Captain America Versus Male Privilege

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Uncle Woofie

Uncle Woofie has had a career in signs & graphics since the days when signs were made with a stick with a hank of hair on the end of it, and is a freehand airbrush artist. Not to mention a fan of figgerin' out this whole "good man" bi'ness.

Comments

  1. DavidByron says:

    Male privilege is a concept that can only make sense to someone who doesn’t actually know any men I suspect… or care about them.

    The struggles they endure finding a place for themselves in the world, make the claim of male privilege so stupidly weak and intellectually counterfeit that it’s rendered inert and useless

    Not inert. I see that label of “male privilege” as just another one of the struggles, kicking those men while they are down, standing on their necks. Kind of laughing at them as if to say, “You’re so pathetic a specimen of a man, and to think you have male privilege too”.

    In fact I strongly suspect that women would be far less likely to tell the “alpha” men that they had “male privilege”. How many women fear a man in an elevator and think he is a “potential rapist” if he’s good looking or wealthy? I suspect these accusations of “privilege” are more like accusations of disposability and weakness. It’s a statement of contempt. You don’t have contempt of the powerful and privileged. You have contempt of the weak, especially in a man.

    • It’s an old concept, but it never seems to be remembered when and where the issue crops up: the notion of the “Forgotten Man” or “Invisible Man.” We all know the fat and privileged male CEOs lording it over society, but nobody’s aware of the desperate and starving homeless men that roam around the fringes at the very bottom of the ladder.

      Instead, we hear fatuous comments about “male privilege” that pretend class and wealth–far more powerful aspects of REAL privilege in our society–don’t matter.

    • Uncle Woofie says:

      Mr. Byron, would you please explain how you get the commentary software to let you use bold-face and italics?

      It’s been making me crazy not being able to do that.

      • fine article woofie.
        1. to italicise, type everything (except the ‘+’ characters and the word ‘END’) after this sentence, stop at the word ‘END’.

        ‘the text you want to be italicised goes here’
        END

        2. to bold, type everything (except the ‘+’ characters and the word ‘END’) after this sentence, stop at the word ‘END’.

        ‘the text you want to be bolded goes here’
        END

        3. to blockquote, type everything (except the ‘+’ characters and the word ‘END’) after this sentence, stop at the word ‘END’.

        ‘the text you want to be quote goes here’

        END

        -
        .
        -

        this site allows you to play around with those formatting commands
        http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_formatting_text

        • poop, software removed the ‘+’ chars and so actioned the commands.

          1. to italicise, type everything (except the ‘T’ characters and the word ‘END’) after this sentence, stop at the word ‘END’.

          ‘the text you want to be italicised goes here’
          END

          2. to bold, type everything (except the ‘T’ characters and the word ‘END’) after this sentence, stop at the word ‘END’.

          ‘the text you want to be bolded goes here’
          END

          3. to blockquote, type everything (except the ‘T’ characters and the word ‘END’) after this sentence, stop at the word ‘END’.

          ‘the text you want to be quote goes here’
          END

          • LOLOL, bugger this.
            woofie playaround on that link i gave you, youll soon it pickup

            • Uncle Woofie says:

              Bless you, jameseq…!

              It appears I was attempting to use the wrong brackets during my last attempt at itallicization.

              …and thank you for that fine comment about my article…!

            • cool, no problem :-)

            • Uncle Woofie says:

              P.S.

              (Laughs) I don’ blame you fer buggerin’ out on this….

              Performing proper demonstrations of anything (particularly on-line techniques) can be like the family dog that staunchly refuses to perform the trick you worked so hard to teach him when you wanna show off.

            • Angle brackets are the key, it seems.

              testing, testing…

            • Uncle Woofie says:

              …by George, I think he’s got it!!

              Goofin’ on this lil’ conundrum has been almost as much fun as reading and respondin’ to alla the comments onna article itself!…!

    • Uncle Woofie says:

      First and foremost, thank you, Mr. Byron, for finding my article worth commenting about.

      I have paid much attention to your comments regardless of where they show up here at the GMP Magazine. They may often be considered adversarial, but can be counted on to have a good, defensible point, resulting in what I’ve been told the “GMP Prime Directive” on article commentary stands for and hopes to produce, more thought leading to more discussion.

      I too, believe in that Prime Directive.

      Okay, you caught me onna use of ‘inert’…any concept that gets as much play as ‘male privilege’ does can probably be considered anything but ‘inert’. Point conceded.

      Happy now? (laughs)

  2. I think a large part of the anger at the woman who talked about female privilege was that they had never seen anyone disagree with privilege argument. For all the talk about how varied feminists are (which is true of some ideas) there is a very homogenous approach to some things.

    It is never said but its implied there is a victim pyramid with white able bodied straight men at the top and everyone else underneath it. To talk of female privilege means the pyramid view of privilege isn’t consistent. When pressed a few express the idea that women are still so oppressed that focus on male disadvantage isn’t justified. Yet at the same time male disadvantage is never examined in any way other to say how minor it is. There never seems to be a point at which female equality will be achieved.
    It gets to the point that the only way feminism will ever declare equality here appears to be that women have to be ahead in every single statistical measurement.

    • It is never said but its implied there is a victim pyramid with white able bodied straight men at the top and everyone else underneath it. To talk of female privilege means the pyramid view of privilege isn’t consistent.
      That would explain why they argue against is so adamantly. And looking at the female privilege post, wow are they arguing against it.

      It gets to the point that the only way feminism will ever declare equality here appears to be that women have to be ahead in every single statistical measurement.
      I guess that’s what the World Gender Gap report is all about. Its supposed to be a report on gender equality in different countries around the world. But somehow it only counts areas where men have the advantage over women (where said country loses points) and areas where they are pretty much equal (where said country gains points). Yeah that’s all it tallies because no it totally ignores areas where women have the advantage over men.

  3. Peter Houlihan says:

    Am I the only one here who thinks men are privileged in terms of their gender roles? This doesn’t mean that all men benefit, or that no men are oppressed, just that there are aspects of life that open up to you if you’re a man that don’t if you’re a woman.

    For me gendered privilege and oppression are directly interlinked. If you argue female privilege exists then you’re also arguing that male privilege does too.

    • Oh, absolutely. Men DO enjoy certain privileges in our society based on our gender; just as women do. And many of those privileges come with strings attached, like the role you’re expected to play and the sacrifices you’re expected to make in order to qualify. Not to mention the societal scorn and invisibility you’ll face if you fail to perform as required.

      That’s common to both genders. Pretending all the advantages OR all the disadvantages accrue to only one side is misleading and counterproductive.

    • Mark Neil says:

      “Am I the only one here who thinks men are privileged in terms of their gender roles?”

      I’m honestly curious how you perceive this, perhaps some examples would help illustrate it?

      “just that there are aspects of life that open up to you if you’re a man that don’t if you’re a woman.”

      As Copyleft says, is that not true of both genders?

      “If you argue female privilege exists then you’re also arguing that male privilege does too.”

      Is the reverse not true as well then? If one argues that men have privilege, does not that men female privilege exists as well? Is it not being argued (at least by some, on the female privilege article) that women don’t have privilege, only oppression? That privilege is a men only thing?

