Men recognizing their gendered privileges is the first step in leveling the playing field between the sexes, J. Ron Crawford writes.
I’m a white male in America. I’m tall, healthy, and consider myself decent-looking. I grew up in a stable home with two loving parents and many opportunities. I played sports and made good grades. I work hard for things and I think that I’m smart.
But I am aware that I am extremely privileged.
In trying to understand these privileges, I’ve found that gender inequality is wound up tightly in a fear of rejection and lack of self-confidence that many men cannot escape. Avoiding frank talk of sexual issues (and sexual performance) often leads men to fear female power and push to subjugate women. The changing roles of women in society, from the office to the home, have left many men uncertain of what their roles will become, and have amplified those fears.
A common example of gender bias is found in workplace salaries.
My wife is smarter than I am, in many ways. She’s more organized and more inwardly creative. We’re both architects, but she’s a better one.
But even so, I’ve always expected that my salary should be higher than hers. At first, when we were starting out together, I told myself it was simply because I had one more year of experience in the field—an incredibly minor difference. Later, I accepted the reality that men make more money than women and that if I wasn’t making more than her, I was not getting the cut that I deserved.
Is that fair? Of course it’s not.
I have no idea what women in my own company earn. But that’s entirely beside my point. My point is that between the two of us, my wife and me, I have expected to be paid more, for no real reason other than the fact that it is a statistical societal norm. I expect those norms to apply to us and feel cheated if they do not.
I don’t want to be the primary breadwinner, I expect to be. The former is competition-based, appealing to my own sense of self-worth or ego, whatever that may be. The latter is basic privilege, an assumption that society’s rules will (whether they should or not) treat me differently than her. And for the most part, they do.
What would happen if this all were to change—if male and female salaries were equal? Well, for us, I don’t think it would make a lot of difference, because she is still working as an artist and college professor. As such, I don’t fear equal pay, but many men do, and the uncertainties that may come with that are very real.
♦◊♦
My wife and I follow some elements of a “traditional” household (she spends much more time caring for the kids and I spend much more time on the road), but if she didn’t have her own career, pay equality would matter much more to us. A household with the husband as sole breadwinner and company man has much more invested in maintaining that traditional male privilege.
Households with one working parent aren’t exactly “traditional”—only upper-class women could afford not to have a job throughout most of history, and they were never the majority. While mid-20th Century America extended that lifestyle to a majority of families, we are returning to that historical norm, where only wealthy women will have such a choice. In fact, by 2002 only 7% of American families consisted of children, a working father and stay-at-home mother. Our return to the earlier norm of a majority of women holding jobs, however, is much different than before.
It is different not only because women now enjoy equal protection under the law. It is different because all women seeking their own work, whether out of necessity or self-fulfillment, are doing so with real and effective birth control.
That changes everything, especially the long-term dynamics of power. As Sara Robinson recently wrote:
With that one essential choice came the possibility, for the first time, to make a vast range of other choices for ourselves that were simply never within reach before. We could choose to delay childbearing and limit the number of children we raise; and that, in turn, freed up time and energy to explore the world beyond the home. We could refuse to marry or have babies at all, and pursue our other passions instead. Contraception was the single necessary key that opened the door to the whole new universe of activities that had always been zealously monopolized by the men—education, the trades, the arts, government, travel, spiritual and cultural leadership, and even (eventually) war making.
Modern forms of birth control have given women many of the freedoms that men have always had. This is terrifying to many men because they see the loss of their own societal privilege and especially their personal status.
When women gain power and experience many men simply believe that they, in turn, lose it. While some men see marriage or friendship as being part of a team, and are thrilled for their partner to gain power, others see a very different “traditional” dynamic, defining their own importance by their undisputed role as the head of household.
The logic of an anti-feminist is fairly straightforward, even if the circuitous biblical justifications for it are not always easy to follow. It dictates that a woman’s career ambitions are a threat to her husband’s ego, value, and “natural” role as leader of his castle, and therefore a threat to his relevance.
Rejection and loneliness appear to be a much greater possibility for these men in this new world. Wise women and female leaders are very threatening for any man who already subconsciously questions whether he has earned or deserves his role. It’s much simpler to look to the teachings of those who say women should go back to their traditional role than it is to consider examining one’s own wisdom and relationships with loved ones.
♦◊♦
Even those men who are not threatened by female power have had to consciously learn from and adapt to it. We’re generally not socialized for these changes to be OK, and we have to acquire the self-confidence to embrace it. Our fear of losing privileges is closely tied to our fears of rejection, and we can’t overcome one without the other.
This fear of rejection obviously extends to sexual history. Men are threatened by women’s past partners because they fear they won’t measure up. As a result we have men who attempt to shame women for having sex, or for enjoying it. Since those women may be enjoying sex with other men, and not them, they feel diminished and weakened when they imagine other men achieving what they cannot.
