Kyle Lovett offers a rebuttal to Men’s Rights opponents.
On of the biggest hurdles that MRAs often face is contending with the simple and somewhat basic fact that Men’s Rights aren’t about women. When discussions about sex and gender problems stray into men’s issues, it’s almost impulsive for some to exclaim things like “What does this have to do with women?” or “Why do you hate women?” It’s frustrating at times, because the idea that men have their own set of distinct problems is hard for some to accept. At first I wasn’t sure if the word “rights” threw people for a loop, or that somehow they believe any discussion that revolves around the sex of a person by default must mean that women are involved, or maybe it was the simple ignorance that Men’s Rights aren’t about women.
Now, it has become very clear that men have become the “other” sex in our culture. There is a term which is used often in social justice circles called “othering/othered.” “Derailing for Dummies” defines it as such:
“Othering” is a system of social markers that defines “Us” and “them”, neatly and conveniently categorising people into their appropriate places within society. It’s a way of defining a secured and positive position in the world by stigmatising “others”. In other words, it’s the process of dehumanising anyone different to the Chosen Privileged.
Another way to define the term is that it posits one group as the default or the norm, and all other groups as the “other”. The default group has many advantages over the “others” as it usually is the group which controls the dialogue within society.
We have always been a culture that has been protective of women in many respects: it’s a chivalric notion that has been embedded in old social gender roles where both sides had their own distinct advantages and disadvantages. For women, before the turn of the twentieth century, with that kind of protection came the unfortunate side effect of viewing them as behind the scenes and without a voice in the decisions of the larger social group. After World War I, women were able to start breaking free from a lot of these rigid gender roles, and have increasingly found they are no longer bound by most of these confinements.
The feminist movement played a large part in advancing women away from these gender roles, but as it progressed into the late twentieth century, many of the more vocal/radical groups in the movement took to a path of demonizing men. This has become the accepted social discourse for many decades now. When sex and gender issues are discussed and debated, women and the problems they face are the default topic. This is a privilege that they have taken ownership of in society; men have been “othered.”
Men, however, have not found their way free of society’s expectations of them, especially in the bottom and middle classes of society. This is expressed in phrases like: “Man up!” “Don’t cry.” “Stop being a pussy.” “Provide for your family, or you are a deadbeat.” “Be the protector, place women’s lives ahead of your own.”
These are still beat into us everyday, reinforced by popular culture and by other men who have been slow to adapt to the radical shift in gender expectations. Much of it comes from men who claim they are feminist, but in fact (and some who are perhaps completely unaware of it), are upholding the old notion of chivalry with dogged determination. They are in fact shaming other men into conforming to an old gender role system, which actually no longer exists. This has caused a strange and painful imbalance.
While justifications and rationalizations for accepting men’s suffering so causally are endless; they almost all exhibit this tint of viewing men as the “othered” sex. We can see this most prominently in issues where men harm other men or men who harm themselves. For example, MRAs see the extreme disproportionate number of suicides among men as a big problem. This does not mean that (a) MRAs want more women to commit suicide or (b) that the problem of male suicides is directly or indirectly caused by women. It’s an issue of compassion, one where we see that men’s expected roles in society and their expected internalization of devastating emotions, is a problem that needs immediate attention on an individual and societal level.
While callous and dehumanizing, some feminists (especially feminist men) adhere to the privileged starting point of being the default concern. This view sadly explains the high number of men’s suicide as unimportant because it isn’t an issue where women are the focus. Basically, what used to be known in feminist circles as the “what about teh menz” argument, has in reality become one of “what about the womenz.” In essence, it completely ignores the basic fact that these are human beings that deserve our compassion.
In my last post, which drew the ire of lots of feminists (mostly male feminists), I stated some basic facts which are of grave concern to MRAs. Most of this ire exhibited many of these dehumanizing marginalizations of men based on:
Chivalry or male feminist chivalry gender role shaming.
• “What about the womenz” – The privileged default of the gender discussion ownership
• “Othering dehumanization” – Another type of privileged default of the gender discussion ownership
• Justification of dismissal by “victim-perpetrator equivalence blaming”, or better yet, a statement that posits a “male victim / male perpetrator” crime is acceptable because they cancel each other out. It’s another version of “othering dehumanization”.
• Creating a secondary straw-man causation as the root issue, such as class or race, but willfully pretending that class or race somehow makes the people who suffer to be something other than men.
• Positing men’s suffering as women-blaming or anti-feminism, which in reality is another “what about the womenz” argument.
Here is a person that calls themselves dangerpantz, whose response to my recent post was fairly typical of anti-MRAs and feminists. I first list my statistic, then their response, and then under their comments are the excuses and justifications that they use.
Over 28,000 men this year alone will commit suicide
“What the fuck does this have to do with Men’s Rights? Did they commit suicide because they didn’t have rights? This is mostly an economic and class issue.”
Othering dehumanization, “victim-perpetrator equivalence blaming”, straw-man secondary causation.
About 4,200 men will be killed in a work related accident
“Again, work safety issue. Still not seeing how this relates to Men’s Rights. Human Rights issue, certainly. Also more women in the workforce = less men getting injured. So doesn’t feminism benefit men here more than men’s rights?”
Blind chivalry (willful ignorance that men still adhere to the gender role of filling dangerous jobs, forgetting that women do not), “what about the womenz”, straw-man secondary causation.
Over 14,000 men this year will become the victim of a homicide
“Yes. And the perpetrator will most likely be another man.”
Othering dehumanization, “victim-perpetrator equivalence blaming”.
There are over 8 million unemployed men in the US
“This is an economic and class issue again. You can blame the unemployment numbers on the careless practices of unregulated banks… run by men.”
Straw-man secondary causation, “victim-perpetrator equivalence blaming”, and Othering dehumanization (unregulated banks are not the reason for the high unemployment numbers for men).
Men only make up about 41% of college enrollees
“Because men are choosing not to go to college. Mostly because they’re poor. Again… economic and class issue. There are no stumbling blocks in front of men gaining education that aren’t there for women as well.”
Straw-man secondary causation, Othering dehumanization, “what about the womenz” (affirmative action for women still exists in higher education where there is none for men).
Over 230,000 men will be sleeping on the streets tonight, with no shelter to go to
“Seriously. Why is this guy harping about income inequality like it’s a men’s issue and not a human rights and class/economic justice issue.”
Straw-man secondary causation, Othering dehumanization.
Men are dying about 6 years earlier than women. Black men’s life expectancy is barely 70 years compared to white women at 80.6 years
“Women have always lived longer than men on average. Even when women had no rights and men ran everything. This is genetics. Nothing to do with rights at all.”
Othering dehumanization, “what about the womenz”, straw-man secondary causation (it is not genetics, much of it is based on reinforced gender roles and biased legislation that puts the health of women above that of men).
Over 2,000,000 men will be incarcerated at any given point in the US, overwhelmingly for non-violent offenses
“Again. This is a legal issue that has nothing to do with men’s rights. His problem is that people are going to jail for committing crimes? So if someone steals your car and sells it to a chop shop (a non violent crime) they shouldn’t go to jail?”
Straw-man secondary causation, Othering dehumanization.
About 50,000 men are sitting in a US jail, who fell behind in their child support, most because they couldn’t find work
“Again. Another social justice issue. This is a human rights issue and a legal flaw to jail the unemployed when they can’t make child support. Unless he’s suggesting that men shouldn’t be required to support their child, then this isn’t a men’s rights issue. This is a criminal justice system issue.”
Straw-man secondary causation, Othering dehumanization, “what about the womenz”, chivalric gender role enforcement.
About 180,000 men will be raped and sexually assaulted in prison this year alone
“Yeah. By other men.”
“Victim-perpetrator equivalence blaming”, Othering dehumanization.
Another anti-MRA commentator named diablojr posted this diatribe concerning my post. This kind of hate is becoming both more common and extreme, and is far more dehumanizing than the above post.
Over 28,000 men this year alone will commit suicide
“Wait, what the fuck does this have to do with feminists? Men kill themselves, we can blame a whole lot of social pressures for this, but it most certainly (unless they’re a Redditor) is not due to the feminazis.”
Othering dehumanization, “victim-perpetrator equivalence blaming”, straw-man secondary causation, women blaming.
For the exact same crimes, men will spend an average of 3.14 years more behind bars than women
“How the fuck do you make an exact equivalency for crimes? This statement might just indicate that men are more likely to commit violent crimes in the extreme, or have the physical capability to carry it out to its fullest form (i.e. a woman committing battery might not result in as much physical harm thus receiving a less severe sentence).”
“What about the womenz”, chivalristic gender role enforcement, Othering dehumanization (and this issue has been confirmed by dozens of studies by the DOJ, DOC, FBI and BLS).
About 180,000 men will be raped and sexually assaulted in prison this year alone
“Again, don’t even see what this has to do with anti-mens rights. Apparently we’re also supposed to sympathize with the MRA’s because they are fucking hurt and they have been dragged through an unfair system(in regard to womynz divorcing men and falsely accusing them of domestic violence)”
“What about the womenz”, chivalric gender role enforcement, Othering dehumanization.
“Oh wow, I’m fucking done. These people actually believe this. That the white man is being victimized by the mean old feminists. Clearly, these MRAs are just calling women whores, bitches, and victim blaming because they’ve been spermjacked and had false rape accusations levied against them.”
This type of dehumanizing dismissal of men’s issues is all to common as of late. It rages against the idea that men could in anyway have problems worth fixing, defending the privilege status of women in gender discussions by debasing men’s worth to the lowest common denominator. It’s extreme chivalristic gender role enforcement at its ugliest and more importantly resorts to the all too common unfounded ad hominem attacks.
“I’m sick of all these pretentious pseudo-logical MRAs who attempt to use numbers because it adds credibility. It doesn’t. Just because you quoted some fucking statistic doesn’t make your argument valid. To understand a situation as complicated as gender dynamics one must think through with introspection and reason. But that’s hard. So fuck that and self-victimize away!”
But these aren’t just numbers, these are human beings. This kind of comment reeks of fear and disgust; it turns the very real problems of men into the all familiar cogs of disposability. It almost echos those phrases: “Man up!” “Don’t cry.” “Stop being a pussy.” “Provide for your family, or you are a deadbeat.” “Be the protector, place women’s lives ahead of your own.”
