I planned to write this post today, because I knew that the comments of the post that says arguing about who’s more oppressed is stupid would be fucking full of people arguing about who’s more oppressed. Man. I must be psychic.
For the record, here is my position: I think that, as a whole, cis men have it better than any other gender identity. However, I think that cis men have problems that are directly related to the patriarchy, that these problems are serious, that getting rid of the patriarchy will make life immeasurably better for cis men as a group, and that the problems of cis men are related to the problems of other gender identities so that, purely as a tactical measure, it makes sense to try to fix their problems too.
The example that always come up when someone’s like “being a cis man is terrible!” is conscription. Yes, conscription is bad. It also hasn’t come up in the US in the last forty years, and is so politically untenable that it is not a serious concern for most cis men. Let me be clear: conscription is fucking terrible and legal discrimination is wrong no matter how unlikely it is to come up in practice. However, when one compares it to even something as minor as crisis pregnancy centers, which lie to literally thousands of women every year to get them to carry their babies to term even if they don’t want to have children… yeah.
One also has to consider that many of the disadvantages cis men face are not disadvantages faced by cis men but disadvantages faced by certain, marginalized groups of cis men. The prison-industrial complex doesn’t affect men, it affects poor men and men of color. Gay men are more likely to suffer from hate crimes than people of other orientations, but that doesn’t mean straight men are marginalized. That’s less a simplistic intersectionality model of “they’re suffering oppression from being gay and being male!”, and more the fact that a lot of oppression is gendered. Gendered oppression is certainly oppression related to being male, but I find it a bit disingenuous to consider it oppression because of being male.
To oversimplify a lot, under patriarchy, it is inconceivable and intolerable for women to have power, and it is inconceivable and intolerable for men not to have power. That’s extremely limiting for both genders, of course, and being forced to have power has enormous negative effects on men (“boys don’t cry,” anyone?). That doesn’t change the incontrovertible fact that it’s a hell of a lot nicer to have power than not to have power. If you have to pick one of them, the former will get you a lot farther than the latter. It’s not a good thing to be expected to always be competent and intelligent, but it’s a hell of a lot better than always being expected to be incompetent and unintelligent.
I also find it interesting how many male privileges are things that no one is aware that men have. Did you know that men are likely to pay less than women for the same car? It’s true. Did you know that men are more likely to be hired in high-wage positions (at least in the restaurant industry, anyway), even with identical resumes? Yep. The thing is that I’ve never seen someone make jokes about how men pay less for the same car, or be like “everyone knows that men pay less,” or anything. It’s just never come up. It’s a privilege that no one is aware that men have.
In general, I think of gender roles as cages. Men have a slightly nicer cage– it has gold plating on the bars, better food, maybe a pillow. But the thing is that complaining that men have the better cage, even though they do and a reasonable model of the world recognizes this, is completely pointless. It’s still a cage. The solution is to open up the door and let people out.
What if what is being called “male privilege” is really something different. As you pointed out in your post, some groups of men are lower status than other “low status” groups. Every group has its benefits and detriments of membership. It might be that what has been described as a gender based power struggle is more of a socioeconomic struggle for power. If that is the case then focusing specifically on gender issues misses the larger point and marginalizes groups that don’t have to be marginalized. Saying all men have privilege is broad based stereotyping. I say this recognizing that… Read more »
Socioeconomics is BIG, but not everything can be boiled down to discreet differences in class. Sure wealth can mitigate a LOT of marginalization, but we still hear stories like that professor friend of Obama’s who was arrested for breaking into his own house and/or why it is so hard to prosecute Zimmerman. In the realm of gender specifically, the best examples come from societal expectations. Regardless of how much money a woman makes, she is still expected to be a good mother/homemaker. Sure it is EASIER with more money (maids, nannies, etc.) but the expectation is still there and still… Read more »
It doesn’t matter “who has it worse”. The important thing would be to acknowledge that there are problems that need to have something done about them. In this case, patriarchy is harmful to both. just often in different ways. Who gets it worse is rather irrelevant to the actual point. Getting rid of the problem should be the main issue and not comparing cases. I’ve talked a lot about the wrongs men face, because they’re generally talked about less. But I don’t use that as an excuse to go shouting about “men getting abused too” etc, everytime I notice a… Read more »
This is one of the things me (and a friend of mine) have tried to explain to a lot of people – mostly dudes but lately also to at least one woman. They’ve been very receptive and tend to agree once we get it properly explained.