If you think this behavior is paranoid and juvenile, you’re right. My wife makes a distinction between “men” and adult “boys” among the people we know. This has nothing to do with their careers, income, relationship status, or other “ego markers.” The terminology can generally be distilled to how they view women.
Men that are more controlling or lack the self-confidence required not to be aggressive or threatened tend to fall into the “boy” category. The consistent thread they share is their condescension toward women and fear of closeness or openness. Those that support women in their aspirations and are genuinely comfortable with strong women tend to fall into the “man” category. Part of this is her definition of masculinity, which many others share, of course. Part of it, as I’ve learned over time, is literal maturity. Those she calls “boys” often have been so sheltered that they have never had to confront their own privilege, or learn from it. They have never had to grow up.
To be fair, these aren’t simple shifts for some men to make. One does not easily go from insisting that female freedom is immoral to dreaming their daughter will become the next PJ Harvey. It takes serious self-evaluation. I have seen acquaintances turn from boys to men after a divorce, for example. That’s a difficult and unfortunate way to get there, but more engaged and supportive men have emerged afterward.
In my own life, I was forced to confront those feelings of inadequacy in much less earth-shattering situations. Once, for example, in my early twenties, I dated a woman who was very adventurous and would talk openly about her past boyfriends. Her most recent boyfriend at the time was doing quite well in the NBA.
I was three years younger than him, and as far as I knew he was a millionaire. I was, on the other hand, an intern who could barely pay my rent. I would see him on TV, eight inches taller than me, with arms literally twice the size of mine, and feel threatened. Still, I cared for her and trusted her, and I understood that she cared for me. So I had no choice but to accept that it didn’t matter that I didn’t have his strength, his money, or his fame. I was better for her than he was; she said so and I believed her.
That was a specific moment in time, when I looked at myself and realized how little he or anyone else from her past actually mattered. I had no reason to be jealous. I was beginning to be liberated from my fear of being inadequate, and that feeling of liberation—of self-confidence in the moment—stayed with me well after we parted ways. What I learned, and continued to learn, was that I didn’t negatively compare the women that I had dated, why would she (or any woman that I would trust) do the same to me?
It takes learned confidence and self-awareness for men to accept women as partners. Some can never get to that point, continually seeking younger women with less experience in the world. Frankly, it’s sad to watch, for it shows just how far those men have to go in order to be truly comfortable with their own place in the world, or confident in their own ability to please.
I’ve learned that life is better when I am aware of when and how my own privileges exist. I’ll always have more to learn. I can be a better husband, a better father to my boy and girl. Evaluating the privileges that I have as a man inevitably leads me closer to understanding the prejudices my wife faces, and that my daughter may one day face. I simply hope I can understand those prejudices well enough to help them confront them, wherever they occur, and to guide my son to do the same.
—Photo H.L.I.T./Flickr
so when I point out a fundamental inconsistency in your article it doesn’t get posted?
“But even so, I’ve always expected that my salary should be higher than hers. At first, when we were starting out together, I told myself it was simply because I had one more year of experience in the field—an incredibly minor difference. Later, I accepted the reality that men make more money than women and that if I wasn’t making more than her, I was not getting the cut that I deserved.”
I’ve noticed you male feminists all suffer from this problem. Because you’re a sexist, you assume every other man is too. I have NEVER,in all my life, made the assumption that because I am a man,I should be paid more for doing the same job as a woman. Never. I understand you feel guilty about being a sexist, but what you do for that is see a priest and confess your sins to God and ask forgiveness, or alternately,if you don’t believe in God, see a therapist and work through your issues. What you DON’T do, is go and indict all men for YOUR shortcomings so you can feel less like an a-hole. We aren’t the guilty ones, you are.
You want to talk about “privilege”? Every feminist I’ve ever spoken to believes that a woman’s ability to control her own reproduction is central to her “empowerment”. At the same time, men possess no reproductive rights whatsoever. A man’s choices are (1) Keep it in your pants., or (2) “Be a man” and support whatever children come about as a result of having sex.
Even women, maybe especially women, support this viewpoint.
If men had told women “Keep your legs closed if you don’t want to get pregnant.” instead of legalizing abortion,they would have had a collective aneurysm over it.
How can men be the privileged ones when we are not even allowed to decide when we want to have a child?
As far as salaries go, if you pay women the exact same salary men get, women would actually make more money than men, because they receive gender-specific benefits that men do not have access to and receive a range of health care and childcare options in basically every field they work in. Men don’t get those options. Men don’t have a choice. Let alone the fact that most women don’t HAVE to work for a living. No woman has to drill oil or mine coal or tear up concrete to eat, she can have a man support her, she can beg for money and receive much more than a man in the same position, or she can work as a prostitute,however distasteful one or any of these options are, they are still options that MEN do NOT HAVE, and that’s before you even get to the gender-specific benefits they receive in the workplace.