Rights are not just legal, but are also cultural and social in nature. So while women own the default spot on discussions of gender, many feminist groups and people like these two commenters above, are the ones who are using this privilege to control the tone of public discussion. What the net result has become is massive social spending and governmental focus on women’s problems, and the continued marginalization and demonization of men. Women have become the de facto protectorate by an institution of chivalry, and the benefactors of 100′s of laws and billions of dollars.
I think more and more women are becoming fed up with this type of chivalry as well, finding that the promise of complete liberation to have a full voice in the agency of their own mind and body as well as the full responsibility for their actions, is being robbed by a state and a society that is continuing to perpetuate many of the same old gender roles for men. Yes, it is true, some forms of feminism hurt women too. A few feminists are starting to get this point too, but not enough yet to give men a voice or a seat at the table of social equality.
Sometimes its not all about women; its not all about a feminist cause. Sometimes people help other people out of compassion, out of brotherhood and out of a commitment to equal protection under the law.
Photo credit: Flickr / Lara604
About Anonymous
@El Ammi
I’m going to assume that, since you didn’t answer my question, the answer is no you haven’t ever actually spoken to any sex workers.
Okay then.
Wow, what about all of my other words! My incredibly valid and interesting words, all dismissed because I failed to answer one personal question? About people in my life? Nah, this isn’t about me or who I know, we can chat about ideas without becoming personal.
i don’t really see any point in continuing. You’ve assumed that homemade porn actresses are “exploited” and coerced. (for that matter you believe this about the rest of them too) And you believe this… because? Because they engage in an activity that you yourself would never do? You’ve given an assertation without any relevant proof.
Further, as I said, I don’t see why there’s anything *inherently* more exploitative in porn than in any other type of employment. (emphasis, again, on inherently.)
I’ve provided you with the blog of an actual sex worker who doesn’t agree with your worldview. I can provide more.
By all means, focus on those sex “workers” who are, in fact being exploited. They exist, I don’t deny this. But the rest of them? They aren’t interested in your “help”
Are you talking to me? That’s not what I said at all!! I said if you can honestly say they are not exploited, then go for it! Seriously, i am having so many words shoved into my mouth I could probably make a porn myself.
“The ‘presumption’ is that we live in a patriarchy. And, yeah, we aren’t rehashing that debate. It’s been pointed out and is a fact, and has been treated as such for years.”
A fact? Really? Since when? The Patriarchy is no more a fact than the Matriarchy. It is a bit scary how religious people can hold on to this idea, and yet give no statisical nor empiracal evidence. Top 1% are mostly men…..and that is parlayed that the top 1% grant privlieges to all men, just because they are men. It’s ridiculous.
Also, if we are going to talk about how the porn industry exploits people, which I don’t believe it does for the most part, then why talk about how the oil or coal or lumber industry exploits men as labor for jobs which they will often be killed or injured.
Um, that’s not a very good description of the patriarchy? And what are you implying anyway? Is the whole racism thing a farce as well because, um, legislators and corporate and media execs couldn’t possibly hold enough power to influence our culture? And I wasn’t going to talk about exploitation of workers in the porn industry, I was going to focus on the ideological messages the porn industry says. You realize the discrimination women face even getting in the door in the industries you’ve named? And the (rightful) regulations and health and safety standards and relative longevity of these positions and the relatively high status they enjoy as compared to the porn industry? How the men who go to work in Alberta come home ‘rich’ and the women who live in Alberta are experiencing skyrocketing amounts of sexual assault? Yeah, those aren’t the best of examples to prove your point.
What’s the rate of sexual assault for the men in Alberta? Is it limited to women in the skyrocketing numbers? I’m not trying to cause an argument but the way it sounds is that it’s mostly harming women, are there stats on this recently to show it’s mostly against the women or are the men also getting abused quite a lot? Not quite sure why you’re saying the women get sexually abused a lot there?
Well, it still appears women are being sexually assaulted more than men, with adult men making up eight percent of the total sexual assaults reported by adults. Of that 8%, homosexual men and disabled men are especially at risk. And in Alberta, men are the perpetrators in most dv disputes according to self reported surveys. And it is bloody hard to get recent province specific data, let me tell you. You might want to try your own search and see if you can dig up anything more recent, but this is what I have:
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/statcan/85-224-X/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2010024/part-partie1-eng.htm#h2_9
http://aasas.ca/index.php/main/page/fact-sheet-men-sexual-abuse-sexual-assault-2010-09-24-15-09-17
“People have moved beyond explaining how men are over represented in politics, most high status professions, have higher incomes, how we learn more about them is school, and are working to fix that problem”
People have become good at ignoring how men are over represented in homelessness, suicides, prisons, homicide victims, have lower high school and college rates, die sooner, have higher rates of cancer and HIV; how we learn more about them being “creepy” instead of being humans, and are working to marganalize their voices because men don’t really matter unless they are the top 1%. People only look above, and never see who they are walking on.
FTFY
People have become good at ignoring how men are over represented in homelessness, suicides, prisons, homicide victims, have lower high school and college rates, die sooner, have higher rates of cancer and HIV; how we learn more about them being “creepy” instead of being humans, and are working to marganalize their voices because men don’t really matter unless they are the top 1%. People only look above, and never see who they are walking on.
FTFY
I am not saying these issues aren’t important and deserving of oppression, I am saying they are not stemming from systemic gender oppression. If anything, these problems exist from the pressure of maintaining male privilege. But, yes, they are class issues.
I am not saying these issues aren’t important and deserving of oppression, I am saying they are not stemming from systemic gender oppression. If anything, these problems exist from the pressure of maintaining male privilege. But, yes, they are class issues.
I think that’s what gets people riled up. The damages that are done to men is treated like its a side effect of trying to keep women down rather than a built in feature of a system where those in power actively keep everyone else down for their own gain.
“The damages that are done to men is treated like its a side effect of trying to keep women down rather than a built in feature of a system where those in power actively keep everyone else down for their own gain.”
Yes.
And this is a hard thing to unthread isn’t it. Where is it class? Where is it gender? Where is it accidental?
And one thing that gets frustrating is that people will say in one breath that the system keeps everyone down but in the next breath will right to what I said above.
I’m thinking what makes it “hard” to unthread is that multiple people have multiple answers and when they cross paths they clash and clash hard. There are those who say that when it come to harming men a man’s gender has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are those who say a man’s gender is only a part of it. There are those that will say that even though a man’s gender may have something to do with it its not so and so because it doesn’t compare to what women go through.
And with some people it seems to me that this issue of multiple answers only happens with men (in terms of gender than is). When something bad happens to a guy there is a desire to cross reference it against what women go through in order to measure how bad it is and the real fun starts when some of those people run that cross reference and then decide that it doesn’t deserve conversation just because they are men.
I try to talk about this stuff on my blog but when I go out from there and I see people wanting to only talk about it only under the condition that we start off recognizing that what happens to men “doesn’t compare to what happens to women” (which I honestly think is code for “women have it worse”) even when the conversation wouldn’t otherwise mention women I start with a sense of dread. It can be a sign that those folks are willing to talk as long as we don’t take anything from women (because apparently it only becomes a zero sum game when women stand to “lose” something).
Fair enough, that can’t be fun to hear. And it does speak to the title of the article ‘but what about teh womenz- people attempting to discuss the problem of diminishing problems of abused men get bogged down explaining oppression. But if the discussion came from the perspective cultural norms supporting male privilege can be harmful to men, you would have an accurate critical analysis of why these norms exist.
But if the discussion came from the perspective cultural norms supporting male privilege can be harmful to men, you would have an accurate critical analysis of why these norms exist.
At the risk of spiraling out of control further I think this may be a problem here.
What good does it to tell a male abuse victim that he has male privilege in the face of evidence all throughout out culture (at least in the States) that male abuse victims are being actively denied help? What good does it do to tell these men that they are being denied because they are expected to be “macho” while at the same time using that “macho” reason to turn them away? When people that are supposedly in it for all victims of violence start using the very means of marginalizing victims that have been in place there are indeed problems.
If you mean what should front line workers tell victims of abuse, it doesn’t pay to shove critical analysis down the throats of men or women. But if you are looking to change the system, then an accurate understanding of why that system is in place is important. Male privilege exists whether or not it’s comfortable to acknowledge it, but once you acknowledge it you can begin to deconstruct it and start to question masculine stereotypes.
Oh I’m all for analysis. But that analysis can only go so far. How can you deconstruct those stereotypes and change the system when people keep dragging it back to “its because you have male privilege”?
Male privilege is the starting point of the deconstruction, not the end. And it’s not ‘because You have male privilege’, problems like ignoring the abuse of men exist to Maintain male privilege. The physical abuse of women was consistent with the power structure at the time, so women had to work to get it recognized as illegal and work to find shelters for women who suffered it. The problem facing men is that the abuse of men Isn’t consistent with the current power structures, so people overlook it. To shine a light on the abuse of men is to shine a light on the false ideals of masculinity.
The problem facing men is that the abuse of men Isn’t consistent with the current power structures, so people overlook it.
I’m not trying to point a finger at you but I have to disagree with the idea that its not consistent with some sort of power structure is why people overlook it. If that were the case then at least people who claim to be against the current power structure would at the very minimum acknowledge it but plenty of them, far too many of them don’t.
If anything you could almost argue that it is consistent considering that some of the people that fight to disregard it benefit from that disregard.
Well, battered women’s advocacy groups aren’t the equivalent of institutionalized patriarchal power I was referring to, but I see what you’re saying- why aren’t abused women’s advocates speaking up on behalf of abused men. I can wager a guess without being absolutely certain of the answer. A few reasons- the assertion men are abused as much as women is reminiscent of the 70′s when protection of abused women was first being fought for and people confused self-defense with ‘mutual battery’. There are studies from the 90′s that indicate men are actually more likely than women to report violence to the police because it is consistent as a control tactic. Studies from the 90′s also show in describing violence done to them men tend to over estimate it, while women underestimate it. And every study still suggests men are perpetrators of the more dangerous forms of violence. If you start with the 70′s, read those studies that happened in the 90′s and move to your present day political climate where politicians are suggesting abused women ‘remember the good times’ before seeking divorce, I can understand why there is some knee jerk skepticism. Combine all this with the sad fact people are using these statistics to question gender inequity all together- objectively, with absolutely no interest in whether or not the studies are true, I can understand why abused women advocates are not taking the line patriarchal ideals are responsible for the silencing.