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        “All it takes for the concept of male privilege to burst like a fragile soap-bubble is to pay attention to what sickly, emaciated Steve Rogers’ life was like when we first encounter him in this movie; since men that are like Steve Rogers exist everywhere.”

        “Male privilege is a concept that can only make sense to someone who doesn’t actually know any men I suspect… or care about them.”

        And others above. I’m finding it difficult to tell whether they’re arguing against the concept that all men are privileged or that any men are privileged.

        I think we have our wires crossed here. Thats exactly what I’m arguing: “For me gendered privilege and oppression are directly interlinked.” You can’t really get one without the other, and you can’t solve one without tackling the other.

        • Mark Neil says:

          “For me gendered privilege and oppression are directly interlinked”

          Are you suggesting if one has privilege, the other must be oppressed? are you denying that with privilege comes responsibility? Are you denying that both genders can have privilege? Have you ever tried to examine the privilege women have and the oppression men have, or do you do as many feminists do, and try to make anything and everything into some offence against women (I’d swear some feminists could turn winning the lottery into a victimization of themselves as women)

  4. Uncle Woofie says:

    I actually did include a detailed reason, but it was edited out for the sake of brevity. I’ll post it here…

    “Most men, especially these days, can’t see where they’re getting any of the ‘perks’ they’ve been told this alleged “privilege” entails. ‘Male privilege’ only exists for movie stars, sports heroes, the terminally handsome, and wealth holders. This turns it into just plain old ‘privilege’ parked behind the word ‘male’. The only other validity alleged ‘male privilege’ has, is as an intellectually dubious word-weapon wielded by bitter feminists to beat the entire male gender over the head with repeatedly.”

    Comments that included invoking homeless men seem to be from folks who aren’t really having that much problem understanding that concept. As one other commenter said, ‘privilege’ usually connects with ‘responsibility’ at some point for either gender. They very wording is designed to assume unearned ‘privilege’, and most of us know that.

    No one (so far) has been able to convince me that the phrase ‘male privilege’ is not much more than short-hand for “Pack yer bags, fellas…!!! Yer goin’ onna Guilt Trip…!!!”

    • That’s what Scott Adams of ‘Dilbert’ commented on in one of his books, discussing the gender inequity of CEO power: “You hear women talk about the power and perks that male CEOs enjoy and it’s true… but as any male coworker will tell you, those are OTHER MEN.”

      Or, more succinctly (and admittedly sarcastically): “Privilege is what all men hear about, but only a few men actually get to experience.”

  5. Uncle Woofie says:

    “They very wording is designed to assume unearned ‘privilege’, and most of us know that.”

    which was supposed to be:

    “The wording of the phrase ‘male privilege’ is designed to promote the concept of males’ unearned ‘privilege’ as if a trust fund was involved.”

    Notta helluva lotta room for ‘crossed wires’ there….

  6. Lot of men ‘explaining’ what male privilege is here. Given the tone of the article, I’m not surprised. Content like this makes me feel tired: so little effort to engage with the concepts, so much misplaced anger.

    Chris.

    • Mark Neil says:

      Well, given a lot of men are asking for examples of male privilege and aren’t getting anything that actually counts as a privilege, or comes across as a male privilege, but rather, a class privilege, it’s understandable then that these men who can’t GET an answer, find one for themselves. If you don’t like their answer, perhaps you should engage them rather than dismissing them with accusations of “mansplaining”, undesirable tones, content that makes you “feel tired” (poor thing you :( .), lack of effort to engage (despite the consistent requests for examples) and finally, not to mention predictably… anger.

      How about putting the shaming tactics away and actually contribute? Otherwise, it is you who is showing “so little effort to engage with the concepts”.

  7. Uncle Woofie says:

    So why don’t YOU enlighten us as to the errors of our ways…? Or, at the very least your reasons why we’re simply operating from ‘anger’ as you say…

    …or does your hit-and-run pot-shot (with NO explanation) betray how tired YOU are?

    • Uncle Woofie says:

      One more thing…

      Before you get the erroneous idea that my “feelings” as the author of this piece are hurt by your pot-shot…think again.

      My comment was in defense of everyone else who commented on this article, regardless of what they thought of it. They actually took time time and patience to explain why they felt that way and explained their position on what I wrote.

      You didn’t, you just shot from the hip, thought a lousy one-sentence judgement would win the day for you, then dashed for the door.

    • Uncle Woofie: Dashed for the door? Well, I don’t know what time zone you think I’m in, but it looks like you’re wrong. Seeing as you asked, I was writing on a mobile phone, late at night, and had just had a longer comment eaten by the auto-refesh. However, having read you article, and all the comments then posted, I wanted to say something to indicate that there was one more man reading that didn’t want to add to your anti-feminist echo chamber.

      Why on earth do you think that I would expect that your feelings be hurt? I’m sure we’re both big and ugly enough to take someone disagreeing with us.

      I wasn’t expecting to ‘win’ anything. Your article was a rant; I suppose I could have just posted ‘I disagree.’ If you expected a one-man defence of the concept of male privilege – are you really interested in me talking at you? Would that give you a good target? The language of your article (“rammed down our collective male throats”, “despicable”) didn’t indicate someone who wanted to sit down and talk round the issues. It said to me that you’re so violently revolted by the thought of male privilege that you were only interested in voicing your anger. Which is a pity, because there is an interesting point about how the different privileges of class and gender interact. Have you ever googled ‘kyriarchy?’

      But the real reason I’m not going to attempt some sort of a lecture is because I am a guy. A man trying to talk about male privilege is like a colour-blind person trying to explain the difference between red and green. I can tell you (laughably) about right-handed privilege, ‘cos I’m left-handed. I can tell you the different ways that the world is ordered for the benefit of righties: the fact that I thought as a child that using scissors was supposed to hurt, for example. And you’d laugh, because it’s a stupid, trivial example. If you want a better example, written by a man, try reading this:

      http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/07/women_in_elevators_a_man_to_ma.php

      And then try imagining how many of your favourite films pass the Bechdel Test:

      http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2011/04/25/failing-the-bechdel-test-women-on-screen-dont-have-much-to-say/

      And then read geekgirl’s comment, because one thing I know is that a man is not the best person to explain something which by definition is largely invisible to him.

      Mark: I didn’t see anyone asking for examples in this article or the comments: just a lot of angry derision, and an assumption that if class privilege existed than male privilege must be invalid. Btw, I didn’t use ‘mansplaining’ because I find the word objectionable – although I’m starting to understand why some women use it, now.

      Copyleft: “And many of those privileges come with strings attached, like the role you’re expected to play and the sacrifices you’re expected to make in order to qualify. Not to mention the societal scorn and invisibility you’ll face if you fail to perform as required.” Exactly. There’s a reason Susan Faludi (feminist author) wrote her second book about men, titled “Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man” – showing how the patriarchy screwed men as well as women. Doesn’t mean male privilege isn’t a thing though, just a different thing.

      Now, y’all how about putting the defensiveness away and actually reading some of the copious material on the net about what male privilege actually is?[*] The words don’t seem to mean what you think they mean.