Women are the privileged ones,they have choices,hundreds of them. Men don’t have a choice. A man MUST work to eat.
I also am curious why every gender problem feminists observe seems to need to be fixed by changing men or some aspect of masculinity? Doesn’t that seem silly to anyone else? The only one you can reliably change or control in this life is yourself.If fixing a problem was the real goal, wouldn’t it make more sense to alter your OWN perceptions, expectations or behaviors in order to achieve your goals? How come it’s verboten for a man to suggest a woman needs to do ANYTHING, but women feel so comfortable telling men THEY need to change, and for the self-serving purpose of benefiting women no less? If masculinity is so appalling to women, why don’t they just go somewhere where there aren’t any men and set things up the way they want them to be instead of forcing their views on everyone else in society?
I don’t feel guilty about much of anything in my life, but you can project that onto the article if you like.
You say, “If men had told women “Keep your legs closed if you don’t want to get pregnant.” instead of legalizing abortion,they would have had a collective aneurysm over it.”
That is in fact what some men are saying right now. Do you agree? What I don’t understand is why any straight man would make that argument, and that’s what compelled me to write this. I think it’s about issues of control, and that there are some men frightened by women having sex and being in control of themselves. (Men obviously can’t have kids, so I’m not really following your argument on that. Are you suggesting things would be equal if you could force women to have a kid for you?)
I’d really like to hear other theories about why guys like Friess, Santorum, Blunt or Limbaugh are appalled by women having sex, so share them if you have any. I honestly don’t believe it’s about paying for birth control, the conversation goes to “slut” way too fast for that to be the issue. Most guys like sex and want women to have more of it, so what makes these men so opposed? Religion? Nothing in the bible says not to use b/c, and the only mention of abortion is Jeremiah wishing his mother had one. There must be reasons to work so hard to read it that way.
You might just want to pick apart what I wrote, and if that’s the case, it’s a public forum, go ahead. But I’m serious, I’d really like to understand where they’re coming from, so I’m throwing this theory out there.
(…That vodka popup ad is making it really hard to type…)
“I don’t feel guilty about much of anything in my life, but you can project that onto the article if you like.”
And yet it’s you calling other men guilty. Seems to me you are the one projecting. You accuse men of a great many things in this article, and you also somehow equate your own sexist expectations as a privilege for all men in order to justify those accusations. But I don’t feel an expectation on me to be the breadwinner at the expense of my time with family is a privilege.
“What I don’t understand is why any straight man would make that argument”
Perhaps it is a backlash to the fact men are adamantly being denied even a sliver of those same rights… After all, when a man says “it’s not far, I didn’t want to have a baby”, the standard feminist response is “you should have kept it in your pants”. So why then the resistance to having the same standard placed on women? because that’s not fair? pfft.
“Men obviously can’t have kids”
Really? then who are al those people with child support orders against them? Men can’t get pregnant, but to say they can’t have kids is to deny them anything after conception, which, oddly enough, is where you radical feminist lot are taking us.
“I’d really like to hear other theories about why guys like Friess, Santorum, Blunt or Limbaugh are appalled by women having sex”
This is about abortion, who said anything about them not liking women having sex? Just as men are expected (despite their very limited options) to PREVENT pregnancy from happening in the first place, despite no opinion on just how much sex they choose to have, this abortion debate likewise speaks nothing of women’s options to have sex, but instead on their responsibility (JUST LIKE MEN) to prevent pregnancy’s BEFORE they happen. As to the birth control debate, it’s about freedom of expression. It should not be anyone else’s responsibility to protect you from your own choices. Why should a religious organization, who’s moral beliefs promote abstinence (of both genders) until marriage, be forced to take responsibility for those who rail against their beliefs? On what grounds do you claim a woman’s sexuality is their employers problem?
I need to wonder, is your changing the topic from abortion to not wanting women to have sex a concious ploy to appeal to emotions and sense of unfairness/injustice, or are you just so indoctrinated that it comes as second nature?
“I’d really like to hear other theories about why guys like Friess, Santorum, Blunt or Limbaugh are appalled by women having sex, so share them if you have any. ”
I don’t know that Santorum or any other hard right conservative is “appalled by women having sex” at all. I’m pretty sure as a father he has had sex with a woman. But, he is Catholic which means (in theory) he disapproves of pre- and extra-marital monogamous sex, abortion, and birth control (of course, there’s no Biblical basis for that nor for priests being forbidden to marry). So, sex within the confines of a monogamous heterosexual marriage, I believe, is A-OK with him. But, he technically is supposed to personally disapprove of anything else.
But, overall, there are two classes of objections.
1) People who object to abortion based on principle, some of which (but not all) are based on religious principles. That stands on its own.