Feminists remind me too much of Economists – they think that because they learned something in a class, it must actually be 100% true.
Even when the real world says otherwise.
I am not saying these issues aren’t important and deserving of oppression, I am saying they are not stemming from systemic gender oppression. If anything, these problems exist from the pressure of maintaining male privilege. But, yes, they are class issues.
Strawman secondary causation, what about the womenz, othering dehumanization
Class issues, that effect men in greater numbers. Somehow, a person’s class negates their gender now? They are systemic, because men are disposable. Unless you are the top rich “alpha” male, then you are a disposable cog in a never ending wheel of suffering; suffering they need to “man up” and not complain about and other’s need not acknowledge.
Wow. El Ammi disagrees with you and s/he is guilty of “othering dehumanization?” Even after acknowledging that s/he is “not saying these issues aren’t important?”
Can you understand how incredibly dismissive it is to say that unless people agree with you, they’re not merely mistaken but callous and cruel? <bReally, really ironic in the comments of an article calling other people to task over silencing and shaming others.
Have you read her posts?
She knows everything. She’s right, and you’re wrong. If you look at something from another perspective, then you’re wrong, because gender is the only lens through which to view the world. Men’s issues don’t matter, and if they do, they can only be solved with More Feminism! (when all you have is a hammer…).
She isn’t acting like a person who’s talking to adults. She’s acting like someone who’s attempt to educate children. And yes, that is demeaning.
Yes, I am viewing the world through a gendered lens- we are discussing gender issues.
I’d like to take a pause here and say what I’m seeing. It’s so easy to miss empathy and connection when it is offered especially online. I see El Ammi acknowledging issues. And I see Kyle reaching out with real frustration. I see people missing each other and not really “hearing.”
All of which leads to this idea that someone is dehumanizing someone else. Which I don’t think is the case.
Comment threads are really hard places to get this emapathy and connection going, and I see increasing tension on both sides.
Is there a new angle that could be tried? Not to stop the disagreement, but to open up the conversation to a new tone?
I think these types of conversations are good, to the extent it is uncomfortable to come to real understandings. And I see both sides sticking it out here which is good; and I bet sooner or later we all may realize that their is no “both” sides, just one side, one humanity. Language and terms are very important to people, and sometimes that language can hurt more than people can see.
El Alamni says male privilege and I say dehumanizing; both hurt for different reasons. We must make room for pain if progress is to be made. Thank you Julie for being the voice of calm reason.
No, sir, I am challenging your terms and explaining why they don’t work. You brought up the one percent, not I, but it seems you are interested in playing ‘who is the most disadvantaged gender down the classes’. Women have a lower income, are put into positions of authority less frequently, single mothers make up the majority of the poor, and the status of women in the USA has been in decline for the past two decades. Really? Well you have an answer to your question- you know why people insist on discussing women when you are trying to address issues facing men? It is because you try to discuss those problems by asserting there is no gender oppression. Try working from that angle.
So far in my quest to understand the world, I’m wondering if it’s really both genders face oppression/struggle/whatever name but in different areas? Can both genders be oppressed at the same time?
Well, if you’ve abandoned the gender binary, quite a few genders are being oppressed as we speak- but cis male is not the oppressed gender, it’s the most powerful. That isn’t to say your life is sunshine and roses- people don’t just abandon their cultural roles and not expect repercussions. And I don’t know you- it’s quite possible there are other oppressive factors in your life. There are a lot of ways in which people are oppressed- class, age (for the elderly), race, gender orientation, mental/physical ability, etc. The best model for understanding privilege is this thing called ‘the flower of power’- there are way more petals to take into account than is in this model, and when you really get into oppression studies you’ll have a ton of insight. But here’s a link to it: http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/courses/csafety/mod2/media/flower.htm
Yay I’m half n half flower. I’m guessing this is a simplistic model as it doesn’t have intelligence, class, etc? What I’m really curious now is can male privilege in the west be closer to female privilege, whilst class privilege can be massively different? Can class privilege leave most men and women in similar straights, yet a few at the top could be vastly different, eg rich man or woman compared to poor man or woman? I see a lot of comments of people who don’t feel privileged, and quite a lot of comments of men in power but those men in power tend to be very wealthy or at least quite a bit more than the average person. Are they getting power from their wealth, or their gender?
There really isn’t such a thing as ‘female privilege’. It’s ‘feminine things you like doing that maintain the current power dichotomy (I’m ok analyzing it in the sense of gender binary because that is the ideological ‘ideal’). Privilege and oppression aren’t in and of themselves individualistic- if they don’t serve in maintaining a larger structure of ‘dominant group’ over ‘other’ then they are simply injustices.
When I hear a statement asserting that a particular “privilege” exists, I try to test it using what I call the Magic Wand test. It’s not a foolproof analysis, but it’s very revealing.
Basically, ask someone who does not enjoy the alleged privilege: if you had a magic wand you could wave that would instantly make you a member of that privileged group, would you use it? If the answer is no, then why not?
So, for example, if male privilege is so powerful, ask a woman if she could instantly become a male instead of a female, would she do it? I would guess in the vast majority of cases the woman would say no. That doesn’t mean male privilege does not exist at all, but that does suggest there are clearly some offsetting benefits from being female, even if it’s just some sort of gender pride.
Combine this test with the same test for white privilege and ask an African American woman if she could choose to be a white male would she do it? I’m guessing once she got over the offensiveness being asked such a question, she would probably reply in the negative.
Now, ask me if I could wave a magic wand and make myself a billionaire, and I would not hesitate to wave that puppy as vigorously as I could. There is clearly class and/or income privilege, which is much harder to deny. People tell me that when you get rich you acquire a whole new set of problems, but I find that very hard to believe. I question how much offsetting benefit there is in being poor as opposed to rich.
I share the skepticism about any message that says that such-and-such “is just a fact.” I remember quite clearly one GMP commenter suggesting that obviously Male Privilege exists because there’s a Wikipedia entry about it. (It’s actually a very well-written, clear entry. I wanted to point out that there’s also an excellent, very detailed Wikipedia entry about unicorns, but that is not really proof of the existence of unicorns in objective reality.)
…So people of colour are not oppressed if they don’t want to be white? Do you think gay people would wave a wand to become straight. Or maybe people are just secure in their own identity and recognize it’s the world that’s messed up, not them.
El Ammi:
…why aren’t abused women’s advocates speaking up on behalf of abused men.
Actually my question is why are women’s advocates speaking out against abused men. To me “bare minimum” would be as simple as not talking about it which I’m fine with. There’s a lot to be done for women victims and I can certainly agree that we as men should be doing our own thing or even that women’s advocates are just not able to divide their resources between the two. The problem is why do they spend some of those resources to down play male victims.
I can wager a guess without being absolutely certain of the answer. A few reasons- the assertion men are abused as much as women is reminiscent of the 70′s when protection of abused women was first being fought for and people confused self-defense with ‘mutual battery’. There are studies from the 90′s that indicate men are actually more likely than women to report violence to the police because it is consistent as a control tactic. Studies from the 90′s also show in describing violence done to them men tend to over estimate it, while women underestimate it. And every study still suggests men are perpetrators of the more dangerous forms of violence. If you start with the 70′s, read those studies that happened in the 90′s and move to your present day political climate where politicians are suggesting abused women ‘remember the good times’ before seeking divorce, I can understand why there is some knee jerk skepticism. Combine all this with the sad fact people are using these statistics to question gender inequity all together- objectively, with absolutely no interest in whether or not the studies are true, I can understand why abused women advocates are not taking the line patriarchal ideals are responsible for the silencing.
Possibly that might be part of the answer but against none of that explains why saying “hey we need to help these guys out” is met with “but that means taking away from the real victims, women!”. Unless we are talking about people who are using past evidence to deny today’s actual victims. But it certainly does explain why there is a need for more diligence in helping women victims though.
Well, a lot of what I said above still applies. These groups are facing funding cuts, a greater number in clientele, women’s shelters are filling needs that medical centers should be, and along with the cuts, the increase in need with the decrease in resources are governments that are legislating away health services for women, officials publicly suggesting they should stay with abusive partners. And then these studies that are reminiscent of studies in the seventies that eventually proved to be false. They’re speaking out because they don’t buy it. There has been a constant barrage of misinformation about women’s issues in the media, it was a tact tried before, and the rhetoric isn’t ‘help out men in need’ but ‘see, men have it bad too, so inequality doesn’t exist. Further, why aren’t you sharing your ever shrinking funding that doesn’t cover the current need with abused men?’
There has been a constant barrage of misinformation about women’s issues in the media, it was a tact tried before, and the rhetoric isn’t ‘help out men in need’ but ‘see, men have it bad too, so inequality doesn’t exist. Further, why aren’t you sharing your ever shrinking funding that doesn’t cover the current need with abused men?’
And let’s not act like the misinformation is only happening to women’s issues in the media.
And I said nothing of the rhetoric you speaking. Yes it does exist and there are people putting unfair expectations on women’s advocates but that is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the people who are actually saying “help men out in need” and are being met with “no they don’t need help because they are men”.
The misinformation about women’s issues in the media doesn’t justify misinformation about men’s issues in the media.
I’m not really sure what misinformation about men’s interests in the media you’re referring to. Reports on self-reported domestic violence against men have made headlines, often with the leads similar to ‘Women Abuse as Much as Men, Study Says’. Some advocates for women who are victims of abuse are skeptical, and they give their reasons quite plainly. Also, these studies don’t take into account what happens after the partners separate, where the potential for violence against women significantly increases and the potential for violence against men significantly decreases. And all I’ve read thus far make the point that dv against men does happen and it needs to stop, they are just calling the analyses of the data into question, plainly, with references to studies.
