to writing their name in the snow”. The first triggers an argument and sounds pejorative. The second is a simple and neutral wording.
It’s like you want to “reclaim” the word “privilege” but you can’t do that because you’re not the group it insults.
Has it occurred to you that what they are saying, and you’re not hearing, is that they don’t believe it to be an insult? That there is no need to “reclaim” the word because it’s not a pejorative, even though you think it is?
The reason not to use the word “advantage” is because it doesn’t mean the same thing as “privilege.” Privilege is a particular type of advantage and it is in that distinction that the understanding is had.
On a separate note, is it so hard to be charitable to Joanna and Julie and believe them when they say they are using the word not as an attack but according to its denotation? I see them bending over backwards here trying to find some middle ground of understanding with you and absolutely no effort on your part to reciprocate until they accede to your demands. That is absolutely boorish behavior and were I them I would have stopped entertaining your tirades long ago.
Blah blah blah so I insult people I am uncharitable I have tirades I am boorish etc etc. Not like you who are always polite.
What happened to you “ignoring” me?
David!? WTH!?
Come back to discourse, please.
Do you agree with him that there’s a distinction between the word “advantage” and the word “privilege” in the sense that you’ve been advocating for? And if so what is that distinction because I am not seeing it from what you and Julie have said.
Okay fine. Yes, there’s a distinction. But I’m talking about the word privilege as is used in academia and non Internet feminism. YES we should bring this up with the Internet feminists, but YOU are the one who asked how JULIE and I defined it, so we answered that for you. I could find you ten more feminist writers who would agree with us, but they are aren’t interested in being attacked, due to the fact that the rest of the world gets it.
You know I don’t use the word with you. But I use it in real life. I know it bugs you, so I stopped. I honestly don’t know exactly what more you want from me.
Um… so what is the difference between advantage and privilege? According to the understanding of the word you and Julie are expressing I mean.
One of the reasons I use the denotation of words is that it reduces ambiguity. That’s also why I put links to definitions of words that might be contentious, such as “privilege.” There is an “internet feminism” meaning of privilege that might be summed up as “something men have that women don’t” but not only is that not a helpful construction, it’s actually counter-productive to helping others understand one’s point of view (and a good argument can be made that being understood isn’t actually the goal when used this way).
When I use the word “privilege” it is in the academic sense of the word, which one can often find by consulting reference materials. Privilege is conveyed upon someone or some group through law or custom whereas advantage need not be. The origin of the word “privilege” roughly translates to “private law” which I believe is a good way of thinking about the term.
Consider then a law that permits only men to inherit land. This law provides men with an advantage over women regarding the accumulation of wealth, but this advantage can be considered a privilege because of the nature in which the advantage is conferred onto men.
But privileges don’t need to be laws. Consider a woman in the US in the 1960s who wants to open a business. It’s often helpful when just starting out to have a line of credit for your initial expenses, but it wasn’t until the Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 that women were able to have loans in their own name (more specifically, banks were prohibited from discriminating against women in this regard). At that point what had once been a privilege for men ceased being such.
And what of advantage? Every privilege is an advantage, but not every advantage is a privilege. The reason I would argue for keeping the term privilege is because it is useful for narrowing the scope of consideration (and I ignore people who say “check your privilege,” they’re not interested in discourse anyway). Men have an advantage of not having a uterus with a baby inside when running from a lion on the savannah, but that’s not a privilege (even though it’s situational and sex-specific). To my mind, using the term “privilege” means I’m talking about a much narrower subset of advantages, and we can consider how the construction of those advantages helps and harms different groups.
Take the post about the offensive Parenting/CNN article. In the comments wet_suit_one says, “Could you imagine the indignity of being asked to change seats on a plane while sitting with your own children because policy dictates ‘No men sitting with children?’” Such a policy would unquestionably be a privilege that advantages women while harming men, and as such is repugnant.
That is a great post.
I just did, David.
Yep.