2) People who do not object to abortion and who oppose reproductive rights for men. They claim to be for reproductive rights/freedom but only for women.
3) People who do not object to abortion but DO object to the discrimination men suffer in reproductive rights, believing that men should not be denied reproductive choice. They believe in equality, that NEITHER women NOR men should be forced to become parents against their will. Not that men should be able to force women to become a parent to a child they don’t want or not become a parent to a child she does want, and that women should not be able to force a man to become a parent to a child he doesn’t want.
Women have six months (24 weeks) to unilaterally decide whether or not to opt out of parenthood. Equal rights demand that men be given at least 12 or 14 weeks to decide whether or not to opt out of parenthood. This problem is easily solved, but the discrimination against men will simply not permit it.
I always have a problem with one-way, zero-sum equality – where women (or men) have ALL the rights and the other has none. The argument to men is always “keep your legs closed” if you don’t want to be a father. Sound familiar?
Question: why don’t feminists object to this discrimination, when they constantly claim to be for reproductive rights? Does their anti-male-ness override their pro-reproductive rights stance?
You’ve apparently thought about #2 and #3 a good bit more than I have, and those are very interesting points to consider. Those are huge issues in and of themselves, and of course they relate to this. I’ll be honest– I’ve never had to deal with those two points and don’t know how I would. I mentioned in my article that we don’t grow if we’re sheltered from things, and that’s something I’ve not had to confront, and not chosen to, either.
Obviously it’s easiest for someone to say “her body, her choice,” but if, for example, I and my partner both didn’t want kids, she got pregnant, changed her mind, and insisted I care for the child, that wouldn’t be fair. Those are complexities that make the issue tougher because they don’t allow for hard and fast rules to live by. That’s a deeper discussion.
I disagree on number 1. I meant to focus on birth control more than abortion in my last comment, but didn’t word it the best. But at any rate, for most of us, our religious views reflect what we want to believe. People choose their churches–I’ve chosen mine. We choose whether to follow the restrictions or not, and whether we want the government to enforce or discourage any of them. And our religious teachers bring their personal views to the podium. The prohibition on birth control is a remarkably circular argument that’s been going on for a thousand years, but why are we still having it? Santorum doesn’t technically need to say anything he doesn’t believe, and it seems he does believe what he says. Why is that the one point of Catholic teaching he latches on to? Why not serving the poor? He’s picked the issues that he has.
I was deliberately accusatory toward a specific group of men in the article when I said they were afraid of women (and several here–interestingly–assumed I meant them). But if you’ve listened to the four guys at the top of the article speak recently (except Friess, he quickly shut himself up), they really have sounded appalled by women being free to have sex without giving birth. They may be a small minority, but I don’t think so. They certainly aren’t among policymakers.
“People choose their churches–I’ve chosen mine. We choose whether to follow the restrictions or not, and whether we want the government to enforce or discourage any of them. ”
Does that also not mean those people are responsibly for, and accountable to, those choices they’ve made? Isn’t forcing a religious organization, who has made the choice not to use (or even enter situations where there is a need for) birth control, to provide to someone else the birth control that someone else chooses to make the choice to use? Is this not what the debate on BC is about, once you sort through all the strawmen?
“Why is that the one point of Catholic teaching he latches on to?”
Perhaps that is because it is the one point of his catholic teaching that is currently being challenged? Forcing every company, including deeply religious ones, isn’t Santorum’s fight, it’s Obama’s.
” they really have sounded appalled by women being free to have sex without giving birth.”
By women? or by people? keep in mind the discussions are speaking about a birth control only available to women, so the term woman is very likely to come up more often than not, but to claim it is women, and ONLY women, they feel this about… are you prepared to stand behind this assertion?
Furthermore (I don’t actually follow the debates, as I am neither from the US, nor religious, hence the questions. They are legitimate questions, not rhetoric… mostly), is his assertion that he is appalled by women (or even both genders) being free to have sex without giving birth, or his assertion that he is appalled his tax money should go to allowing it?
“I and my partner both didn’t want kids, she got pregnant, changed her mind, and insisted I care for the child, that wouldn’t be fair. ‘
You could always go on Jerry Springer. . .
It’s a shame that those who campaign for reproductive rights don’t even consider men’s rights worth discussing. This is a simple example as to why people outside the feminist movement don’t consider it as an equality movement.
I don’t see the debate as a prohibition of birth control since >99.999% of corporate insurance plans have covered it for decades, at least 30 years or more. I don’t know of a single insurance plan that does not cover it except for the Catholic Church’s.
The government spent millions of dollars debating something that affects about .00001% of the population, and matters to even less, since people who work for the Catholic Church likely agree with their stance; otherwise, why work there?
Same is true of colleges. Why go there if you want them to pay for your BC pills but they refuse? Go where they pay for them, or pay for them yourself.