I say misinformation because of often times when stories like female against male violence are reported they are reported in a different light. Such as stories of female against male violence being led off with “why” she did it as if trying to justify her actions.
Question the analysis of data is one thing but its quite another to go from that to saying that what happens to men is not that big of a deal. Sure not all women’s advocates do it but it certain does happen.
Archy: “that is akin to saying the institutions that pressured women to be housewives was justified because some women were happy as housewives. ”
What about institutions that pressure men into fighting in wars, being the police n protecting others with their life, even the institution pushing men to be the provider, could similar arguments be made of exploitation?
Again not looking for an argument, trying to find out meanings to the words used by each person and what they mean by them.
Women were legally barred from those professions for years and years and are still fighting to receive full and fair recognition in them. Do you know the rate of sexual assault of military women by men in the military? Their fellow soldiers and commanding officers? it’s 1 in three, i believe, but you’ll have to look that up. And compare the status of soldiers and police officers to that of housewives. Soldiers and police officers are literally given medals and called heroes for their job- housewives enjoy a considerably lower status, are often ridiculed- they’re pretty much only praised in contrast to ;less feminine’ professions. Now, the struggle to become a house husband? Significantly less odious than the struggle to be a female soldier, and I don’t have the statistics, but thus far there have been no complaints of widespread sexual assaults among house husbands. Further, compare the economic freedom of a housewife to a police officer- it goes on. it is a bit frustrating to hear entirely male dominated and highly respected professions described as oppressive when women and people of colour have historically and even currently had to fight to get in the door and fight for recognition in their fields.
Ugh, bit rambly up there- sorry, I’m up late. Here’s a CNN report on the American military and sexual assault. Canada is probably bad, too, but it was this report that made its way to my fb page a few months ago: http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-31/us/military.sexabuse_1_sexual-assault-sexual-abuse-military-service?_s=PM:US
I usually reply at 3am on here, it’s 3pm atm for me so that might give indication of when my brain isn’t working:P.
On husbands and sexual assault, the CDC stats show up to 1:1 forced to penetrate and forcibly penetrated victim rates, 1.1% for both genders in the 12 month category and 79.2% of the men report a female abuser. Not gonna try assume it’s perfectly even levels, but I do assume the rate of sexual abuse between genders is closing in gap which really worries me since I’d hope both sides would have less n less with better education regarding sexual abuse. Why I posted that stat is to say there are quite a lot of men now opening up and telling their story, I think the CDC stats were one of the first stats to breakdown by gender, type of abuse, even ethnicity so it’ll be interesting to see follow up studies done. I’m curious on if the risk is greater for house-wife/husband?
WRT Women and people of colour, do people of colour face a much harder time vs white women? Which intersecting status/attribute (not sure exactly what to call it) has more benefit and which has more negative, gender or race?
WRT Rape in the military, I’ve read that rape of males is also a huge problem in the military, is it a control tactic where women are simply being included in what the men receive or is it a totally different beast?
WRT Praise on jobs, You’re right in the hero praise however they tend to be applied to people that put their life on the line for others, whereas being a house-wife shouldn’t require high levels of danger. A policeman, soldier, fireman, etc places themselves purposely in harms way to keep others safe which should entitle them to a certain level of praise for their selfless acts of bravery (but only when earned, you gotta prove your stripes). I do also support praising our mothers n fathers for the job they do raising a child as they all help provide the future, a parent at home who is raising a child is doing an extremely important job and it needs to be seen as such, the value of a decent home-life in creating a well adjusted child I think is immense and much of my own intelligence, creativity, empathy was passed down from my parents. The next Einstein could be from parents who catered to their child’s passion and interests for example, that is a commendable role.
WRT Struggle to be a house husband, were they accepted 20 years ago? From what I see it’s only been recently that stay at home fathers has been acceptable, along with breadwinner mothers, although there still does exist those who dislike that upset in old gender roles.
I am glad many advances were made for women in equality, would I be right in assuming many of the gender issues are not law but social issues to change now for women? Are there still many restrictions in law or other areas that discriminate? The only one I can think off the top of my head is special forces where women weren’t allowed to try out, I believe one of the big reasons was ability to carry a large load (50-80Kg last I heard) and much higher risk of knee, hip, n other injuries. Australia recently opened the SAS to women and as far as I know quite a few other countries are removing that block.
I see quite a few issues on both sides to be addressed which are more cultural vs legal rights issues, many of the male issues for example I think are social such as gender roles that are harmful, prejudicial views against men with kids, etc.
Thank-you for calm debate, it’s much easier to figure this all out when I’m not smothered in snark. My exposure to feminism has been mostly via the internet and I’ve read a variety of stuff, some debates are quite level headed, some are very gynocentric which can still be level headed, some are gynocentric but flat out refuse to believe men have problems, and some has been downright anti-male. When everyone tries to debate without resorting to snark and attacks I find it far more productive, it appears there could be a problem with the meaning of a word between the sides and that is causing defensiveness?
i wrote a long reply and the site reloaded and I lost it. So sorry if this sounds short, but I already said it a second ago.
Do the stats from the CDC say women and men have the same rate of aggravated sexual assault? I’d like to see that link please. That isn’t the case in Canada, even by self reported violence statistics. Also, I clicked on a CDC page and it didn’t have any numbers for rape.
Oppression tends to be amplified the more oppressive traits you have. A black man and a black woman would experience oppression differently, but there would be more barriers in the way of a black woman. Like the power flower illustrates.
Are you suggesting 4 in 10 male soldiers in the American military have been raped? When no one has even suggested it is a problem? That seems implausible.
Whether you think the status of soldiers and officers is justifiable and whether you think housewives are more deserving of praise is not the point- it’s the status these positions have in our society. Status is hard to quantify, but medals and the word hero are pretty great indicators, and the years of demeaning the position of housewife isn’t bad, either. Not to mention the comparative economic freedom of the two positions.
There are still laws women’s groups are trying to pass and the current state of reproductive rights in the US is a good indicator the law isn’t ‘done’ as far as equality goes. But I think the biggest challenge is getting the courts to exercise that legislation, and, eventually, making people aware it does get used so don’t discriminate/commit violent acts against women.
The women are being snarky because you are comparing the oppression they face every day with unjust but non-oppressive things that happen. Further, you are suggesting they are not oppressed and so denying their experiences. I cannot stress this enough- every day experiences. Every day. Anywho, off to bed, Good talking with ya!
ht tp://www.renwl.org/men-raping-men-in-us-military-catapults-past-assaults-on-women/11165/
Seems the number in number % is lower, but overall more victims for men due to more men in the military, 1 in 20.
ht tp://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/NISVS/index.html in the full report, start around page 18, table 2.1 and 2.2, the number that stands out is the 12month category with rape for women and forced to penetrate under the male heading @ 1.1% each. about page 24 I think is the 79.2% of men reporting the female abuser, so for the last 12 months it’s roughly 60% male rapist, 40% female rapists if my dirty math is correct. This stat stands out because it is such a contrast to everything I’ve been taught about rape, did women start offending far more often in the last 12 months, or did men offend less, or is it a new trend, or have we only just found out because someone actually started asking? The lifetime stats still favor more female victims, but the 12 month stats favour parity. That leaves me wondering wtf is going on, have men simply remained silent on most of their abuse or is it new?
I’m not trying to suggest women aren’t oppressed, I’m trying to suggest that both women and men have a lot of issues to deal with, some areas for women and some for men. What makes men so snarky is the way some talk about the oppression against women and try to assert bad shit that happens to men is not comparable to women in a way that women get it worse in nearly all aspects of society. It goes so extreme that we get some feminists saying in articles about the rape men face “women get it worse” and try to act like the abuse against women is worse! I just had someone comment yesterday where the rape of women was more harmful than envelopment of men, why is there such a need for women to be seen as the worse-off victim?
“The women are being snarky because you are comparing the oppression they face every day with unjust but non-oppressive things that happen. Further, you are suggesting they are not oppressed and so denying their experiences. I cannot stress this enough- every day experiences. Every day. Anywho, off to bed, Good talking with ya!”
What are these every day experiences? Men, women, both get beaten, raped, killed day to day, which experiences are you meaning? Also do you mean women as a group, or each individual women face this stuff daily? I’m a lil confused on your meaning. I don’t doubt women have and still do face oppression and bad shit, but I also want to know if the men are being oppressed as I do know they face bad shit a lot as well. When peopel compare women to men and assert that women are worse off, I want to know why because there are others here posting some very terrible things where men are worse off in certain parts of society and it’s made me question why some people tell me women are worse off. At the moment I don’t want to judge which gets it worse, nor should it matter that much as we should be tackling the issues that affect both, I believe both genders have quite a lot of bullshit to deal with, whether it be oppression or injustices, climates of violence, etc.
And with regard to reproductive rights, what are your views on men’s rights regarding a fetus and their rights with regard to financial abortion? Currently women have a way to opt out of having a child after conception but men don’t, doesn’t that suggest women have more reproductive rights already? I can’t have an abortion, if I get someone pregnant it’s 100% their choice on whether I pay for 18 years or I get no potential offspring. Now some will say I can choose to wear a condom, refrain from sex or get a vasectomy, but of course a woman can also choose to wear a condom, or use birth control, or the morning after pill, or tubal litigation, or abortion.
12% of the reported rape cases are men. It seems somewhat reminiscent of the general population (8% of rape cases are men). Further, it seems that men are the perpetrators in these cases. There is no mention of whether men or women are perpetrators in the general population, but it does give me cause to wonder- who is doing the assaulting?
Yes, that was the report I was reading earlier- how did we come across such different numbers? “Nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in the U.S. have been raped at some time in their lives.”