      Obviously, Sturgeon’s law applies, like all else on the net. But you don’t need me to tell you that, either.

      • Mark Neil says:

        Admittedly, the vast majority of requests for an explanation came from this article (http://goodmenproject.com/men-and-feminism/i-have-female-privilege/) , which was a precursor to the article we’re now discussing, and has had much of the discussion dragged from there to here. That doesn’t change the fact that in any discussion with accusations of male privilege, I have never been able to get a straight answer regarding an example of modern male privilege that (once again) actually IS a privilege and wasn’t far more significantly the result of a something else, such as class. Furthermore, I have yet to have any kind of discussion on the topic with someone willing, or even able, to acknowledge the responsibilities and limitations those privileges required, or were willing to discuss female privilege without negating any privilege due to the responsibilities and limitations those privileges incurred… see the hypocrisy in that?

        Honest gender discussion should acknowledge the checks and balances, but most feminists I have tried to have a conversation will only ever look at what men get (and try to spin as much of it into a positive as they can, even when it’s not) and not what’s asked in return, and then only look at what is demanded of women (and try to spin as much of it into a negative as they can, even when it’s not… for example, I point to this discussion of how pregnancy and having a child is akin to a very bad disease and a burden that should be wiped out… read the comments for women’s take on that…http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/brave-new-world-uk-ethicist-wants-women-to-abandon-motherhood-use-artificia).

      • Uncle Woofie says:

        Chris, your original post made NO mention of cell phone problems or lateness of hour or that you would even bother to return for further discussion; half a handful of words would’ve saved you the embarrassment your original posting has laid at your feet via my response and at least one other contributor.

        Your claims of exhausted cell battery life are not exactly provable. Besides, what would’ve been wrong with waiting until you were flush with time and energy to tackle this subject with better detailed objections? This includes sparing yourself the suspicion many of us now have that what’s motivating you even now is getting called out for your original posting and its obvious failings in the first place. My claim of you dashing for the door stands, with no further explanation necessary.

        ‘Male privilege’ is an abstract concept of dubious meaning. Looking at the numerous responses to this piece, I’m not alone in that conclusion. ‘Ranting’ on my part or not, refer to any of the myriad replies this article has triggered demonstrate legitimate proof for what I wrote. No one can even come to a legitimate consensus of what ‘male privilege’ is even supposed to be, as Mr. Neil pointed out. Wanna call the piece a ‘rant? Knock yerself out, because I could care less.

        After all, ‘male privilege’ is an abstract concept, not a real person, so if I wanna attack ‘male privilege’ with hammer, tongs, and a flame thrower, you are the only one who apparently sees any real harm in that.

        Oh, I did Google ‘kyriarchy’, frankly, from what I read of its definition I wasn’t in the least bit impressed by its obvious level of ridiculous ‘conspiracy theory’ feminist rhetoric. You really expect a concept like ‘kyriarchy’ that attempts to link everything together in a ridiculous, giant patriarchal conspiracy to gain any traction? Where would they find a venue large enough for their annual conference?

        As for rooking ‘elevatorgate’ into this, I went to the trouble of literally unearthing my comments on that from this link http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-rape-culture-all-men-are-guilty-until-proven-innocent/ The comment I made there will immediately follow this one, since it took me forever to go back an’ find that sucker, and I don’t wanna subject anyone else to looking for it due to what I hadda go through to find it myself.

        Failure to pass the “Bechdel Test“ is a flaw that Hollywood needs to address, not me. This is backed up by George Lucas’ problems in getting what I am sure is an excellent movie “Red Tails” financed and marketed. Hollywood told him they had no clue how to do it. The organized droves of school children that are being taken to see it will take care of that problem.

        The last, and most damning reason I’m gonna stop taking you seriously is contained in the following observation:

        Not once in your ‘rant’ did you ever bother to grace us with any clue as to what your definition of ‘male privilege’ contains, merely demanding we go onna internet ‘snipe hunt’ for definitions.

        • Uncle Wolfie: thanks for your response. I’m a little puzzled over your remarks about cell battery life, though, as I never mentioned it. To be honest, given the lateness of the hour, I wouldn’t have read your article at all had it not been for the well-chosen headline. Having gone in, read your article and the comments, I felt that saying nothing left the floor free for something I didn’t believe should stand uncontested; For all I knew the comment thread would have died down by the following day, and everyone would have seen all your commenters basically agreeing with you – the sort of thing that gives good men a bad name.

          Anyway, I said what I meant and meant what I said. Everyone can make up their own minds about whether I ought to be ashamed without the spin you try to put on it. As for replying when people challenged my post, I didn’t realise that was a felony. In the meantime, I’ll admit to bad-tempered posting if you do likewise.

          You seem to be under the impression that I think ranting is a bad thing? On the contrary, a good rant is a pleasure to read. However, a rant is not a request for reasoned responses, it’s the sound of someone venting. Of course, it’s your right to be angry at whatever you want, but it suggested to me that you weren’t interested in discussing the concepts. Actually, I still think that – ‘dismissing’ would be a better choice of word.

          Male privilege is an abstract concept – yes, of course it is. However, it’s not one I just made up, and your insistence that I write a potted definition so you have something more concrete to disbelieve in strikes me as a waste of my time and yours. There are plenty of definitions and explanations from those more qualified to talk about it than I (hint: women). Why not try finding the least objectionable one and saying what you think is wrong with it? I didn’t invent the term, and redefining it to suit yourself is actually a prime example of what those uppity women are complaining about.

          Thank you for bothering to look up kyriarchy. I’m not quite sure how you got “paternalistic conspiracy” out of it, but I freely admit I’m not an expert. When I read the Wiki page, what I got from it was an acknowledgement that life is more complicated that a one-dimentional system of male privilege, and that a white woman can be simultaneously privileged because of her race whilst being affected by male privilege because of her gender. In short, it seemed to be saying that imbalances of power exist in society, and that social power is a many-faceted thing. This seemed to be resonating with what some of the more reasonable commenters were saying. But hey, if you didn’t get it then forget it, this post is too long to open another can of worms.

          I was interested in your ‘elevatorgate’ comment, and in warm agreement with it. Would that there were more men like yourself who understand that it’s not cool to make women feel uncomfortable, and that acting as you do is not an admission of guilt any more than women’s precautions are an accusation of (potential) rape. I’m happy to leave this here, and pleased we can agree.

          Re the Bedchel test – I brought it up to make precisely the point you do: “[it] is a flaw that Hollywood needs to address, not me.”[*] The point that I was trying to make elsewhere was that any one film can have very valid reasons for not passing it (not seen ‘Cap’ I’m afraid – did it even make it to the UK yet?), the thing is that the majority of mainstream films don’t pass it. I brought it up, because it shocked me just how much I’d been taking for granted – imagine a world where the reverse was true: most mainstream films having only token male characters, that never got to discuss anything other than the leading woman. Feel weird? This is the world that women live in.