So I am going to reply to the second half separately as it was the half that wasn’t insulting men with terms like “patriarchy” and “male privilege”. Well it starts with another insult which is the, “Women Are People Too” barb. You can say that about a disadvantaged minority group and it makes sense but you can’t say that about an advantaged majority group like women. At that point it’s just an insult. It’s saying to men, “Not only are you screwed by society but in addition, just to kick you while you are down, we’re going to laugh at you and force you to pretend that it’s actually women who are down and you’re the assholes.” It’s like feminists stand on men’s necks and then say “You’re hitting my boot with your face”
Well there is some precedent for using that phrase to benefit the powerful against the weak. Mitt Romney’s classic, “Corporations are people too my friend”.
Well I guess I better reply to the non-insult part (ie the part which attempts a defence of feminism as an institution / movement) in yet another comment to try and keep things tidy. I will just point out that the OP seems to confuse “feminist” with “woman” a lot in this last part of the comment which is all the more odd as he appears to be a male feminist.
I can understand why feminists try to pretend all women are feminists (instead of only about 25% which is the true value by identification in polls) but why do they pretend no men are? Feminists want to make everyone think that they represent women when they do not. Most women either think that men are worse off than women today or else they think men and women are about the same. For men of course the number is greater. In other words society just isn’t buying that “male privilege” exists any more.
Forgive me if my reply is a bit court; my previous attempt was lost to the auto-refresh. I always think I’ll write a short response that turns into something longer and then I’m distracted by the phone or something else and come back to a tablua rasa.
When I said the phrase “women are people too” was more than a mere platitude, it was to convey two things simultaneously. First, the word platitude might be considered something of a pejorative. It is in this sense that I meant to connote that the phrase has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful. “Of course women are people,” one might say, “but that says nothing about the claims of feminism.” And yet, at the same time, I think it speaks volumes about feminists. As much as I agree with the stated goals of feminism, feminists are people too, and as such I hold them in no higher or lower regard than any other people. It doesn’t surprise me that there are no small number of women, even self-identified feminists, who are the most vocal in slut-shaming other women. It doesn’t surprise me that there are self-identified feminists who don’t want equality but rather female dominance. It doesn’t surprise me that there are “egalitarian” feminists who have grown up in this culture and as such are just as blind to the privileges they possess as they charge men with being. What I would accuse you of is an attribution error – I believe people fail not because they identify as feminists but because they’re people.
It might help you understand my position if you were to read what I’ve written more charitably. Given two possible meanings for any words I’ve used, my intent is more along the lines of the denotation of the word (you won’t go wrong consulting the Oxford dictionaries). Take my use of the word “privilege” above. First, note I did not write “male privilege,” you’d to better to place your projections elsewhere. Second, note that I accused some women of being blind to their own privilege in the same manner that they accuse men. Whether we agree on the existence of “privilege” or not, I’m not showing preference to either gender in my characterization. But I am using the word “privilege” because I do believe the word means something and refers to a thing that actually exists.
Finally, I must confess a good deal of confusion when attempting to parse your rhetoric. For example, I see you challenge your interlocutors to show how you, David Byron, have a specific or particular privilege. I don’t know you, and so I can’t possibly know what privileges you personally do or don’t have. This type of challenge seems so patently nonsensical to me that I’m convinced I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say. If I might hazard a guess as to your underlying meaning I get that you’re angry and think feminism among the great evils in the world. But if you’re trying to communicate something beyond that I’m completely at a loss as to what that is.
With the auto-refresh the text of the comment ought to be saved by the browser and it just gets moved to the bottom of the screen as if you were making a reply to the article itself instead of a comment. If that happens you can move it back to the comment you are replying to simply by clicking on the Reply button again. However it seems some browsers don’t save input text still. Firefox does for example. It’s an awesome feature for a lot of different sites.
You want a reply to that?
So we come to the meat of the article / comment which is a defence of feminism against the charge that it is not about equality.
The assertions made are (1) feminism used to have a goal of equality – and does now. (2) radicals don’t want equality but are a minority
Well that isn’t an argument at all. That’s a statement of your belief. You don’t present any evidence for either assertion. I guess it is good that you’re at least recognising that the movement has radicals in it. MRAs and other critics have provided actual evidence for the counter point of view.