I kind of figured why men get ‘snarky’ (snarky doesn’t quite cover it) when they hear about oppression- they hear it described as a series of unfortunate incidents and they think ‘but that happens to me, too! Here’s a quick run down on what male privilege is:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/
Ok, never mind the perpetrators of crimes against men and women are overwhelmingly men. So many discussions of privilege get filtered down to a catalog of offenses against individuals, and privileged people say ‘but that happens to me, too!’. Imagine a person of colour walks into a building. The guard notes he’s black and immediately starts following him. This is clearly racist. Privilege denying is when a white person says ‘But that happens to me, too!! Guards never trust me when I walk into a building.’- that doesn’t make your race oppressed because this wasn’t based on an overall pervasive cultural norm your race is ‘criminal’. Much like how sexual assault and harassment towards men isn’t oppressive (unjust and wrong to be sure, but not oppressive)- it isn’t based on a pervasive cultural norm of the sexual availability and the sexual objectification of your gender. It isn’t an easy concept- it’s meta analysis of real world experiences.
Oh, oh oh, and this is a major problem with me and reproductive rights- the reason a woman is the soul person who has a say in what happens to her body is because it is HER BODY. No one can force you to donate an organ or donate blood to a living human being, so it seems utterly ridiculous to me people think it’s reasonable to force a woman to donate her body and health for 9 months for a collection of cells. And , hey, if you’re looking for an example of male privilege, this is a good one- people are still asking the question about whether women should have autonomous control over the decisions made about their own bodies because their is a presumed ownership over that body when a man’s zygotes are in it. Explain it to a person clearly, ‘no, a person shouldn’t be legally forced to sacrifice their actual physical body for the sake of another person, this is an incredible violation of their basic human rights.’ And most people will concede that makes sense. Some obstinate people will try and deny the incredible intrusiveness of forcing a person to use their body to sustain another human and make insulting comparisons to other, less intrusive sacrifices (good god, paying child support for instance). While the latter is clearly an example of mind bogglingly ignorant male privilege, the fact that we are still explaining this at all is an example of male privilege. This conversation should have never happened, and should be simply dismissed. But because of the relative power of the people who want to control women’s bodies, people keep asking it.
“Yes, that was the report I was reading earlier- how did we come across such different numbers? “Nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in the U.S. have been raped at some time in their lives.” ”
Because the definition of rape has a bias, it means 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men were subject to attempted or successful forced penetration. Being forced to penetrate was defined under the “other sexual assault” category, but many tend to agree it is still rape. It’s a clear example of bias towards reporting on male victimization in sexual assault, I think it’s a big problem and quite frankly muddies up many arguments of which gender gets raped more as it ignores quite a lot of the male victims. Haven’t got the pdf open but If i recall the rates were 1 in 21 men had been forced to penetrate someone else in their lifetime, with the 1.1% of men and women both reporting rapes/forced to penetrate/forcibly penetrated in the last 12 months.
RE Reproductive rights, I agree that no man should be able to force a pregnancy to continue or abort, but I do think we should consider giving men the option to opt-out which means no child support but no contact, if they want to be a part of the childs life then they need to help provide. I also believe no man should goto jail IF he is too poor to pay child support, and we need to work on lowering the cost of living so that having children isn’t such a financial burden. For me to have a child at the moment would be extremely difficult as I am not even financially independent, a healthy sexual relationship could do wonders to my self esteem and help get rid of my mental illness but having a baby would probably give me a nervous breakdown as I cannot afford to support myself without help at the moment. It’s not reasonable to force a woman to keep the baby, but is it reasonable to force the man to pay if she chooses not to have the morning after pill, or abortion? Maybe there could be something added in, if the man didn’t use protection then he’s liable to avoid those that want to be careless in the bedroom. And yes I asked the question, and no you cannot use male privilege to simply keep me quiet, it’s a very valid question and I do not accept people simply dismissing it due to me being a male, it’s insulting when people try to use male privilege as a silencer to dismiss a man’s concern.
Like it or not a child is a heavy financial burden, especially for men who are in a lower income bracket or who rely on welfare, even with condoms there is risk of pregnancy yet a man has zero choice in the matter and must rely on the woman’s choice, she has complete control over her body but she also has control over whether he has 18 years of financial + parental responsibility. Already his emotions and feelings towards having children are completely dismissed due to it being her body which gestates the child (and again I don’t want to see women forced to keep, or abort), but the cost and responsibility with raising a child can be too much for some to bear.
I’d love to see better cost of living + much better contraception in place + adequate support for parents, this is probably one way to avoid the problem.
“Explain it to a person clearly, ‘no, a person shouldn’t be legally forced to sacrifice their actual physical body for the sake of another person, this is an incredible violation of their basic human rights”
And I’ll play devils advocate in this next question, is there a violation of human rights if a man does not wish to be a father yet his partner ignores the concerns, doesn’t have an abortion, and now he is responsible for the next 18 years? He’s legally obliged whereas she has complete 100% control to end it, she is not forced to carry a child she does not want, but he can be forced to provide for a child he does not want under threat of jail-time, doesn’t that seem a bit concerning?
And before I hear the argument he can keep it in his pants, well sure, she can keep her pants on too but should we start pushing that on those in the abortion clinic? (No we shouldn’t)
Wow, that is a terrible definition of rape. I am not seeing where the category –describes the gender of the perpetrator. And there are no numbers in the ‘made to penetrate’ category. Seems strange.
Should a mother get the same chance to ‘opt out’ when a baby is born? You’re confusing reproductive rights with child welfare rights. But child support is determined by the courts based on what the other parent can provide.
Alright devil’s advocate- no there is no violation of human rights. Physical autonomy and financial autonomy are not the same thing. Your money is not ‘you’.
Page 24 describes the perpetrator in the full report if I remember correctly. Most rape victims report a male, since rape is defined as forcibly penetrating someone so women would either have to use hands or objects but most non-forcibly penetrated victims report a female perpetrator, 79.2% for forced to penetrate, 83.6% for coercion, 53.1&^% unwanted sexual contact n so on. Numbers are tables 2.2 for made to penetrate, there’s 2 tables 1 under the other, first one for women and second for men, page 18 for table 2.1 and page 19 for table 2.2.
I absolutely hate their definition of rape, I truly believe it should include both forcibly penetrated and forced to penetrate since many arguments try to compare male n female victimization but especially to give gravity to the crime itself for male victims, at the moment it’s “other sexual violence” which rarely was mentioned in the news.
I realize physical n financial autonomy are different but financial burdens from pregnancy can get you the deadbeat jail-time can it not? Wouldn’t that be loss of human rights, the jail-time if you do not pay?
I wish they’d hurry up on the male pill although I am considering a vasectomy myself if it’s reversible, I really really really don’t want a child until I am quite well off and can support the child both financially and time-wise, mentally strong enough etc.
It’s certainly not a healthy view on the definition of sexual assault- 1 in 21 males (with no indicators as to age) report being forced to penetrate, with women making up about 79% of the perpetrators. 1 in 4 women report forced penetration, with men making up 98% of the perpetrators. For the ‘other’ category, 1 in 2 women and 1 in 5 men report some other form of sexual assault. And while there is data available on how old the victims were for (their definition of) rape, there is nothing for the ‘other’ category of sexual assault, just that it occurred over the person’s life time.
No, jail time for committing crimes isn’t considered a human rights violation. I’m not sure how to better clarify the distinction between a woman’s right to say what happens to her body and a man’s right to say what happens to his money. You are not an abstract system of dollars and cents in exchange for goods, but a complex collection of cells harboring consciousness? So you see why demanding a person live up to their social responsibility of paying for the welfare of a child is not synonymous with attempting to coerce a person into using their body and energy to sustain another potential life against their will? And when you fail in your responsibility, you are at odds with the law of the society you live in and benefit from, so you are duly punished as a criminal.
I’m loath to tell you what I know about vasectomies because I am in absolutely no way qualified to be giving medical advice of any kind and please do not take any of what I am saying as advice because what do I know I’m a random internet person. But from what I hear it’s hard to get them when you’re young and before you have children, and though they can be reversible, success rates vary. And from the guys I’ve talked to about vasectomies and what I’ve heard about tubal ligation (I don’t even know if the two are comparable) doctors are probably going to be reluctant to give one to a person who is hoping to reverse it one day (not at all certain about this ask a doctor). But I see where you’re coming from- not having access to reliable birth control is stressful. When a hetero-woman friend talks about birth control in my area I usually just start giving as much information as possible, because though there may be a service available, most people don’t know about them. So just in case you don’t know, I looked it up and spermicide lube (always get water based) is about 29% effective in the general public (higher efficacy when used correctly every time. Double that up with condoms (1 in 200 chance- decent odds!) and you’re doubling up on safety. And totally log onto a mens health site and see what else you can do. That peace of mind is precious. (please don’t get offended at my heavy use of imperatives- it’s your life, do what you have to do, and I’m not an expert here, just passing on what I’ve heard to a dude experiencing a common stress
)
Thank-you, I’ll try the spermicidal lube as well as doing my best to avoid orgasm whilst still “inside”.
Yeah the definition of rape is terrible, I see it commonly shown as mostly perpetrated by men against women and male victims especially of female perpetrators are treated as if it’s very rare. However these stats show it to be far more common than I use to think, and I’m sure more common than many realize which is what really worries me. It’s the first study I’ve seen to really go indepth like that and be able to include envelopment, to me the stuff on envelopment is a huge headline by itself and should have been talked about much better in the news. The fact that so many men are victims, as well as females, and so many women are perpetrators as well as men to me indicates a huge need for education. It was already terrible the level of abuse women received, but now it seems to be getting worse in that a huge amount of males are abused, add both together and I get the sense sexual abuse is either more understood now or getting worse.
The definition also troubles me quite a bit in genderizing sexual abuse, there is a lack of campaigns showing male victims and absolutely none that I know of which show a female perpetrator, I can’t help but feel this gap in awareness is harmful in allowing female perps and male victims to exist “out of sight, out of mind”. There’s a heavy focus on the violence towards women, which is good, but clearly we need a focus on the violence towards men as well to really combat the issues. Some might think this help for men might steal from help for women but I think it would reinforce both, when both genders are at high risk there exists a clear need for them both to work together to ensure their safety.
On abortion, would you agree that women have some control over men with regard to being able to continue or end pregnancy? Isn’t that a power imbalance of sorts?
El Ammi writes:
“it’s certainly not a healthy view on the definition of sexual assault- 1 in 21 males (with no indicators as to age) report being forced to penetrate, with women making up about 79% of the perpetrators. 1 in 4 women report forced penetration, with men making up 98% of the perpetrators.”