          It’s not about *you*, or anything you have to address. All we have to do, as men, is to realise the hundreds of little (and not so little) ways the soccer pitch is tilted against women, with no change of ends at half time. And how the other team takes it for granted that it’s easy to kick the ball a long way, and acts offended and angry when they point out the unfairness, ‘cos it’s only a *little* slope.

          And if you think *anything* I posted was a rant, you have a lot to learn about ranting.


          [*] Yes, of course Hollywood plays safe, and just reflect society… The thing is that you don’t have to have some conspiracy of sexists to have a sexist outcome. Systems and societies can do that, with individuals will always be able to say “I’m not the bad guy.” It may be “nobody’s fault” but that doesn’t mean the issue goes away if you’re on the receiving end.

      • Uncle Woofie says:

        I know at first this will sound like a trivialization, but hear me out.

        One of the “alternate” names for the Batman character is “The Dark Knight”. If you want to watch the vast majority of men turn into a “Dark Knight,” ask them about how they feel about violence against women, and particularly rape. This attitude even extends to women who are victims of crude male behavior such as MissV mentioned.

        The “presumed guilty” tendencies (I refuse to call it “rape culture”, that term is a simplification of a very complex issue, this entire comments section is testimony to that) seem to be stemming for the most part over necessary female concerns in public as well as other situations.

        Granted, this can be taken to paranoid extremes, but instead of getting tore outta my frame over this, I will choose to employ some rather simple tactics that make it obvious to any lone female I encounter that I’m not a threat.

        I leave plenty of “personal space” between myself and any woman alone that I speak to, especially if conditions such as an empty parking garage, or stranded by herself on a lonely road are involved. I follow these and a few other guidelines, until I determine by her speech and body language she has decided that I’m not a threat. I do this out of understanding her caution, not the fear of a face full of pepper spray or any personal resentment over “rape culture” indoctrination.

        I have offered a ride to stranded women that included my spoken understanding that in these circumstances, if she feels more comfortable riding in the back seat while I’m driving, I would certainly understand. I consider none of these concerns/fears a woman would have a “presumption of male guilt”.

        I also do not believe the precautions a woman feels she must take in vulnerable situations is an automatic condemnation of ever male onna goddam planet.

        I even employ a pleasant “courtly” attitude & speech pattern as I offer that ride in the back seat, explaining my understanding of what she may be concerned about under these circumstances. My favorite writer, Robert A. Heinlein (known as the “Dean” of science-fiction) declared through many of his male characters in many of his books that courtesy and politeness in human society was a sign of strength, not weakness.

        I submit to you all that what I have mentioned should be included in Mr. Heinlein’s assessment of male courtesy & polite behavior. Good men should be willing to understand the real fears that women can have that drive this issue, and surmount its problems and the male resentment Mr. Schwyzer mentioned with a sense of compassion, style (“courtly” attitude, remember?), courtesy…and most of all strength.

  8. …I really do not understand how you’ve used Captain America – the character and in particular the movie to of all things – to attempt to discredit the concept of male privilege.
    In the movie – What was it you saw that showed such equality, the abundance of female characters? The obviously equal gender roles and power? The obsticles he clearly had to overcome with regards to solely his gender/sex when negotiating the world?
    [hint - these questions are all asked with pointed sarcasm] Because really, of all the movies you could have picked
    Look at the one defined female character; she’s in a position where realistically – what are the chances a female would have been? Even as a commanding officer, the male _cadets_ feel it is ok to mouth off and derride her as a sexual object; yes she responds and said cadet ends up in the dust – but seriously, were it a male CO – would that even have been something a cadet would consider? What other females are there? A secretary, showgirls, dates … not exactly a world where women are shown to have equal play in society don’t you think? In fact it seem to show a world where men mantain positions of power and industry – something we can imply from historical evidence was mostly by dint of being male rather than female. The funny thing is, that even as ‘weak’ as pre serum steve was, in society he still enjoyed more freedom than many women did when it comes to the opportunities had and the obsticles to be faced based unfairly and arbitrarily on gender. That is what male privilege is – its not about saying men don’t have problems to face in life which are real and valid experiences, or that there aren’t various other plays of privilege and injustice within life for all (intersectionality!) Its about these ideas embued in society and in problematic gender roles – its about the way our society has been structured historically and is still based within this paradeigm where male figures were (is changing thankfully) the power holders, the deciders and there has been a clear gender hierachy which in many ways we are still having to dismantle. Male privilege isn’t about men having it easy – its about the fact that in many cases, and reflective of problematic gender roles and assumptions; being male has been allowed and accepted in social positions where being not male would be challenged and/or more challenging; and being male and being not male – based solely on that fact – illicits different treatment; often times much less pleasant and respectful – if not downright insulting, hostile and harmful for those not male.
    Sorry, other people can say it much better than I – its late and this, as a cap fan and someone who gets irked by misunderstanding fueled arguments around privilege; it really rubbed me the wrong way. I know it can be hard to hear the word privilege and not feel rebuked, but I really can only conclude you have the wrong idea about what male privilege actually refers too – because this movie, (which I loved really) is just not in any way I can see, a shining example of disproving that particular concept.

    • “I know it can be hard to hear the word privilege and not feel rebuked” – yes. I know it makes me feel uncomfortable and defensive. The thing is, just because something gives me an understandable emotional reaction doesn’t mean the concept is invalid – I just means I’m reacting exactly as I would expect if I actually was being confronted with my privilege. The important thing is for men to get past this, and to realise that just because it has ‘male’ in the title, it’s really not about us. Thanks for the post.

      • Mark Neil says:

        ” I just means I’m reacting exactly as I would expect if I actually was being confronted with my privilege”

        The old “you’re being defensive because your guilty (of the accusation)” catch-22. The thing is, you would ALSO react that same way if the accusation WAS invalid, or at the very least, dishonest. What this article said to me wasn’t what so many of the heralder’s of male privilege are claiming in these comments. It doesn’t say men never had privilege, it’s saying that privilege came with a price. Just as the other article (female privilege) doesn’t deny men had/have privilege ether (despite all the efforts to claim otherwise), but rather, it points that women too have privilege, and acknowledgment very few feminists are willing to allow into the discourse. The problem is, people are getting defensive of the male privilege accusation because it isn’t a fleshed out theory, it is a cherry picked argument that is 40 years out of date, yet we’re still getting routinely bashed over the head with it… why?

        “The important thing is for men to get past this, and to realise that just because it has ‘male’ in the title, it’s really not about us”

        You’ll have to explain that one more thoroughly, because when the discussion comes to male privilege, it most certainly points to MEN’s “alleged” privileges, and how MEN have denied women privileges and how MEN need to acknowledge their privilege and step aside so women can have a chance. If both male privilege and patriarchy weren’t about MEN, they would not have been identified with the masculine while the feminine was equated with equality (IE, claims of feminism is about equality). If you honestly believe this is anything but an effort to portray men as bad and women as good, to guilt men like you into doing what the feminists want.. well, you’re well on your way to becoming a “conscious man”, and despite them being the perfect feminist male, they even manage to creep most feminists out.

        • Mark – be glad to. Unfortunately it’s (very) late here, so I must be brief.