For example lets look at the achievements of feminism recently. Back in the 1980s the big new thing was sexual harassment law. Catharine MacKinnon was the lead legal mind behind that push in association with Andrea Dworkin. Yes, that Andrea Dworkin. The people who brought you feminisms biggest issue of that decade were rabid radical nutcases of the very worst sort. 1990s it was VAWA and domestic violence. Same people. Same man hating groups leading that charge too.
I don’t even know what the heck feminism has been up to the last decade or so in the 2000s. Frankly it seems like a big fat nothing except maybe supporting a few imperialist wars. Maybe keeping on with that old lie about Equal Pay for Equal Work –another victory for the radical feminists.
In short it is the radicals that run the movement and get stuff done.
An analogy I used the other day is with the Roman Catholic Church. If you are arguing about the recent pedophile charges and what was going on in the Church to cover that up, someone might interject, “but most Catholics are good people”. Well I suppose that is true of course but so what? How does that change anything that has been done, or make any difference to what will be done?
The question before us is not whether there are some nice feminists or not. The question is what is the character of the movement as a whole? Yes not all feminists are the same, but that doesn’t mean we cannot talk about what the movement as a whole is doing. Feminists express their view when they claim that feminism is about equality. The evidence says that’s not true.
If you want to use this Catholic church analogy then use it right: if you said “Catholics are pedophiles” that would be wrong, because CATHOLICS are not pedophiles, but there was a pedophile problem within the Catholic church that the authorities within the church allowed to happen. It was disgusting. But that doesn’t mean Catholics are any which way. It means the Vatican and the higher clerics are disgusting (in general) for letting it happen.
So because there are asshole feminists doesn’t mean feminism is assholism.
YES the majority of feminists are equity feminists, and NO that doesn’t make the jerks go away or make what they’ve done any better. And YES the majority of Catholics are not child abusers, and no that doesn’t make the crimes against children any better. This is just a wacky analogy.
Trust me, if I based my feelings about anti-feminists and MRAs upon what the majority of you guys do, I’d hate you all. But I am willing to see you guys as individuals and not assume you’re all misogynistic creeps who hide under Men’s Rights as a way to hate and oppress women.
Do the same for me.
You don’t like the analogy. Why? I didn’t say “Catholics are pedophiles”. OK forget the analogy. Well no I’d really like to know where you think it fails. I thought it would help you. I thought it was a pretty good analogy and I thought it actually was being fair to you.
You always hate the way people say feminists are all assholes. OK so I am not saying that. I am saying the movement is bad but I am recognising that many people in it are not bad. Maybe most are good. All this criticism of feminism is not aimed at every individual within the movement. I thought that stuff made you mad because you felt people were saying that YOU suck. They are saying the movement sucks.
True, but nobody is saying that. Just like nobody says the Catholic Church has big problems because of a few pedophiles. The Catholic Church has problems because those few bad priests were protected by the Church hierarchy. The pedophile problem is institutional. If it was just a few priests who got fired as soon as they were found, well that would be bad but it wouldn’t mean the whole Church had a big problem.
If the radical feminists were just a few loud mouths with a bad attitude that everyone ignored then that would be fine. But the radicals are the one running the movement. I don’t know if they are a minority but they are the ones running the movement.
I am saying that the criticism is of the movement. It’s an institutional problem. Does that make any sense to you?
You’re being fine to me, as usual. I got grumpy about you saying “blah blah blah”.
Yeah, and it makes sense to me that you’re saying it’s an institutional problem. I’d say the same with the Catholic church. But that doesn’t define Catholicism. I’m not sure we’re far off in our ideas of the analogies, I’m just looking at it differently.
I don’t know. I’m not sure how to say what I want/need to say any differently that I already have.
I believe feminism was working toward equality, and now there are some who are working toward women being in power at the expense of men. But I don’t believe that is the root of feminism. That’s all.
As a matter of interest and not as a criticism, what do you mean by “root”? Do you mean the history or something else?
I mean the basic intent.
Equality.
I skipped past the arguments and just wanted to say well said
Saw the comment and thought this article was more recent, so then I started replying to the other comments. Whoops. lol.
Anyway, it is a very awesome original article/comment.