The numbers become much more comparable when you move from lifetime to “in the last 12 months.”
When you look at that, it is (if I remember correctly) 2.1% of men were forced to penetrate versus 2.3% of women who were raped or targets of attempted rape.
If 80% of men’s assailants when they are forced to penetrate still is true in the 12 month figure, then that means of all rapes going on women are nearly 40% of the perpetrators (using the definition that ‘forced to penetrate” is rape).
@John D : 1.1% and 1.1% for men and women for the 12 month category. The tables are 2.1 and 2.2 if I remember correctly. 79.2% of males forced to penetrate report a female attacker.
“Should a mother get the same chance to ‘opt out’ when a baby is born?.”
They have that, it’s called “adoption” and barring that there are laws in the US (I don’t know if they exist in Canada) that state that a woman can legally abandon her child at a firehouse or hospital. (Safe Haven laws if you want to look them up)
Furthermore, a woman has the ability to place her baby up for adoption against the wishes of the father and if she does it in the right state (Utah for example) the courts will work to block access to his own child.
El Ammi:
“Alright devil’s advocate- no there is no violation of human rights. Physical autonomy and financial autonomy are not the same thing. Your money is not ‘you’.”
It is when you can be forcibly imprisoned for failure to pay. We did away with debtor’s prison over 100 years ago, but they are back for fathers.
Also, the courts have the right to impute the income they feel you “should” be making. If you get knocked out of a high-paying job and can’t find the same work your arrearages can mount quickly if you’re only making a fraction of what you are (the situation for many men in the he-cession).
Belief that a man should support his child doesn’t even equate to the wholesale abuse that family courts are doing to men in areas of child and spousal support.
For more information use the search tool at fathers and families or hisside.
It’s not a violation of human rights when we imprison a criminal. Theft is illegal, and even if you don’t believe in ‘ownership’ we can still justly be imprisoned if we take other people’s things. Now if you’re saying there is undue pressure on some fathers paying child support to make payments they can’t afford, I’m inclined to believe that, and I definitely think that problem needs to be addressed. But if a father can’t make child support payments, he’s not the only one suffering here. Either someone’s stepping up to fill that gap or the child goes unsupported- child support payments aren’t about the father, they’re about the child. Is it a problem that needs to be addressed? Yes. Is it an example of gender oppression? Absolutely not.
El Ammi – Someone left this as a comment on reddit, and I think it’s fitting here. (though I don’t fidn the religion part humorous)
Wow. That’s really the kind of comment you find fitting: the idea that well-off women can’t possibly suffer any kind of oppression than the economic? “Sure, her husband beats her to a pulp every night, but look at the dubs on that Benz.”
Now who’s dehumanizing? Jesus.
Jesus isn’t. And ‘White Knight’ much? Always come to El Ammi’s defense like they can’t speak for themselves. And who said it’s dehumanizing? It was a quote aboute Gloria Allred. Why do you assume she is being beaten? I honestly don’t see feminists and MRAs coming together until they drop this silly oppression language.
Why assume white knight when it may be his actual opinion. I agree that money doesn’t erase issues overall. Let’s actually ask some clarifying questions instead of accusing each other?
How on earth am I supposed to know the context: this is an orphan comment at the end of the page (hint: there is a “reply” button) and saying something was “on Reddit” is about as helpful as saying it is “in English.”
So now I know the context. Great. What does it matter if this comment is about an attorney that has been on TV (which is all I know about Allred) or someone else? It’s a dehumanizing, sexist, classist slam that treats the target as merely the member of a group, rather than a human being. And pro-tip, Kyle: people will take your complaints about dehumanization, silencing and shaming a lot more seriously if you don’t engage in the same practices yourself.
I don’t know who El Ammi is, or if that commenter has self-identified as female. What I objected to before, and what I object to now, is your belittling, silencing slams in place of actual engagement. Rather than defend your position and that it’s OK to mock a woman you don’t know because of her social class, you throw up an irrelevant quibble about facts I couldn’t possibly know, and try to shame me with the title of “White Knight.”
What this feels like, rather than a desire for justice for people who have been shamed, is a desire to use those tactics yourself and get away with it. How petty. How small.
‘This silly oppression language’ are descriptors of how we live our lives, and the way you casually dismiss it by pointing out some women experience class privilege?’ Some people of colour have high incomes, too- is racism dead? And you claim to want MRA’s and feminists to come together, but when a man (based on your pic, PDA) makes some critical points of his own based on what you’ve said to me, you make the incredibly sexist and dismissive accusation he is a ‘white knight’, a term used by PDA’s and MRA’s to describe a man who helps women to get into their pants. A little self-reflection, here, Kyle. No one is dropping the ‘silly oppressive language’ until the silly oppressive behavior stops. Stop denying what you’re doing and change it. And if you don’t frame every conversation about gender roles as an argument that men are oppressed as much as women, you’ll probably find most feminists are concerned about men’s welfare and would like to help men in need.
white knight’, a term used by PDA’s and MRA’s
“PUAs,” one hopes you meant.
I do help my fiancée get into her dress sometimes, but since she eschews the skintight jean fashion she hasn’t needed any help in the pants department.
Ahaha, yes, PUA’s. I’m a fan of the PDA’s!
When you start a sentence with ‘someone left this comment on reddit’ and expect to post something insightful, you really ought to stop and reflect on what you’re doing.
OK Im done here, Patriarchy is a myth – yet we bring the talk about men’s issues back to that of women. This is why feminism will never be able to fix the issues men face.
If you start a sentence with ‘patriarchy is a myth’, yeah, the discussion will be about women. Maybe you don’t need to fix the issues facing men starting with that premise?
Kyle has a point. I can’t imagine why there would be any discussion of women on a post entitled “What About teh Womenz” that features a picture of a grimacing woman at the top and dozens upon dozens of comments minimizing women’s issues.
At my men’s group, we regularly have men dealing with the pain of maternal abuse, divorce etc. and somehow we manage to help a man do his work without blaming and dismissing women… or themselves.
In all earnestness and compassion, Kyle, I suggest that the approach you are taking may not be the path to healing for you and for other men. Your path is your own, of course, but I’ll just offer you the option of finding a men’s group in your area. There are many, but the ManKind Project is one I can recommend without reservation.
http://mankindproject.org/request-more-information
@PDA – I don’t need your patronizing “men’s group” talk, and the dehumanizing “path to healing for me”. You have no idea what I do in my life, and you have no idea of the suffering out there. There is no “women” blaming going on, that’s your projection. When you go to a prison and meet rape survivors, or you go to a homeless shelter or meet the men sleeping on the street, then you come talk to me.
In all earnestness and compassion, PDA, I suggest that the approach you are taking may not be the path to healing for you and for other men. Learn what real suffering is bro.
Guys….what I want to say is calm down a little because everyone is getting really heated and no one is asking for clarity, explanation or accepting empathy on face value.
I would actually like to see what the term “dehumanizing” means to both of you, because my guess is there are some different interpretations going on, some of which are causing really strong reactions including presumptions of othering and patronization. It’s clear people are FEELING patronized and othered, but I’m really not convinced anyone is intending.
There is a big gap here happening, and it’s derailing conversation.
And actually, my take on it is less “calm down” and more…can we listen, perception check, clarify, and still feel things, but allow some dialogue to happen.
Julie, I respect what I see you trying to do, but I’d ask you to let the “refereeing” go, for a bit. It’s clear that what is going on between me and Kyle is making you uncomfortable, but direct communication is sometimes like that.
You’ve repeatedly asked for this dialogue to go the way you want it to go. I feel like I’ve heard you. I hope you can allow the space for me and Kyle the freedom to work this out – or not – however we choose to.
Thank you.
Apologies for any insult brought. As moderators we are charged with keeping the space civil, open for dialogue, and to note when that isn’t happening. I don’t have a personal stake in where either of you take your argument, but I do have a stake in how the argument plays out. If people are accusing each other of dehumanizing each other in a thread, it will get our notice. You all of course are free to argue at will, but we will ask, offline, perhaps, if things pass the point of our commenting policies.
Understood, Julie. Not looking to have a flame war, just let communication happen if it is possible, even if it’s unpretty at times.
I can commit to letting this go if asked by either you or Kyle.
I should have entered any comments in under a moderator voice. It caused confusion. I guess I’m personally interested in conflict resolution (not tamping problems down, but actually digging and examining) and am looking for interventions in that direction also. So, in person, I’d probably ask you both to clarify your intent, define words etc. Not stop the difference mind you, but look at where the reactions spike from.
I think the topic of what is or isn’t dehumanizing is interesting stuff.
In any case, that’s nearly impossible to do online
I’m not patronizing. It was offered in a genuine effort to lower the temperature of this discussion. How you interpreted a wish for your healing is completely and utterly beyond me.
What you just projected onto me was pretty vicious, especially coming at the end of a string of insults, derision and efforts to shame. And your final shot was to tell me that the suffering of my friends, men who are not homeless and in prison, is not “real.” Imagine if someone else had said that to you.
Rather than spit curses and vitriol back at you, I’m going to suggest you take a look at whatever it is that has you filled with such hate for other men.
Despite all that you’ve said, what I want for you is peace, if “healing” is, in your world, somehow insulting.
Wow, this guy put it really well:
“When someone is talking about male privilege or patriarchical institutions, pointing out that women don’t register for the draft, or that abused men don’t have the same access to domestic violence shelters that women do doesn’t negate that. Pointing out that men die at higher rates from work accidents or criminal violence? Sorry, that doesn’t prove anything either. See, the problem with the list that he’s throwing up, and with many of the criticisms that MRA groups and antifeminists seem to have, is that a lot of those complaints and criticisms are about issues that are a direct result of men pushing public policies…..
….It’s not the fault of women that men register for the draft, or that women don’t serve in infantry units. Men made those rules, based largely on sexist notions about what women are and are not capable of. When feminists point out that the patriarchy hurts men, too? This is an example. Patriarchical thinking says that women can’t hold their own in combat, and that they need to be protected, lest enemies capture them and do horrible things to them. Women are delicate and need to have the strength of a man to keep them safe. That’s why women don’t register for the draft. That’s why women have been kept out of combat.”
http://nocookiesforme.blogspot.ca/2007/10/this-post-really-is-about-menz.html
I think the complaint isn’t that it’s the fault of women, but that it’s not seen as sexist against men which really riles up the men. Was it voted in by the majority of men, or put into place by a select few? Was it by a few powerful wealthy men that did it? Are they representative of men as a gender?