          As for as I understand it, feminists don’t use “male privilege” to mean something about gender roles, or rights and responsibilities of the same, but to indicate all the subtle ways in which our world is organised to suit men: where men can take stuff for granted that women can’t, and be given stuff (perhaps small stuff, like attention, or professional respect) without asking that women have to demand or show themselves “worthy” of. And probably be labelled “uppity” in the process.

          Male privilege is not about men, because it’s about recognising that women’s viewpoint is important, and we need to pay attention to it. It’s about realising how fortunate we are in some ways that women are not. A good thought exercise is always to imagine movies/tv shows/real life with all the gender’s reversed. If that feels “weird” (a mainstream film with just a token man that not a chick flick?) that’s male privilege.

          We can’t undo male privilege any more than we can remake society by ourselves. We can and should recognise that it exists, and make sure we’re not unconsciously taking advantage of it. Because that’s how it works – unconsciously. there’s not point going round apologising for being men (who, feminist or not, wants that? How would it help?).

          Have you ever been in a labour ward? That’s the only place I’ve been in with female privilege. As a man, you really don’t matter there. If a doctor comes into the room, they want to talk to your wife, not you. You’re probably ignored by the staff, and you know you’re only there for moral support, not to do any of the important stuff. It’s a real eye opener…

          • Mark Neil says:

            “As for as I understand it, feminists don’t use “male privilege” to mean something about gender roles, or rights and responsibilities of the same, but to indicate all the subtle ways in which our world is organised to suit men:”

            Except they do. The gender pay gap is often attributed as a male privilege. the fact most politicians are male is also considered a male privilege. The concept of male privilege is often used (in my experience) as a method to try and undermine my credibility rather than my arguments (“you just don’t see your own privilege”), or as a method to try and guilt me.

            “where men can take stuff for granted that women can’t, and be given stuff ”

            But don’t bother genders have these small things? And furthermore, aren’t they largely subjective? For example, the link I provided earlier, to the article about artificial wombs.. the UK ethicist claimed pregnancy was a burden and like a disease that should be stamped out. Looking at it scientifically, she has some points, it does bring about a pain unique to women, and it does produce some discomfort for the durration, but if you read the comments, the benefits are worth it for virtually every woman that commented who had actually had a child. So is pregnancy a burden or a blessing? Or how about the titanics women and children first policy, which i have actually heard feminists claim was an expression of men’s conempt for women. That it was a display of how men saw women as weak and inferior… Of course, to that I say, would you knowing die so that someone you found to be weak and “inferior” could live, let alone a whole bunch of them? Seems to me that it’s a demonstration of just how important and loved women were by men (and I point to how the genders have been turned against each other and the costa concordia as evidence of what happens when men don’t think higher of women than themselves). lstly I point to military service, where feminists have said men have the privilege of being able to join and fight (and die) for their country, but I doubt you will find a member of the armed forces that didn’t see it as their responsability, not their privilege. And it most certainly isn’t a privilege to be required to register just so you can vote, something women are privileged with without the registration responsability. Why is it the feminists get to decide how these are subjectively sorted between privilege and burden?

            So, my point is, the accusations for male privilege largely comes from a feminist perspective, which will always (as it’s in their self interest) attempt to see as much privilege for men and as little for women, even going so far as to claim a man dieing so a woman can live as being male privilege and offensive to women. And you don’t see how somebody can rightly take offense to this?

            “Male privilege is not about men”

            It most certainly is, otherwise privilege would not have been a gendered item. adding a group to the privileged accusation is very much an attempt to emotionally manipulate, but I suppose you think women don’t do that, since you listed getting attention as a male privilege.

            As to who’s viewpoint is important… I don’t see a minister for the status of men (complete with mandate and budget to promote men’s viewpoints), I don’t see a male VAWA equivilent. I don’t see anyone in any government taking seriously any discussion of men’s issues. Seems to me, the only viewpoint in the modern discourse is women’s, even when the discussion is between men like Obama and Biden.

            “It’s about realising how fortunate we are in some ways that women are not.”

            And you don’t feel the reverse also happens? Are you a father? did you get to spend the first few years with your child, or did you have to go work to support your wife, your child and yourself? Are you divorced, where your wife largely got to decide what she was willing to offer you as a custody agreement, which, if you choose not to accpet, you would be seen as being confrontational and unlikely to get much more anyways, despite throwing money at lawyers to try and get a fair agreement? Or do you, like some feminists I’ve spoken with, see these as male privileges (despite claiming it was “the subtle ways in which our world is organized to suit men)?

            The problem I have is, the privileges that men may have had in the past have largely been criminalized (getting a promotion because your a man is discrimination and illegal) or reversed (getting a job because your a woman is affirmative action, government sponsored), yet there remains a refusal to acknowledge female privilege exists, let alone examine where it stands in relation to men’s.

            The rest of your comments can be addressed with the simply, “doesn’t/shouldn’t that apply regardless of gender of/for both genders?”.

            • Mark, thanks for your reply. To try to answer some of your salient points:

              “Feminists do talk about gender roles as male privilege.” – you know, I’m guilty of doing what I set out to avoid, which is telling feminists what their definitions mean. I’m sure some do – no-one ever accused feminism of presenting a united front! The bit that I was interested in, that resonated with me, was the idea that there’s a lot of things in life that men can take for granted – like not being judged on their looks, to take a quoted example – that women just can’t.

              Think of how english uses the word “man” to mean “human”. There might be a lot of good linguistic reasons why it’s ended up like that, but it puts women into the position of having to either put up with the linguistic exclusion (every day), or complain and be labelled one of the PC crowd. Think of all the words we have to shame women who behave in a sexual manner, and contrast with how we describe men who do the same things. Male is normal and women are special interest.

              This “you don’t see you own privilege” thing – I wasn’t trying to use that as an argument for it’s existence, just saying that it’s consistent with the alleged phenomenon: if privilege exists, you’d expect that. In fact part of the problem is that men don’t realise how the deck is stacked in their favour in some situations. Now of course this can be used as a shaming tactic, and I’m sure some do – but abuse does not abolish use, and the fact that some may use it to score cheap points doesn’t mean there’s nothing in it. I think what I’m trying to say is that a woman telling me that I’m acting from a privileged position isn’t making a statement about me: it’s saying that they see the power balance of the current situation differently, and my words and actions may not be as innocuous as I think.

              You mention a lot of examples of roles playing out to the advantage of one sex or the other. There’s a lot of truth in what you say. The Titanic thing is complicated: I’d like to read an actual feminist who used the word “contempt” in the context, btw? What you say is true, but it’s if it’s true that the diminshed personhood conferred to women by society of the time could act to their advantage in some extreme cases, that doesn’t make that society less sexist. It I may step into a minefield, a colonial who had such high regard for the “white man’s burden” that he lets his slaves out of a burning mansion first might be brave and noble, but he’s still a slave-owner (no, I am not comparing men to slave owners! The example is extreme for clarity. All I’m saying is that noble actions and prejudice are not mutually exclusive).

              Of course I thing “claim[ing] a man dieing so a woman can live as being male privilege and offensive to women” is offensive. I suspect a lot of real feminists would agree with you too.