The cage metaphor is perfect for making the point clear in just a couple of short sentences. I gotta remember that.
what happened to “Kyriarchy”?
… yeah
The cage allegory doesn’t work. Everyone has a personalized cage, depending on their own intersectionality. A neurodiverse man may have a far poorer cage than a neurotypical woman, and Oprah probably has a nicer cage than the majority of men out there. It’s a personal thing. Intersectionality is important in these discussions. I think EVERYONE has some kind of problem in their life. Maybe it’s that their parents were emotionally abusive, or maybe they have to wear leg braces, or any number of things. Hell, I was regularly subject to bullying as a child because I was too light-skinned, and… Read more »
“Power” is technically the ability to make someone do something, even if they don’t want to. Yes, I’m aware that, after postmodernism came along, power was temporarily defined in a NIetzschean sense of a pushing that everyone and everything did (even language.) But I’ll use the less-slippery first definition. Seen this way, most of us (either gender) don’t have much real power. I’ll grant that men’s earnings right now do give them more options, but we may be entering an era where men become less-employable because women are more tractable in organizations, and are becoming better educated. In any case,… Read more »
As a female feminist, I vow never to be a feminist who erases the problems men face that are related to their gender- I will call it what it is. I want feminism NOT to be about ‘women have it worse than men’ at all. I know a lot of people see it that way, both male and female, but I wish it wasn’t so. I hate that this argument is happening. Men who find themselves making the ‘men have it worse’ argument a lot, think about it- is someone ACTUALLY telling you all the time that women have it… Read more »
I wish this site had up-vote buttons, just for this comment. To answer this: “Men who find themselves making the ‘men have it worse’ argument a lot, think about it- is someone ACTUALLY telling you all the time that women have it worse than you, or is it just inside your own head making you defensive?” Yes that happens all the time, victimhood and damesling are part of toxic femininity and the traditonal female role. Boys growo up hearing this in a thousands way – “You NEVER hit a girl”, “She hit you? You must have 1. deserved it, 2.… Read more »
“is someone ACTUALLY telling you all the time that women have it worse than you,” All the fucking time. Go read the articles on male victimization and it seems nearly all of them discuss how women get it worse. Hugo Schwyzer, Soraya Chemaly, and a few others have done this lil tactic, they derail their own article in favour of saying women get it worse. Most feminist material I see talking about rape, violence, etc says women get it worse, especially in the male victimization material. Is it defensiveness or are men just sick to death of hearing women get… Read more »
As a female feminist, I vow never to be a feminist who erases the problems men face that are related to their gender- I will call it what it is. Thank you. I want feminism NOT to be about ‘women have it worse than men’ at all. I know a lot of people see it that way, both male and female, but I wish it wasn’t so. We see it that way because that’s what is being presented to us. I hate that this argument is happening. Men who find themselves making the ‘men have it worse’ argument a lot,… Read more »
I think the point of the article is: Women have it worse, but men’s problems matter, too. There seem to be some feminists who think ” Women have it worse, so men’s problems don’t matter.” Women have it worse. Men’s problems matter. These two ideas can both be true at the same time. In response to the examples given by Darklordzero and Jake: You’re making the assumption that not working is better than working. I too worked through high school. I chose to do so because I wanted my own income. This relates to the point Ozy made in the… Read more »
Ozy, the problem is that, politically, distributively, your assertion in the prior post that – 3) Suffering is not a contest. is demonstrably wrong. We do have, I believe, a situation in which being a “victim” of something/ being oppressed is considered moral, while *not* being a victim indicates immorality. And while suffering may not be logically comparable, politically it can certainly be compared, And as such the losing group in oppression olymics is necessarily the least morally justified in making their case. It is by definition that their problems don’t count as much as others. Plus, they are natural… Read more »
“We do have, I believe, a situation in which being a “victim” of something/ being oppressed is considered moral, while *not* being a victim indicates immorality.” I hate this so much. This is so common, so much in our culture ingrains the victim/bad-guy narrative. I remember seeing a blow up on reddit recently went like this: Peep 1: Posts nudes of peep 2 to a couple of friends. Peep 2: Posts nudes of Peep 1 to the whole interwebz, after hacking multiple accounts of peep 1. Reddit of course immediately talks about taking sides. … One person posted nudes of… Read more »
I have to jump on-board with the first post, because @A.Y. Siu mostly sums up my opinion on all this. But even further, all of these discussions are absolutely ridiculous because they ignore the practical, experienced world in favor of some theoretical-view construct which devolves individuals into nonsensical groups and then lays hugely overarching stereotypes upon them from which arguments about the actuality of our world exist. I was having a heated argument with my girlfriend the other day, in large part because both of us were in danger of losing our jobs to layoffs (what crummy timing) and the… Read more »
I’d like to mention some privileges that don’t seem to get enough air time:
Food privilege: those who have too much versus those that don’t have enough
Clean water privilege: the have versus the have not
Internet privilege: the have versus the have not
War and strife privilege: the have versus the have not
Health privilege: the have versus the have not
And lastly –
Alive privilege: dead people only know one thing, and that is that it’s better to be alive.