Are you familiar with the concept of ‘benevolent sexism’, where things that seem awesome for women (chivalry) are actually in place to re-enforce norms of female frailty? This is kind of the opposite of that- nasty privilege, I guess you’d call it. Women are actively kept out of military roles because they are seen as weak and unworthy protectors and fighters. Sooo, that leaves the worthy protectors, the men. Still based on our cultural norms of dominant male attributes and subservient female attributes.
Does that benevolent sexism also extend to males, ie it seems awesome men can be a soldier but it also re-enforces norms of male disposability?
No, benevolent sexism isn’t privilege- benevolent sexism is where fortunate things appear to be privilege and are, in fact, re-enforcing stereotypes of male superiority, man as the protector, the capable leader, etc. Male disposability isn’t a norm. Throw some adjectives up to describe masculine attributes, like strong, dominant, logical, etc- those are closer to cultural norms. And look to the actual social problems that male disposability attempts to explain- why are most of the soldiers men, for instance? We’ve had the discussion about how women have fought to be in the military and are still discriminated against, and I’ve pointed out how that comes from cultural norms of man’s strength and ability to lead- traits we value as superior in our society.
Alimony, maintenance, positive discrimination, various other women oriented practice would be “benevolent sexism” then why the lack of focus on feminism’s part to dismantle them? They sure seem fine with it.
I was waiting for someone to mention benevolent sexism. Where the negatives women suffer actually do somehow negate the privileges they have. Because if we are going to talk about things “that seem awesome” why is this consideration only extended to women?
Why didn’t you mention it, then? I think I explained the roots of benevolent sexism very clearly, and linked them to a normative understanding that women are weak and frail- the normative understanding equals the sexism. Here:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/
Well, if the good things that happen to women under the supposed patriarchy are due to benevolent sexism and are only given if a woman matches societal expectations of what it means to be a woman, isn’t the same true for “male privilege”? Why isn’t that also benevolent sexism? Transgendered and openly gay men certainly don’t benefit from most supposed forms of male privilege.
Neither do nearly all black men, or a great percentage of blue-collar men.
Alright, you guys are getting your oppressions mixed up. Gay men, black men, and male blue collar workers all experience gender privilege, but they also experience oppression based on their sexual orientation, race, and class respectively. I don’t think anyone would say that your average joe is more privileged than Hillary Clinton, but it’s not a stretch to say she’s less privileged than Bill Clinton- no one doubts his ability to do his job based on his gender. Similarly, A white women might enjoy privileges a black man doesn’t (no one is likely to shoot a white woman for wearing a hoodie in a suburb) but also experience oppression he wouldn’t (white women are taught not to walk alone at night at all). And what do you think a black woman might feel about gender oppression and race? Read some bell hooks if you want to know that answer. Oppression tends to be amplified the more oppressed groups you belong to. And, again, privilege is not just a collection of nice things that happen to you, it’s nice stuff you get as part of a dominant group. We had almost this whole discussion assuming the hetero-normative gender binary, and most discussions about gender outside of people who are familiar with critical feminist theory happen in that binary. That’s part of being privileged- your reality is ‘normal’ and everyone else is a special interest group. And when they want their interests addressed, they are changing the ‘real world’. Well, oppressed groups are part of the real world. Work spaces should be changed to accommodate women, there should be more people of colour on tv and in advertising, we should already be way passed thinking of it as ‘gay marriage’ and thinking about it as marriage, and those are some lightweight examples that have nothing to do with violent and economic oppression of these groups. Privilege is being the norm. Being a good ally to oppressed people is helping them change the world when the ‘norm’, aka what works for privileged people, is discriminatory and creates barriers.
Archy, you totally nailed it.
The idea that men in power push female advantaged laws pokes a finger in the eye of patriarchy theory.
The idea that just because a lawmaker shares the genitalia of the populace that the target populace (who shares the same genitals) has all the privilege is DEMONSTRABLY shown to be a broken theory.
I challenge anybody to state when they have ever heard a lawmaker (of any sex or color) say “I”m going to make things better FOR MEN” even in sly code words.
The opposite is totally true. Nearly every third law that passes has something thrown in about “women and children”.
The phrase “women and children” is to politics what the money shot is to porn.
I just love how everything can be explained by patriarchy. Except in reality patriarchy explains nothing.
It’s not just genitals, it’s lived experience and a default sense of reality. A person who has similar experiences with you is probably going to understand the issues you face better. I can point to its absence with women- not a whole lot of talk of child care in work places going on in government right now. But if you had to deal with childcare as part of your workday (a task normally relegated to women) you’d probably have a better understanding of the issues facing working mothers and making provisions for childcare more easily accessible would be as commonplace as vacation time. When people, in contrast say ‘I want to make things better for women’ they mean ‘because, right now, it sucks for women- human rights violations are so normative people can’t even recognize them as such, people say things about women as a group that are tantamount to hate speech, and they are targeted on the basis of their gender for violent crimes. Not to mention they lack relative economic and political power.’ And if you are saying children are just as powerful as men in your country, they make up the majority of the poor and don’t have any economic power or a vote at all. So, yeah, they get a special mention when people go out of their way to fix things for them.
Along with what Archy says its not always a matter of trying to say that the things that harm men cancel out male privilege (although some will turn around and say that the harms that affect women cancel out female privilege).
Female privilege isn’t really a thing.
calling it a “benevolent sexism” doesn’t change what it is, anymore than calling a bull a cow would make him start to produce milk. Privileges are benefits granted to you by society that you didn’t earn. They don’t magically change into something else just because you’re a woman.
For every male “privilege” there is an oppression associated with it too. Same as with women.
to deny that is to deny objective reality.
Except the term comes with an analysis of the society we live in and how power structures work. Privilege is a larger concept than all of the nice things that happen to you throughout the day, it is also part of re-enforcing larger social power structures. If you keep looking at privilege as just a collection of nice things, and say ‘but you have nice things, too!’, you are missing an understanding of the greater socially critical meaning the word ‘privilege’ is supposed to convey.
I reject that definition.Not only is that definition of privilege not consistant with the actual definition of the word “privilege” (like, you know, in the dictionary) I see no reason why “all the good stuff that happens to you” can only really “count” as privilege if the genitalia of the people who are in power matches your own. Men (and women, for that matter) in power almost never work to benefit all men. In fact i can think of exactly 0 instances of this occurring. They are far more likely to work to benefit all women. (Note: far more likely =/= all the time.)
Although there does exist one group of people who they do have a tendancy to work towards the benefit of. Themselves. This is why we do not live in a patriarchy, but an oligarchy.
But I’ve said this about three times already, you’ve made your arguments about the same amount of times. Obviously neither one of us is going to change our minds. So good luck. I’m done.
Well, scholarly language tends to be a little more complex than Merriam Webster has space to articulate. That’s why feminism is a whole school of thought, not a one line description. Hey, look, I know it was good enough for the UN and human rights experts and, generally, people who spend their rights studying civil rights, but if you don’t like the definition of the word privilege because it turns out you are in fact part of a privileged group, I suppose You have no choice but to reject the definition. And, similarly, if you don’t like the theory of evolution, I guess you better reject that as well. How do you like your Earth, spherical or pancake shaped? Really, it’s all subjective and it ultimately comes down to what definition hurts your feelings the least. Repeatedly outlining arguments for you, pointing out there is statistical and real world evidence indicating a pretty serious power dichotomy, appealing to common sense- none of it is going to work if you insist on obfuscating arguments and misinterpreting social phenomena to fit your skewed understanding of reality because you are not comfortable with the idea you may have had an advantage as a male. Or a white person? Or an English speaking person? I’m assuming all three- for all I know you are an African trans female native French speaker. You wouldn’t be the first oppressed person to enjoy a pat on the head from people of privilege for denying privilege exists.
Okay fine. I’d like you to actually point out where I’ve ever denied that male privilege exists. (the most i’ve done is quibble over whether specific situations really count as a “male” privilege) You can’t becase I haven’t done that. Just because I refuse to accept your particular interpretation that nothing that benefits women “really counts” as privilege doesn’t mean that I don’t see how the system unfairly benefits me as a person.
I’m not the “privilege denier” here. YOU are. This is why so many people think that feminists are nothing but victimization-fetishers. Even the things that make your lives easier and are actually unfairly beneficial to you are seen as “oppression.”
Give me a break.
By stripping gender privilege of its essential meaning you are in effect denying it. Worse, you’re co-opting the word in a way that distorts the use it was intended for- to describe a social power structure. So, yes, you are you’re denying gender privilege and any useful analysis of our current social power structures with it.
I find the scholarly language conflicts with more common language, the word privilege sounds like a benefit for no risk, no effort, no negative yet we know that isn’t true. In order for men to have male privilege, men also take on the burden of sacrifice in war, hazardous work done mostly by men etc. Are the men in power representing all men, do they work for the interests of men or for themselves.
To me there seems to be an elite of men and a few women at the top who generally have quite a lot of wealth, laws can be passed that aren’t beneficial to men as a group so it makes me question just how much male privilege exists compared to wealth privilege or even racial privilege.
From where I am standing, history looks like a few elite men n women stepping on everyone else, the peasants were the workhorses, the disposable men and women (I say women particularly for those that died along with men in the industrial age in highly toxic work environments, I can’t remember the chemical in question but one would eat away the jaw of the workers including children!!).
In academic area, has male privilege lowered compared to female power/privilege/whatever term they use. And when people say men in power, do they not mean a select few men of great wealth? I can’t think of any senators, higher ranking politicians who would have been earning the average wage, especially the average wage of my area which is quite a bit lower than the national average. Why do I feel it’s bad to compare the pawns to the kings? Is it simply male privilege counts for little compared to wealth privilege these days, or maybe in certain areas and cultures the male and female experience is closer in nature?