But, as an example of how much this is a trumped up issue, including room and board it costs a good $60,000 a year to attend Georgetown Law school. People who can afford to drop $60 grand a year can clearly afford $50 a month for BC pills. This whole thing was/is nothing more than a political stunt on both sides. But Ms. Fluke out-politic’d the professionals. She could run for office. She’s a shark.
On this question about the unfairness of the current legal situation— could you clarify for me what you think is a better alternative? Because, while I agree that the present situation is unfair — and if I woke one morning and I was God, sure, I would fix the biology — it seems to me that, given the biology we’ve been given, the only real alternatives involve at least one of the following rules applying to accidental conceptions:
1) the man can force the woman to have an abortion
2) the man can force the woman to carry the child
3) neither of them gets a choice because the state will decide what happens
4) the man bears no financial responsibility for the child unless he wanted it to begin with or agreed to accept the risk (how do you handle proving this? pre-copulation contract? what about people who don’t make one?)
Until we come up with a highly effective form of reversible birth control that men can use unilaterally, so that conception has to be voluntary on both sides, ‘pears to me that those are the only roads out of where we are. 1-3 are pretty ugly and 4 would be hard to implement, plus 4 leaves the hypothetical kid in a bad situation. What are your ideas on a fair solution?
Men can financially abort in the early stages/time when they know of the child, if female wants the child she can continue pregnancy, if not she can abort, or adopt after birth? Sure it doesn’t allow him to stop her having the child but he at least gets the right to choose whether to be responsible for the child as she can as well. Is it fair that a woman can abort a fetus, which still is the man’s offspring and has full control over it’s existence? He still can be forced to be financially responsible against his will yet she has full choice simply because it grows inside her?
Abortion itself is a very tricky issue, contraceptives can fail, but only one gender gets the right to continue growth of the fetus or end it. It’s unfair n him that he has no choice, yet financial abortion is argued as unfair for the child when abortion or giving the baby up is also quite unfair for the child. Setup welfare if it’s too tough on the sole parent so the financial burden isn’t too great, that helps solve problem 4.
I support abortion rights, but I think I also support financial/responsibility abortion for the men. Would this happen often? I’m unsure, it’s pretty indicative of the other problems in society if the responsibility for a child is too great for a man or woman, with adequate support and decent cost of living would they need to abort?
Having a child right now for me would cripple me financially and due to illness I doubt I could handle it, what option do I get as a male though? Have no sex until I can afford the risk? I hope better contraception for men exists but quite frankly I worry quite a bit whenever I do have sex over that risk. Sex free from the risk of child would actually be very beneficial to me and help me get past my illness most likely, but on the off chance something happened I can’t just make her take the morning after pill, I would be COMPLETELY at her mercy. If I was a female though, I’d have options, I wouldn’t need to pay attention what so ever to my partners wish, I’d be equally responsible for the conception but I hold complete power over the outcome.
Questions I want to ask…Does the man’s decision on wanting a child or not count for anything? Does he have the right to SUGGEST she abort? Should she even take into account his decision on wanting a child? He has 18 years of financial responsibility, does that earn him any rights regarding the continuation from conception or is that just from birth? Once born, can he adopt out his responsibility or is it still dependent on her?
/end Devil’s Advocate
“yet financial abortion is argued as unfair for the child when abortion or giving the baby up is also quite unfair for the child.”
This because people refuse to accept the concept that, if a man can not be forced to provide, women might be less willing to have a baby he does’t want. They also ignore the fact that woman are capable of financially supporting children on their own, and have the legal right to do so, and do so (such as going to sperm banks. but really, why would a woman go to a sperm bank and pay when she can dupe some chump and get paid?). The “it’s unfair to the child” is actually a rather misogynistic defense, suggesting that a woman who chooses to have a baby knowing the father will not be forced to support it won’t be capable of providing for it.
Great point! I find it troubling that those arguing for financial/responsibility abortion are told to be more selective n careful with their sexual habits, imagine the uproar of telling women to keep their legs together and if they get pregnant to say tough shit, you’re having the kid? What’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander it seems.
Amaranth,
None of those.
Just as when a woman chooses an abortion, there is no child when the man opts out, and the woman is free to abort at that time as well. This is superior, since she knows in advance that, should she decide to have a child, she will be a single parent, or she can choose to have him/her adopted, or she can legally abandon him/her after the fact if she chooses. Thus, she has even MORE rights because, if she chooses to give birth, she doesn’t have to deal with another person legally.
All of these decisions can be made while there is no child. That would be equality and the right thing to do, but I frankly don’t see either the right wing wackos or the left wing wackos supporting it. Unfortunately.