              I am a father, and yes, I’m working. Society says that jobs are more important than family, so being a man I get to do the important stuff rather than spend more time with my kids. Bad for me, and part of the way patriarchy acts against men as well as women. I could be that we have a common enemy here.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “I’m sure some do – no-one ever accused feminism of presenting a united front! ”

              That’s a cop out. Your assertion was that male privilege wasn’t about men. I’ve shown that, at least when some feminists use it (and you can see it a lot in the comments section of a few recent articles), and do so in a way to blame men, try to guilt them and certain to target men specifically, meaning it IS about men. If feminism is a unified front, then stop talking for other feminists.

              ” was the idea that there’s a lot of things in life that men can take for granted ”

              That is not unique to men. So long as feminists argue from the position that this phenomina is unique to men**, there can not be a reasonable/honest gender discussion. And if it is not an conclussion that comes from an honest discussion, then it is nothing more then a baseless accusation used to shame and/or offend men into compliance. I’m trying to have a reasonable and honest discussion on the topic, but you seem unwilling to consider the possibility that both genders benefit from privilege in different area’s of life, and without that honest assestment, where do you get off telling me I benefit more than women.

              ** (such as your constant return to “we must think about women” while largely ignoring the privileges women have, and the effect that would have on the discussion. You continually make assertions from the point of view that men are the sole or primary beneficiaries of privilege, yet you can’t even identify what it is, and still can’t seem to grasp the concept that female privilege can exists simultaniously, alongside male privilege. you are demonstrating you are arguing from a position of faith, not of any reality you can prove)

              “like not being judged on their looks”

              As a 6’2″ overweight man, I can assure you I am judged quite frequently by my looks. Perhaps not in the same way, but certainly judged. Men are also often judged on their career’s, social status and/or wealth in much the same way women are by looks. But I suppose you are once again going to claim both are examples of male privilege, as you’ve done elsewhere in your post, as I said feminists do in my previous post).

              “Think of all the words we have to shame women who behave in a sexual manner”

              Think of all the words used to shame men who don’t protect or tend to women in the expected manner. Again, NOT UNIQUE TO WOMEN. Your cherry picking examples from a purely female point of view, without examining how males are treated the same way (here is a hint: look at the action being taken IE; shaming for “improper behavior”, rather than the catalist IE; sexuallity)

              “Male is normal and women are special interest.”

              And who set up this dynamic? Feminists, by claiming perpetual victim status.

              ” just saying that it’s consistent with the alleged phenomenon: if privilege exists, you’d expect that.”

              Then, once again, this should apply equaly to women and their privilege, correct?

              ” In fact part of the problem is that men don’t realise how the deck is stacked in their favour in some situations”

              Ever consider that men do know, but they likewise know the deck is stacked in women’s favor in others? That the idea that a man should give away/sacrific his privilege for women (based on chilvilry, a female privilege in and of itself) while they refuse to even acknowledge their own, let alone whether there is an inequity, furthermore whether that inequity actually favours men… you don’t see how this can be offensive to men? You don’t see the insult in demanding men give up their benefits while women get to keep theirs unchallenged?

              “but abuse does not abolish use,”

              But it does justify defensiveness, the very defensiveness you claim to be due to having our privilege challenged.. IE, there are clearly other reasons for getting defensive.

              “doesn’t mean there’s nothing in it”

              But the fact I can’t get a straight answer, ever, that doesn’t stand up to the minutest of scrutiny certainly gives me reason to doubt there is anything to it.

              ” it’s saying that they see the power balance of the current situation differently”

              And that is often a purely subjective assesment of the situation and power balance, so why does her assesment get to hold precident? could it be female privilege?

              “There’s a lot of truth in what you say”

              And yet, you proceed to try and frame everything in a male privilege perspective… as I said, it’s entirely subjective (and again, I am confident a truely skilled feminist professional victim could frame winning the latery as an offense based on her being a woman)

              “that doesn’t make that society less sexist.”

              I never claimed it proved society wasn’t sexist… See, this is an example why we get so frustrated… privilege, sexism, patriarchy, all these feminist theories are presented in a binary fasion, it’s ether male or female, only one can benefit at a single time, but that just isn’t true. I presented you with an example of female privilege (their lives are valued more than mens) and you attempt to deny it is privilege (by pointing out the alleged “diminished personhood”, the maintaining of society is sexists, and the dismissing of the situation as an “extreme” case).

              As to your slave example, “women and children first” (let alone the valueing of female life before male in other area’s), is not an isolated incodent, they are culturally enforced expectations (There are a ton of articles attempting to shame the men on the costa concordia for failing to adhear to “women and children first”). So why then does it not count as a female privilege? The answer is, because the arguement weakens against the feminist goal if female privilege is acknowledged, so it must remain, for feminism to maintain control of the gender discourse, for privilege to remain binary. In other words, if an honest comparison of privileges and responsabilities are made, women may not come off as so oppressed as you take them for.

              ” I suspect a lot of real feminists would agree with you too.”

              Feminism is not a unified entity, you don’t get to decide what is a real feminist or not. I will however point out that feminists themselves say christina hoff summers isn’t a feminist (despite being about equality, as feminists claim they are), but Dworkin is still acknowledged as a feminist, a radical, but a feminist none-the-less. So next time you want to consider what a real feminist is, keep that in mind.

              “Society says that jobs are more important than family”

              No, again that’s feminism that says money and career are more important. Most none feminists think family comes first… Do I need to provide the quotes of feminists disparaging family? Some feminists still whinge about getting shamed for working rather than tending their children (IE, being shamed for putting work, what you claim is more important, over family, which you dismiss). Best interests of the children is the dogma in courts. ANY parent who has been able to stay home and raise their kids is always greatful for the privilege to get to do so. Family is more important than anything to almost all people in normal society. A job is necessary, but your trying to twist this into “a man is doing the important duty” in order to deny women’s privilege is insulting.

              ” I could be that we have a common enemy here.”

              Patriarchy isn’t an entity with which we can declair war, it is a feminist theory. Furthermore, it is a theory that depends heavily on the theory of male privilege to justify itself. That said, if patriarchy is claimed to hurt both men and women, why then am I continuously told this is a patriarchal society and so I get all the power…even though it hurts me? Feminists pointing to patriarchy as “the real enemy” is just a deflection to try and get the attention off themselves.

        • That was my reaction as well. If you object to an accusation and are immediately told “You’re just in denial because you don’t want your privilege threatened and can’t see the truth,” then there’s really no point in conversing any further, is there? You’re facing dogma, not facts.

          That sort of debate-stopping tactic is common among dogmatists, but it doesn’t make their accusations true. “Denial is proof of guilt” went out with the Red Scare.

          • That argument is just as invalid as “you’re just using a shaming tactic, so I can safely disregard what you’re trying to say.” Two sides of the same coin.

            If you’re interested in the truth, you have to go beyond both. But that involves listening to what women are saying when they talk about privilege.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “Two sides of the same coin.”

              Not really. Shaming tactics can very well be concrete. Being called angry, bitter or “you must have been hurt by a woman” rather than addressing ones points is clearly and demonstrability a shaming tactic, and it intended to end the conversation (by silencing the opposition), so from that point on, that person can be disregarded, because that was their intention.