I am really trying to get my head around this concept but there seems to be a barrier, I find it hard to associate the men at the top with the men at the bottom, I feel if they were privileged they wouldn’t be at the bottom. From the wiki I see it’s described as the norms, such as if you think of a leader you think of a male as normal, but this is also negative as you think of a criminal, you think of a male, you think serial killer, mass murderer, it’s male. Does one affect the other? Does being more likely to be seen as the great intellect (Einstein) get negated by also being seen as a monster(Hitler)? Something still feels off to me, and I can’t pick exactly what it is.
“The definition also troubles me quite a bit in genderizing sexual abuse, there is a lack of campaigns showing male victims and absolutely none that I know of which show a female perpetrator, I can’t help but feel this gap in awareness is harmful in allowing female perps and male victims to exist “out of sight, out of mind”. There’s a heavy focus on the violence towards women, which is good, but clearly we need a focus on the violence towards men as well to really combat the issues. Some might think this help for men might steal from help for women but I think it would reinforce both, when both genders are at high risk there exists a clear need for them both to work together to ensure their safety.”
I whole heartedly agree with you here. It appears that the study used a feminist understanding of the concept of consent to come with these numbers (yay!). Campaigns that explain what rape is and focus on teaching people to obtain consent are usually the most successful. Hey, maybe if men started to push the concept of obtaining consent it would reach the mainstream!
On abortion, would you agree that women have some control over men with regard to being able to continue or end pregnancy? Isn’t that a power imbalance of sorts?
As a physical autonomy issue, as in it is unfair women are the only one’s that have say over their body? No, that’s not really a power imbalance, especially since it is normatively and legally under attack almost constantly. If you are saying it’s unfair that only women can get pregnant, I say please please please let all the scientists drop whatever they are doing and start to work towards real equality immediately and find a way for men to get pregnant. Seriously. Because pregnancy suuuucks and you hear about one eighth of how much it actually sucks in the popular media and romanticized notions of glowing motherhood and natural feelings of nurturing. Hey, did you know mortality of pregnant mothers is on the rise in the US? Yeah, neat, huh.
El Ammi – I enjoyed your story very much. I hope to hear more of your wonderful fairy tales. I was raped by my mother when I was 17 and I did not great asked for consent. I am in Chicago today, the windy city, to visit the Sears tower and my cousin Juan.
Adios!
Good god, that’s terrible and I’m so sorry you experienced it. What I meant was both men and women should be taught to ask for consent, but there is no consent you could have given, as a minor and as this person’s child and clearly at a power disadvantage, that would have been legally acceptable or moral. I hope you can heal and find the justice you absolutely deserve.
“I find the scholarly language conflicts with more common language, the word privilege sounds like a benefit for no risk, no effort, no negative yet we know that isn’t true. In order for men to have male privilege, men also take on the burden of sacrifice in war, hazardous work done mostly by men etc. Are the men in power representing all men, do they work for the interests of men or for themselves. ”
The opportunity to take those risks is in itself a privilege. You notice women and feminists pushing for years for women to even be allowed in the military? To be allowed to work in jobs categorized as hazardous (though I think you’ll find women are employed in a lot of hazardous fields if you count exposure to toxic chemicals, injury from performing repetitive tasks, or as production workers.
When laws are made by men they are generally made with an understanding of men’s normative reality and issues in mind. They simply would not have the lived experience to understand some of the issues facing women except abstractly. That isn’t to say there aren’t other groups that are similarly discriminated against, such as lower income groups or racial minorities- it’s simply that women are one of those groups.
“To me there seems to be an elite of men and a few women at the top who generally have quite a lot of wealth, laws can be passed that aren’t beneficial to men as a group so it makes me question just how much male privilege exists compared to wealth privilege or even racial privilege.”
I think you’re speaking of class privilege. Simply put, having a majority of people who understand at least part of your struggles intrinsically creating laws that govern your society is better than not understanding your troubles intrinsically at all. But, of course, there are other privileges as well- race, sexual orientation, accessibility, etc.
“From where I am standing, history looks like a few elite men n women stepping on everyone else, the peasants were the workhorses, the disposable men and women (I say women particularly for those that died along with men in the industrial age in highly toxic work environments, I can’t remember the chemical in question but one would eat away the jaw of the workers including children!!).”
Mhmm, that’s consistent with class oppression. Forms of privilege intersect to maintain institutional power structures and those who work to fund those structures alienated from each other.
“In academic area, has male privilege lowered compared to female power/privilege/whatever term they use. And when people say men in power, do they not mean a select few men of great wealth? I can’t think of any senators, higher ranking politicians who would have been earning the average wage, especially the average wage of my area which is quite a bit lower than the national average. Why do I feel it’s bad to compare the pawns to the kings? Is it simply male privilege counts for little compared to wealth privilege these days, or maybe in certain areas and cultures the male and female experience is closer in nature?”
I think you’re referring to the high number of female graduates in recent rears, and though education has been known to correlate with a higher salary and thus be an indicator of privilege, it hasn’t done so for women in recent years- not only does fit a critical understanding of privilege, it can’t even be seen as advantageous. And I can see you’re noticing class privilege quite acutely, but if you confuse class and gender privilege you won’t be able to analyze either properly.
“I am really trying to get my head around this concept but there seems to be a barrier, I find it hard to associate the men at the top with the men at the bottom, I feel if they were privileged they wouldn’t be at the bottom. From the wiki I see it’s described as the norms, such as if you think of a leader you think of a male as normal, but this is also negative as you think of a criminal, you think of a male, you think serial killer, mass murderer, it’s male. Does one affect the other? Does being more likely to be seen as the great intellect (Einstein) get negated by also being seen as a monster(Hitler)? Something still feels off to me, and I can’t pick exactly what it is.”
Well, look at it this way- when you think of a criminal, you think of a man. When you think of a leader, you think of a man. When you think of a scientist or a genocidal maniac, you think of a man. When you think of the word ‘neighbor’, or ‘friend’, or ‘story teller’ you think of a man. When you think of a doctor, lawyer, chiropractor, dentist, chef, dog trainer, astronaut, taxi driver, janitor, etc, you think of a man. When you think of a human, your default understanding is that it is a man, usually white and heterosexual, unless specified otherwise (unless we’re talking about the handful of female gendered occupations, of course- nurse, housewife, secretary, prostitute, um, cheerleader….). That is part of what privilege is- to be the default reality. You see a diverse and interesting array of characters of your race and gender, from all ages, of all sizes, played on tv, both as the hero and the villain. Policies have to be made specially for people of oppressed groups because their concerns aren’t the default reality of concerns. But there are better descriptions of privilege out there- you really ought to look into them. Ah yeah, and privilege, for the most part, is invisible to people who have it. But you often notice it when you start sharing it.
Ah ok, I can see how that would be a privilege at least in allowing your gender to be represented in regards to default is male.
I meant academic male privilege terminology, not actually the academic area ie university etc, my brain had a zzzz moment. Basically I meant when people say men are in power (not in university, but everywhere) do they mean any kind of man or just the highest class?
I think it is becoming a bit more clear though, thank-you.
Ah, got your question. K, I’m going to complicate this for you a bit, because I don’t want to just quickly dismiss it by saying when people are referring to men in power they’re probably referring to disproportionate representation of men in positions of power, from upper level managers in businesses and institutions to government. There is also the normative idea men are natural leaders in our society, a notion that affords men some invisible power. From incredibly questionable but extremely popular scientific essays on men’s ‘natural’ role, to fallacious citing of History as justification for men’s dominance over the centuries, and the casual acceptance of men as leaders in representations in the media and a resistance to media representation of female leaders, it all translated into our expectations in informal settings. Further, there aren’t a whole lot of gendered slurs for men who express the attributes of a leader (assertive, lets her opinions known, competitive), but women who express those roles have a first hand familiarity with gendered slurs they hear from people who try and silence them. Male power isn’t just about actual representations of power, though that kind of power is more easily evidenced- it’s about informal expectations that men be leaders and women followers, how those expectations are supported in ideology, and reflected in our every day interactions. That is also an example of male privilege.
*but women who express those roles= women who express those traits. oops.
The numbers become much more comparable when you move from lifetime to “in the last 12 months.”
When you look at that, it is (if I remember correctly) 2.1% of men were forced to penetrate versus 2.3% of women who were raped or targets of attempted rape.
Where abouts was that, I’m having trouble finding it. Are you sure they didn’t mean ‘of the assaults that happened this percentage happened in the past year’?
If 80% of men’s assailants when they are forced to penetrate still is true in the 12 month figure, then that means of all rapes going on women are nearly 40% of the perpetrators (using the definition that ‘forced to penetrate” is rape).
Look, I’d be just as skeptical if you suggested there was a sudden and unreported spike in men raping women in the past year- it think your math may be off somewhere.
I loved this article, this is really the type of material which drew me to this site. I also realize articles like this provoke lost of disagreement and I have to admit I gave up reading the comments since they go in circles. Even with that I still felt compelled to leave one of my own, because there is one thing that I have heard most of my life, and which I have seen written here in these comments over and over again that is the idea that there is some fundamental male privilege. This does not mean that I don’t fully realize that there have been and still are areas of our society which severely discriminate against women because I understand that is a reality. But to see written and to be told that that there is such a grand male privilege and furthermore that I as a man am benefiting from it erks me. It makes me feel a mix anger sadness and hurt. Why? because it’s degrading because when someone says, that I am a man therefore I am benefiting from “male privilege” that person is saying that now any bad thing that happens to me can be justified. I grew up in a very liberal environment most of the women in my life as a child would describe themselves as feminist. I know first hand how the idea of “male privilege” has been used to deprive me of my opinions to and to make me feel as thought I was a second class citizen in the intellectual arena. I understand no one on the internet even knows me, much less is attacking me, but the truth is, just reading those words makes me squirm and I do take it personally. I have to ask the question to those who believe in “male privilege” why are men so worthless that you can literally rationalize away all their issues. If most men work in terrible jobs and die young, somehow that’s an economic issue? No it’s a men’s issue! I deserve dignity not to have my issues, and issues that effect me personally rationalized away because my gender is considered the “oppressor.”