It is often argued the man should be given a time frame from the time he is told, not dependent on how far along the pregnancy is. It is easy to just not tell him until the pregnancy time-frame elapses. But even then, she would be doing so knowing that the man will be able to opt out once he is told. So this is not much different than a woman telling her boyfriend she’s pregnant, him opting out, and her deciding to keep it anyways, without his support (which is where a lot of the liberal feminists claim “that’s not fair to the baby, the baby needs to be supported” as if a woman who chooses to have a baby alone isn’t capable of doing it, or as if woman aren’t already doing this (how many men a year find out they have a child over the age of 5, because the mother choose to have the baby and never told him till she needed money?).
Which brings up another legal hurdle. A pregnant woman has no legal obligation to inform the father. Ever.
Eveyrone that is truly on the side of equality should be bothered by this inequality and discussing the obvious ways to effect equality and fairness.
Santorum and Limbaugh have no business telling others what to do or not do with their bodies. It’s that simple. I don’t care what their religions or “morals” are.
Uh no, thou dost project thyself unto others and ingratiate thee with though white knight grandstanding.
“The latter is basic privilege, an assumption that society’s rules will (whether they should or not) treat me differently than her”
You confuse “treat differently than her” with “basic privilege” relative to her. I understand the need for conspiracy, after all if the unique gender scripts historically imposed on men and women did not somehow provide men monotonic and ubiquitous privileges at the expense of women, feminism would lose the moral authority it needs to pursue a wholly gynocentric agenda.
In point of fact, many of us consider it a privilege to have had the expectation of remaining sheltered and well fed with our offspring while some dolt dodged wolves and arrows to provide that privilege.
Thanks though that was really fun, but seriously you’re hurting America.
“Uh no, thou dost project thyself unto others and ingratiate thee with though white knight grandstanding.”
LOL, that really got me going….. absolutely right on target.
Hang on, werent there about 20 replies here….. where did they vanish to??
I know most of them pointed out flaws in this article but they were not abusive.
Information control, perhaps?
John; I don’t think any comments have vanished, but this sites splits comments into pages. If you look below the last comment here there probably will be an “Older comments” link taking you to the previous 50 comments or so.
This article is extremely confusing to me.
The author starts out by stating that he is aware of his privilege, but doesn’t state what this privilege is. Is it the privilege that because he has more experience (1 more year) that he is paid more, he says that 1 year is an extremely minor difference, I beg to differ , if you each had over 20 years experience then 1 year would be minor, when you are first starting out 1 year is NOT a minor difference. He also states that his wife is smarter than him and is a better architect, well SIR, perhaps YOU feel that way, that doesn’t mean her boss also felt that way. Unless you work side by side each and every day you have no idea if she made tons of mistakes and errors that caused her value in the company to go down.
I also noticed that she is no longer working as an architect but is now an artist and professor sounds to me like she chose a path of greater personal fulfillment instead of the more lucrative path of architect. Sounds like SHE has the privilege.
BTW, I really wish people would understand that “the plural of anecdote isn’t fact”.
The author of course completely ignores virtually every major study over the past 20+ years that show that when all factors effecting salary are accounted for (experience, education, willingness to relocate) the so-called wage gap virtually disappears.
There are seemingly dozens of unfounded assumptions in the article and statements that are out of touch with reality.
To address his wife being smarter than him but he makes more money than her. “Smart” can be subjective and the “smartest” people very often don’t make the most money. So, being “smart” or even highly educated doesn’t automatically make one a more valuble employee. I won’t bore everyone with examples of this since we all probably have seen situatons where this is true.
I second this statement:
“The author of course completely ignores virtually every major study over the past 20+ years that show that when all factors effecting salary are accounted for (experience, education, willingness to relocate) the so-called wage gap virtually disappears.”
Further, he fails to mention that there is also a so-called gap virtually betweeen working married mothers and single childless women. How does male privilege with no males?
There is a reverse wage gap between married fathers and single childless men where the dads earn more. How does male privilege work with only males?
“To address his wife being smarter than him but he makes more money than her.”
Technically, he never out rights says he does make more money than her. In fact, when he makes the assertion “I expect those norms to apply to us and feel cheated if they do not”, it implies that is not always the case. I suspect that, while he may usually make more than her, it is by a narrow margin, that can very much be explained away by a year more experience, more aggressive salary negotiation, different employers, and career details he’s chosen to leave out (such as, has she taken time off for child rearing?).
I also don’t understand how he can suggest that an expectation placed ON him (to be the breadwinner) is a privilege, rather than a responsibility? it really is dumbfounding
In another post the author points out that perhaps “entitled” would have been a better word than “privilege”.
hmmm, doesn’t this admission completely make this article MUTE.
WHY?
What if the author was putting forth the assertion that the sky was PURPLE. He goes on at length to prove the sky was purple, his arguments are solely based around the fact that the sky was purple.
After reading other posters he says “you know what perhaps blue would have been a better word to use instead of purple”.