I think the variations on privilege are infinite between individuals, and that makes the privilege idea a political non-starter. As some racial and gender issues are broadly solved, moral entrepreneurs look for ways to keep up the business. And these purveyors are pretty mealy-mouthed about it: “we don’t want you to feel guilty; we just want you to look at it.” Not really. So the Tim Wisees and Bob Jensens have something to support their meal ticket. I’m in favor of affirmative action to address broad historical economic unfairness. I’m not particularly in favor of “diversity” anything because that’s usually… Read more »
“Moral entrepreneurs” is now my new favorite phrase. Thanks!
Why is conscription supposed to be bad assuming that it would apply to both genders?
Sure more women than men would be freed from service already just because an average woman has had less physical activity and an poorer diet than an average male.
(Or at least in Finland. Can’t really say how your situation looks like.)
It’s more the other way around in the US. Women generally take better care of their physical health than men. They are generally more concerned about their diet, exercise and health visits.
The reason conscription isn’t enforced on women is because the military doesn’t want women. The women that are in the military still aren’t allowed the same opportunities as men (regarding High conflict zones). Many people complain about only men being conscripted but if women aren’t even allow on the front lines I don’t see women being added into the conscription any time soon.
An poorer diet in the sense that they have consumed an suboptimal amount of fats, carbohydrates and proteins which has reduced the build-up of muscles and bones. “The reason conscription isn’t enforced on women is because the military doesn’t want women.” Thats not our case. Women are not excluded from combat units and may even apply for special forces though so far only one woman has passed SF tests and training. On the other hand women are excluded from certain units and arms of service because of bureaucracy coming from outside of the army. Basically accommodations (bedrooms, toilets and showers)… Read more »
The solution: Starship Troopers sex equality, where people share the same facilities without rape hysteria. Unisex bathrooms and shower facilities. The horror of conservatives and other advocates of sex segregation (until marriage).
That would statistically increase the amount of women who won’t complete their service and it could make it physically easier for rapists to rape for they wouldn’t have to sneak into the womens quarters and out without the duty officer noticing.
In the FDF rapes are very rare and we intend to keep it that way. Obiviously separate quarters are not the only reason.
Also it could increase sexual harassment, inapproperiate feelings and relationships.
The current asexual model is working fine. The problem is the senate real estate having control of the buildings used by the army.
Today in news:
Female rapists exist. Rape isn’t an uniquely male on female problem.
And unisex facilities have not caused extreme rapes before.
The attitude that sex segregation is right and proper (and that everyone is straight), while men are beastly rapists-in-waiting who will jump at the first opportunity if they see some women’s skin…is so Middle-East.
Now look its obiviously only one reason for zero rapes per year being the usual count. (And you can report it anonymously outside of the chain of command.) But the swedes have unisex facilities and they have significantly more problems. So limited gender segregation seems to work. Besides we only have separate bedrooms and sanitary facilities in the garrisons. Males and females learn, train work, eat, study, fight and camp together. Also you have to remember that the majority of rapists undergo also military conscription. (Unless they prefer the civilian service for they get to work in hospitals, kindergartens, ec… Read more »
Less need for redundant separate-but-equal quarters, and none of this “but we only have one type of facility” problem.
It would also probably reduce othering of the sexes as someone who is so mysterious, weird, and different from you in every possibly way. Something that is extremely pushed on kids today (to differentiate at all costs, in clothing, toys, bicycles, school furnitures, band-aids…you name it – lest they be thought to be on the other side, and gap – unique individuals, not copy-paste of the other 50% of humanity).
“Less need for redundant separate-but-equal quarters, and none of this “but we only have one type of facility” problem.”
As I already mentioned that is not an valid argument as fixing the problem would be easy in praxis.
“It would also probably reduce othering of the sexes as someone who is so mysterious, weird, and different from you in every possibly way.”
Thats not something that can be measured unlike for an example conscripts quitting their service.