              Meanwhile, accusing someone of being blind to their own privilege requires one subscribe to the theory of male privilege in the same way feminists do. As discussed above, myself and many others don’t deny male privilege, but acknowledge that it is balanced by male expectations/responsibilities and female privilege, so claiming we just don’t see our male privilege is seen as a shaming tactic intended to end the conversation.

              “But that involves listening to what women are saying when they talk about privilege.”

              And this is why I’m having a problem with you. Your sexist. It isn’t that it involves listening to what PEOPLE are saying, NOOOOoo, just women. We only need to listen to what WOMEN are saying, what men have to say is of no value, only what women have to say within the gender discourse matters.

              Let me ask you one more question, have you ever compared male vs female privileges? Have you ever actually examined the concept for both genders? or do you just take the feminist word as truth, accept it as gospel, and live by it’s dogma? Because you truly sound the type (and I don’t mean that as an insult, I have nothing against religion, so long as I’m not being assaulted by it daily.)

            • Time to cut to the chase.

              I think the root of our disagreement is this: you don’t believe that there exists an imbalance of power in society along gender lines. The “define male privilege” thing is a red herring, because if you take this as true then you can’t by definition accept any definition which doesn’t completely miss the point, as far as I am concerned.

              Yes, I accept instances of female privilege do exist. In fact, this was accepted by the first feminist writer I found when googling it. However, as they point out, most of what is described as “female privilege” is better described as “benevolent sexism”: these privileges amount to the privilege to creep back to the kitchen and the nursery, where they started from a century ago. It’s the “privilege” to go back to the subservient gender role dictated for them by society.

              On average, two women a week are killed by a male partner or former partner. The law privileges male behaviour in murder cases by allowing for sudden rage. Most women will experience sexual assault or rape at some point in their lives. In the recent past, women did not have the right to vote, they were the property of their husbands, and could be legally beaten and raped by them. Aggressive men are driven or go-getters, whereas women are bitches. Sexual women are sluts and whores but sexual men are studs. We have a “best actress” oscar because the normative word “actor” means “male actor.” We even have the same word for man and human, for Pete’s sake!

              Claiming that military service (voluntary in your country and mine) or maternity leave (compensation for being pressured to give up your career) means that society isn’t sexist is – well, it’s a point of view, but not one I will ever subscribe to.

            • And if you can’t see male disposability as the underlying attitude that permits such ‘voluntary’ policies, then you’re entitled to that point of view as well. But it doesn’t make you right.

              Of COURSE society is sexist. But it’s silly to pretend that it’s sexist in only one direction, and always due to, or to the benefit of, men.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “I think the root of our disagreement is this: you don’t believe that there exists an imbalance of power in society along gender lines.”

              No, the root of our disagreement comes from you and other feminists insisting women begin at a point of weakness, of oppression, and men in the position of power, and then proceed to examine only male privilege and female limitations/responsabilities/problems. When it is pointed out that men have limitations/responsabilities/problems, they are dismissed by comments like “well, that’s a result of the patriarchy, the patriarchy hurts both genders, thus using the assumption of male power to deminishing those issues. When it is pointed out that women have privileges too, they are dismised by comments such as “it’s not a privilege, it’s benevolent sexism” (of which the only diference is the pressumed starting point), thus using the assumption of male power to deminish those privileges. You then use those male privileges and female limits (because the male limits and female privileges are dismissed) to prove the patriarchy and male power. It is circular logic. If you want an honest discussion, you must examine BOTH gender privileges AND limits, from a starting position of balance. You can not simply dismiss something that does not suit your argument.

              My disagreement with you comes from your attempting to reframe everything into how feminist theory dictates the world works, and not by having an honest discussion.

              “Yes, I accept instances of female privilege do exist.”

              No, actually, you don’t. This is nothing but a platitude. If you accepted female privilege, you would not have spent the rest of the paragraph trying to deny it and reframe it as “benevolent sexism”. You would not claim those privileges are simply trying to get women back into the kitchen where they began (and which I might add, you and feminists have deemed to be a bad thing, based purely on your own subjective opinions. many women enjoy being stay at home mothers. most wish they could do it if finances would allow, working only part time once the kids are in school). And I am truly curious how it can be argued a man valuing an unknown woman’s life over his own can be seen as a privilege to creep back into the kitchen?

              “On average, two women a week are killed by a male partner or former partner. ”

              And how many men are killed a week by their partners (and do keep in mind that women have gotten away with murder by claiming battered womens syndrom, even when they were the ones to initiate the violence, meaning that doesn’t count as murder. also note it’s not uncommon for women to get someone else to do the killing, creating a multiple-offender homicide, also not clasified as DV)? I’m willing to bet you are not capable of telling me the answer without first looking it up. This is what I’m talking about. you look at the problems of women, claim they are unacceptable, need to be fixed and that men have it so much easier than women, yet you never examine how the same issue affects men.

              “The law privileges male behaviour in murder cases by allowing for sudden rage”

              Oh this is rich. How does the law privilege males, how does it “allow” for sudden rage? Show me a case of one man, who, after admitting he killed his partner to the judge, walked away without jailtime. Just one. No, the law actually privileges WOMEN, by allowing them to claim they were abused, and due to the accused being dead, he gets no due processes, is judged guilty or not by the court, and can allow a woman to walk away scott free, even when the murder was premeditated, even though women are the sole beneficiaries of domestic abuse funding, even when the woman admits she started the physical alteration, demonstrating she clerly wasn’t afraid for her life (you don’t provoke someone you think will kill you).

              ” Most women will experience sexual assault or rape at some point in their lives. ”

              Even the one in 4 number doesn’t represent as “most”. And in that1 in 4 statistic, Sexual assault often includes catcalling and ackward flurting from men who don’t appeal to the women.

              “Aggressive men are driven or go-getters, whereas women are bitches”

              Subjected and biased generalization. It entirely depends on the type of aggression. Some aggressive men are assholes and dicks and bullies. Some aggressive women are sexy (cougers), or strong and independent. Just because you choose to always see women in the negative, don’t project that on the rest of us.

              “We have a “best actress” oscar because the normative word “actor” means “male actor.””

              It only means male actor NOW, it used to be actor for both genders, just as a writer doesn’t have a writress. But feminists decided that actor was a male normative and demanded a female counterpart.

              “Claiming that military service (voluntary in your country and mine)”

              It’s not military service, it is the registration that deminstrates sexism against men. Men in the US may NOT VOTE, you know, that thing you brought up earlier. men are note entitled to the vote (or social services) the same way women are in the US, Men must earn the vote by registering. Are you really so incappable of seeing the inequality of that? In the US, military service is vuluntary for women, it only remains voluntary for men so long as the government doesn’t feel compelled to use the draft, but if it does, men, and only men, can be forced into service, all so they could get the entitlements women get simply for being female.