Would this completely negate every argument he made that the sky was purple.
Difference between entitled and privileged are semantic to me. I really don’t care.
The difference between blue and purple are much more clear, and so make for a poor analogy. The difference between mute and moot are clearer still.
If you think there isn’t a HUGE difference between Entitled and Privileged then it sure explains this entire article.
And of course the little JAB at someone who uses the wrong word……Being a Grammar and Spelling Cop doesn’t really help your cause either.
“What if the author was putting forth the assertion that the sky was PURPLE. He goes on at length to prove the sky was purple, his arguments are solely based around the fact that the sky was purple.”
More like that his arguments are solely based around the fact that he saw the sky as purple (not that it is) and ignores the fact he was wearing purple sunglasses, as being unimportant to the conversation. After all, his evidence revolves around his own EXPECTATIONS, not any actually reality. At no point does he actually admit to knowing for sure that he makes more than the women in his company, or even his wife, and his assertion “I expect those norms to apply to us and feel cheated if they do not”, in fact, implies that is not always the case. Furthermore, he equates an expectation ON him to be the breadwinner, as a privilege, when in fact, it is a responsibility. That’s like saying that the expectation for me to clean the toilet the first weekend of each month, or take out the trash every second week is a privilege. Your welcome to keep those kinds of privileges. I’ll take the reverse sexism of preferential treatment in court, or being the beneficiary of far more government spending, thank you very much.
http://www.nwlc.org/our-blog/wage-gap-women-still-make-less-men
@Woman:: thank you so much for posting that link.
It goes a long way towards demonstrating the problem with the gender pay gap. The problem being that people don’t use critical thinking when it comes to the wage gap and they assume that ALL men and ALL women should earn the same pay. That link does not take any factors (such as experience, education, willingness to relocate etc etc) into account when calculating the numbers. The 77 cents numbers is a raw number only. Also, what most people don’t realize is that the very definition of Full Time/Full Year isn’t what they think. For an explanation of what most economists use as a definiton refer to this link. (NOTE: the link is not directly related to the link WOMAN provded but it is provided as a reference for what stats collectors use as a definition)
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/01201/6036-eng.html
NOTE: If you work more than 30 hours per week for more than 6 months a year, you are considered full year , full time. Think about that. If you average 31 hours per week for 6 months+1 day. You are full time , full year.
These lines are very important when talking about experience
“A major limitation of previous studies is the lack of sufficient information on the determinants of the wage gap. One such determinant is the quantity of lifetime work experience. Often age or the Mincer measure of experience (age-schooling-6) is used as a proxy for the acquisition of general human capital skills or for potential work experience. However, proxy measures tend to overstate the actual work experience of women by not accounting for interruptions related to parenting (that is, complete withdrawals from the labour market) or for any restrictions on the number of hours worked per week or the number of weeks worked per year.”
So for example if someone is 50 and they went to school for 15 years in total , their total work experience would be (50-15-6) = 29 Years. that is how they calculate the experience. They don’t take years when they failed to work into account at all. This will exasserbate the apparant wage gap.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8096761.stm
I don’t understand one thing.
Why some people apologize for their parents’ and grandparents’ accomplishments, like staying together, being cautious, saving for the future so the next generations can have a better life and live without fear ?
It’s something to be proud of, isn’t it ?
My parents’ lives were hard, but thanks to their dedicated work me, my brother and our future children will have a MUCH better lives then they had when they were our age. They do not have to start from nothing, but will be able to rely on us for support.
It’s nothing to be ashamed of.
I must’ve missed that. Were there apologies for parents’ and grandparents’ accomplishments on here somewhere? Interesting. I’m proud of it as well, but I don’t actually know people who do that.
Stable household, two parents etc. ? And there are some pieces out there about being privileged white cisgendered (omg…) male that are practically self-bashing.
Great article. Good insight. Thank you. I really detest how so many of these thoughtful pieces in GMP get machine-gunned into oblivion by those with clear agendas to maintain the status quo who masquerade as “thoughtful” and “rational” critics. They alone, it seems, remain unaware of just how transparent they can be.
BLah blah blah you are insecure whiny white losers blah blah blah,
I think the concept of kyriarchy would go a long way here. We are not just men and women–our culture defines us by race, wealth, age, health, etc., and places us into a matrix of domination and abuse accordingly. We’re all victims, and victimizers to varying degrees. Can little boys and girls who’ve been taught who they are (supposed to be) by abusive families, abusive schools, and abusive churches not grow up to be at least somewhat abusive? How are we to even know what fairness and justice are when we’ve been alienated from our true selves by the roles we’re all shoved into?