So far you have not mentioned one single valid reason for why people should have it worse.
I have no interest in playing the “oppression olympics,” and I absolutely agree with Ozy’s point that cis white men are probably more “privileged” than everyone else. Where I part company (and always have) is when I read a statement like this: “That doesn’t change the incontrovertible fact that it’s a hell of a lot nicer to have power than not to have power. If you have to pick one of them, the former will get you a lot farther than the latter” Specifically, I take issue with the phrase “a lot farther.” In my life, if I’m born to… Read more »
” The thing is that I’ve never seen someone make jokes about how men pay less for the same car, or be like “everyone knows that men pay less,” or anything. It’s just never come up. It’s a privilege that no one is aware that men have.” Everyone knows they pay significantly more for car insurance, too. Everyone knows that. Europe has just outlawed this practice of charging all men more for the same insurance, previous to having any accidents. You should pay per your experience, mileage, and disability (if you’re blind, expect it to be high) if it affects… Read more »
Selective use of negatives women face, selective use of positives men face in order to prove men have more privileges than women. I find it funny and sad at the same time that so many people continually fall into this trap.
Following the logic here, paying less for make-up is female privilege. It’s not-at-all about knowing what’s worth the price, what’s crap, and where the deals are… Nope, it’s intentional putting men down.
“Did you know that men are likely to pay less than women for the same car?” Did you know that stereotypes (which probably have a grain of truth) says men on average are more interested in cars, their power, their specs, and such. I would also be unsurprised to hear that men on average pay less for computers. If you know how to deal or build your own, yeah, you’ll pay less. And it’s not about haggling skills being male-exclusive, it’s about knowing the product. And knowing extensively about cars or computers is still considered masculine. Heck, playing games on… Read more »
Actually, the car thing might be because men are more prone to bargain for a better deal than women. This also applies to the whole “wage gap” thing; men are more likely to ask for a raise, and work harder at attempting to justifying it.
“To oversimplify a lot, under patriarchy, it is inconceivable and intolerable for women to have power, and it is inconceivable and intolerable for men not to have power.”
Ozy, how are you defining power, and why are you writing as though it is the most important thing a person can have?
Ozy,
you say:
” I think that, as a whole, cis men have it better than any other gender identity.”
What does it mean, that “one group of people has it better than another group of people”?
People use such statements often and I really don’t know the answer. I know what it means that I prefer a certain situation or role over another, but this are only my personal preferences, not an objective (or intersubjective) truth.
Ozy, I generally agree with what you write here, and I very much sympathize with where you’re coming from. I sense the possibility of a little contradiction in the opening paragraph, though. It looks like the piece is saying that it’s useless to argue who has it worse, but then the piece comes right out and says who has it worse. I can imagine someone as snarky as me asking you, “is it pointless to argue or just pointless to argue with you?” (Again, I think you’re probably right in your interpretation, but positing a definitive answer to head off… Read more »
Exactly, it’s “debating who has it worse is silly, but women have it worse”. It’s telling us who has it worse, saying it’s pointless to debate it because they are right.
I planned to write this post today, because I knew that the comments of the post that says arguing about who’s more oppressed is stupid would be fucking full of people arguing about who’s more oppressed. Man. I must be psychic. I think the reason people fip out over this so much is because the arguments over who is oppressed more (in the realm of gender) often start off from someone arguing against the declaration that men cannot be oppressed by their gender. You talk about the prison complex. I’m not able to look this up since I’m at work… Read more »
This is correct. Selective Service is a single manifestation of a larger, underlying cultural attitude toward male disposability that still persists and still causes many problems for men–yes, even white cis/straight men. But of course male privilege exists. As does female privilege. And white privilege, black privilege, cis privilege, trans privilege… the lists goes on and on. In various ways, everybody is screwed by societal expectations and repressive roles. So, as you note, why play the Oppression Olympics by arguing over who has it worse? And why perpetuate the problem by pretending that non-white-cis-male privilege DOESN’T exist? Arguments that revolve… Read more »
I think part of the problem is the words that often come up to describe this complex sociological structure are loaded and more likely to make people defensive: privilege, oppressed. I’m a firm believer in the traditional radical left notions about privilege, but I also think discussions about privilege are more likely to be unproductive when the word privilege is used. In my experience (both in person and online), when white and/or male and/or hetero and/or financially well-off and/or able-bodied (etc.) people hear the word privilege, they almost always immediately associate it with “I have no problems” or “my life… Read more »