              “or maternity leave (compensation for being pressured to give up your career)”

              BEING PRESURED? WTF is wrong with you? Women are routinely tricking and forcing men into becoming fathers. The desire to have a baby drives virtually every women out there. And you want to prented that they’re being pressured? See, this is what I’m talking about, feminists can frame just about everything into some kind of personal victimhood. And women aren’t required to take maternity leave, they CHOOSE to. Or do you think so poorly of women as to believe they aren’t cappable of making a choice like this, that it is forced upon them by some outside force. Feminism really is the infantilizing of women.

              “means that society isn’t sexist is”

              No, it means it’s sexist both ways.

              “well, it’s a point of view, but not one I will ever subscribe to.”

              And that’s the point. you have a subjective view of things, but you seem to insist that view is correct, that others are wrong, that women are inferior and need the government to initiate laws and thought reconstruction in order to allow women a chance.

              ” The “define male privilege” thing is a red herring, because if you take this as true then you can’t by definition accept any definition which doesn’t completely miss the point, as far as I am concerned.”

              And this proves my point. In order to get “THE” point (not just your point, but THE point, as in the only valid point), I must first accept male privilege. You accept male privilege as true, and thus don’t miss the point.

              But I must point out to you, and this is the reason asking for a definition of male privilege is not a red hereing… You react to male privilege as if it is truth, demanding others to do so as well, despite the fact it is something that you can neither explain yourself, or identify. It is something that you have been told exists by others, that you feel can be correct, that inspires you to act in the manner those leading you would like you to act. You get not touch it, see it, hear it. You can only accept and believe it exists, and believe that your accepting and acknowledgement of it will make you a better person. You do realize what I just described is faith, not fact. Are you seriously trying to tell me I’m wrong because I don’t follow your faith?

    • Uncle Woofie says:

      Ahhh, Ms. Geekgirl….no one enjoys a heapin’ helpin’ of sarcasm as much as I do…!

      Also, I must thank you for proving what I had to say to the unfortunate, elitist commenter who couldn’t be bothered to elaborate on his dismissive declaration concerning all of us…!

      Regardless of the hour, you poured so much effort into your commentary that you deserve a gen-u-ine, (even though he didn’t invent ‘Cap’) Stan Lee-authorized No-Prize (handed out to letters-page contributors that Stan Lee was either impressed with or had caught him inna plot-flub in one of the books)…! As the old “Ronco” veggie chopper commercials used to say; …but wait, there’s more…!

      You deserve from me as the writer, a closer look at your comments.

      ”Look at the one defined female character; she’s in a position where realistically – what are the chances a female would have been? Even as a commanding officer, the male cadets feel it is ok to mouth off and derride her as a sexual object; yes she responds and said cadet ends up in the dust – but seriously, were it a male CO – would that even have been something a cadet would consider?”

      Yes, Peggy Carter did deservedly punch the offending soldier’s lights out, and her C.O., approved of her “personnel management” decision right there onna spot. This could be considered a “command privilege”, but an earned one. Besides, jerk-faced fresh recruits foolishly showin’ their ass to an authority figure is a time-honored cinematic tradition, regardless of the gender of the authority figure in question. This is used here to help establish where the sturdy Agent Carter’s character is coming from. Since I had used the car-ride to the lab as part of my point in the article, let’s take another look at that scene. The ‘Sharon Carter’ character uses her experiences that resulted in her status with the project to both relate to Rogers and demonstrate that it is possible to achieve against all odds.

      ”The funny thing is, that even as ‘weak’ as pre serum steve was, in society he still enjoyed more freedom than many women did when it comes to the opportunities had and the obsticles to be faced based unfairly and arbitrarily on gender.”

      Exactly what “freedom” was Steve Rogers enjoying? So far as I see, the tally of Roger’s ‘male privilege’ stands at exactly…none…particularly by “1940’s” standards. I’m sorry, but for all the effort you poured into your response, and even though this is after all, a sci-fi hero fantasy, it is a movie based on the 1940’s not present-day. Even I, having used this film for modern-day gender commentary, must keep that in mind since applying modern-day judgments to an era long-past will only get your position so far, then we’re all in Apples ‘n’ Oranges Land.

  9. Justin Cascio says:

    If you can’t see the male privilege inherent in Uncle Woofie’s story, try applying the Bechdel Test to it.

    • Why would a discussion of a male protagonist’s struggles with male problems invoke a test about how many female characters are given preferential treatment?

      This article is about Steve Rogers and what he went through. Take the Bechdel nonsense elsewhere, please.

      • Justin Cascio says:

        Because, Copyleft, the Bechdel Test demonstrates that Uncle Woofie’s comic books and beloved heroes, at least every one he’s mentioned here, are male characters.

        • Uncle Woofie says:

          Oh shock, oh horrors…!!! I haven’t devoted any time to female heroes…!!!

          Just be grateful I don’t hit you with an ass-load of url’s from other GMP articles that reminds everyone that this is a site discussing men, their stories and issues, not necessarily women fictional characters or otherwise.

          Tell ya what…as soon as something crops up that is as easily identifiable to all as a current, popular movie (based onna comics character or not) and has unique elements that suit themselves to current gender arguments over a concept that is as tugged and chewed over as ‘male privilege’ is, I’ll write about female heroes, okay?

          Actually I could do that quite easily, but I won’t, at least not anytime soon. I’ve only went to this well in an article once, invoked it exactly twice in commentaries. In one case I had to literally unearth it to post here from over six hundred comment-entries from two months ago. The X-Men article is the other; since that was completely germane against the subject matter; I feel no urge to hang my head over it. .

          Besides, whatever my jonesin’ over comics actually is, it sure as hell didn’t result in what I wrote being ignored now did it?

          I have to agree with Copyleft over the ‘Bechdel Test’. Like it or not, the Hollywood entertainment industry as well as comics industry is a business driven by what sells, not by what “raises your consciousness” or gives some neglected, possibly oppressed group repeated shout-outs or promotion.

          I read the “Bechdel” article, and during the top half of the read, the writer makes sure to mention the two most recent super hero movies. He apparently resents the fact that the subject matter doesn’t mention, reflect or promote female characters to the point where he apparently thinks giving them names is un-necessary. While I haven’t seen Green Lantern, I can obviously tell you the name of the female lead in “Cap” since I used it several times in my own article. Applying any part of the B-Test to the ‘Cap” movie (or many others) is so ridiculously outside the movie’s plot and subject matter that Copyleft’s comment is completely justified.

          This winds up a case where I have to suggest to the proponents of the ‘Bechdel test’ sometimes, it’s not about you, or your favorite causes, under-recognized or not.

          As a fan of this kinda material, the tenets of the ‘Bechdel Test’ suggests that I should be entitled to complain that Spider-Man is not hanging outside the window looking in during a kitchen scene in something like “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants”, current ‘cycle’ of superhero movies notwithstanding.

          This is one of the reasons why I came up with the intentionally sarcastic “Apples and Oranges Land” reference in a previous comment in this thread.

        • Yes, and we’re discussing male characters here in this column. We are not discussing female characters. Nor are we discussing low-carb cooking, UFO sightings, or the Republican primaries. For once the spotlight is NOT on female issues and the female experience. I fail to see the problem.

Speak Your Mind