If you don’t examine yourself, I don’t believe you can affect positive political or cultural change. Simply blaming everything on others (such as the menz or the womenz) is what abusers do. They’ve been wronged, as we all have, and I believe they cover over their hurt and fear with anger and self-righteousness. I believe being a good (hu)man means not thoughtlessly reacting to our pain, but facing our own woundedness, and trying not to spread the cultural disease of oppression.
This is completely misguided and ignorant propaganda.
I’ve never felt any privilege from working in the glass cellar to put myself through university.
I’ve never felt any privilege from having to work for everything in my life without mommy and daddy paying for it.
I’ve never felt any privilege from not receiving women’s only scholarships in universities and having to live off kraft dinner and peanut butter.
I’ve never felt any privilege from competing against less competent and less capable women to achieve gender quotas.
I’ve never felt any privilege from women’s total control of dating, home and children.
I’ve never felt any privilege from societal stereotypes of male original sin and female virtue.
I’ve never felt any privilege from paternalism that cares for women and imposes responsibility on men.
You are using your own personal experiences to dismiss and discredit the enitre article. I’m not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with this article, but the fact that you have not experienced any type of privilege =/= it doesn’t exist. You are one person. You cannot completely disprove his assertions on the basis that they do not apply to your life.
“I’ve never felt any privilege from paternalism that cares for women and imposes responsibility on men.”
Inequality works both ways. It can be beneficial or damaging to both sides, and at the same time. I may be misunderstanding you, but I’m assuming you’re talking about patriarchy, and that a patriarchal society is one that makes things easier for women and harder for men? In some ways it might. Yes, a man might suffer because he feels he must go out and work because it’s his “responsibility” as a man when he’d prefer do something else, like stay at home with his kids. But this kind of society also sets clear limitations for women. It also gives men more value, importance, freedom, and independence. I don’t see how women would reap all of the benefits from this set-up.
“I’ve never felt any privilege from women’s total control of dating, home and children.”
That’s because traditionally the private sphere is considered the woman’s domain. I could easily turn this around and say, “as a woman, I’ve never felt any privilege from a man’s total control of…” and then list anything in the “public” sphere like business, politics, etc.
Usually women are given more say-so in child-related matters because they are the ones that carry and give birth to children. But as far as “controlling” home and dating…I don’t really understand that one. Once again – “traditionally” speaking, is it not usually the man that is seen as the ruler or head of the household? Would that not give them more control?
“I’ve never felt any privilege from societal stereotypes of male original sin and female virtue.”
Like I said, it goes both ways. And you don’t see how this particular view can disadvantage women? The idea that woman are naturally good has often been the premise for female exclusion. For example, women were too morally pure to sully their hands with politics or voting.
More relevant to this article – this is probably one of the main reasons for the double-standards in regards to sexual behavior. When men have lots of sex, they are simply being men; when women do, there is a problem.
Look at the different ways society views male and female promiscuity. We use terms such as stud, player, pimp, to describe sexually active men, all of which have generally positive connotations. Such is not the case with the female equivalent, like slut, whore, ho, easy – it’s no coincidence that many female, and not male, -targeted insults concern their sexuality. How often are promiscuis men believed to have psychological issues, low self-esteem, or lack of self-respect as the underlying cause for their behavior?
tl;dr The “male original sin and female virture” concept you speak of does NOT always work in favor of women as you suggest. Surely you see where I’m coming from with this?
Oh reallllly?
Virgin shaming, creep shaming, fetish shaming, there are plenty of sexuality insults for both genders.
“How often are promiscuis men believed to have psychological issues, low self-esteem, or lack of self-respect as the underlying cause for their behavior?”
Probably not as many as women, but there are plenty for male virgins.
Men having lots of sex is also seen as negative in some areas and religions, sex outside marriage, masturbation,etc.
How often are promiscuis men believed to have psychological issues, low self-esteem, or lack of self-respect as the underlying cause for their behavior?
Or even how often are promiscuous women told that they are supposed to be highly sexual creatures (to the point that being highly sexual is a defining feature of being a woman) and are then told that something is wrong with them because they are highly sexual creatures?
A completely unrelated and funny thing I noticed.
Someone sent me this and I had to try it out. This is for those that are ANTI-PC
Go to google.com, make sure autocomplete is turned on
type FAT WOMEN ….Notice that it doesn’t autocomplete the women part. In fact after you type WO, it doesn’t diplay anything
now type FAT MEN …it will autocomplete it after the ME part
Coincidence or is it programmed that way on purpose.
In my opinion in order for there to be privilege, that priv would have to include all members of the group and that it not be present in those who not in the group.
I also believe that privilege has to provide a tangible advantage to all member of the gorup in order for it to be called a privilege.
In reference to a list I saw on the net I reference one that is listed but IMHO is not a privilege.
“When I view members at the top levels of government I see people of my own gender most often”
As a MAN this is a fact but those top elite don’t bestow on me any advantages, in fact I could make the argument they are more likely to NOT care about me because I am a man.