The male privilege checklist
| September 15th, 2004[Note: This version of the list is not the current version. The most up-to-date version of the list can always be found at this link.]
No time for blogging today - gotta draw, gotta go to work, blah blah blah. So instead, here’s a piece I compiled five or six years ago, originally as an exercise for a women’s studies class. It’s probably my most widely-read piece; as well as floating around on the internet, it’s been used in dozens of high school and college courses.
An Unabashed Imitation of an article by Peggy McIntosh
In 1990, Wellesley College professor Peggy McIntosh wrote an essay called “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. McIntosh observes that whites in the U.S. are “taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.” To illustrate these invisible systems, McIntosh wrote a list of 26 invisible privileges whites benefit from.
As McIntosh points out, men also tend to be unaware of their own privileges as men. In the spirit of McIntosh’s essay, I thought I’d compile a list similar to McIntosh’s, focusing on the invisible privileges benefiting men.
Since I first compiled it, the list has been posted several times on internet discussion groups. Very helpfully, many people have suggested additions to the checklist. More commonly, of course, critics (usually, but not exclusively, male) have pointed out men have disadvantages too - being drafted into the army, being expected to suppress emotions, and so on. These are indeed bad things - but I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes. Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that sometimes bad things happen to men.
In the end, however, it is men and not women who make the most money; men and not women who dominate the government and the corporate boards; men and not women who dominate virtually all of the most powerful positions of society. And it is women and not men who suffer the most from intimate violence and rape; who are the most likely to be poor; who are, on the whole, given the short end of patriarchy’s stick. As Marilyn Frye has argued, while men are harmed by patriarchy, women are oppressed by it.
Several critics have also argued that the list somehow victimizes women. I disagree; pointing out problems is not the same as perpetuating them. It is not a “victimizing” position to acknowledge that injustice exists; on the contrary, without that acknowledgement it isn’t possible to fight injustice.
An internet acquaintance of mine once wrote, “The first big privilege which whites, males, people in upper economic classes, the able bodied, the straight (I think one or two of those will cover most of us) can work to alleviate is the privilege to be oblivious to privilege.” This checklist is, I hope, a step towards helping men to give up the “first big privilege.”
The Male Privilege Checklist
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true.
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
5. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.
8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.
12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.
15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see “the person in charge,” I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male heroes were the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.
21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won’t make me an object of contempt or derision.
25. There are value-neutral clothing choices available to me; it is possible for me to choose clothing that doesn’t send any particular message to the world.
26. My wardrobe and grooming are relatively cheap and consume little time.
27. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.
28. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
29. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
30. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
31. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
32. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
33. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
34. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
35. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is usually pictured as being male.
36. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
37. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
38. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
40. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.
41. I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight.
42. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.
43. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.”
44. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
45. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
(Compiled by Barry Deutsch, aka “Ampersand.” Permission is granted to reproduce this list in any way, for any purpose, so long as the acknowledgment of Peggy McIntosh’s work is not removed. If possible, however, I’d appreciate it if folks who use it could tell me about how they used it; my email is barry-at-amptoons-dot-com.)
(Updated since the original posting to add some new items to the list.)
[Note: This version of the list is not the current version. The most up-to-date version of the list can always be found at this link.]
September 15th, 2004 at 9:14 am
Let me be the first to say “right on”, and to let you know I’ll be using this (with all credits given) in my men and masculinity class…
Oh, and #26 doesn’t apply to most of my male friends. The other ones… ;-)
This comment was written by Hugo.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 10:28 am
It’s a great list- thorough yet almost everyone can add to it with a little effort.
This comment was written by ScottM.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 11:04 am
I’ll overcome my “natural” female hesistancies. ;)
This comment was written by Amanda.A big one that I notice constantly is that men can expect not to be interrupted or challenged by the opposite sex, though they are usually free to interrupt or challenge women. If they are interrupted or challenged by a woman, they can expect to have plenty of people rush to their defense.
My boyfriend and I struggle with this constantly, as he gets *deeply* offended when I interrupt him, but he never, ever sees that he interrupts me more than I interrupt him. Naturally, our friends defend him. Pointing out invisible male privilege results in whining that I think about sexism too much.
What to do, eh? Well, in part I resorted to pointing it out each and every time he interrupted me, which in and of itself is difficult because I’m trained to just accept having my words trotted all over by men.
Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 11:05 am
Your list includes many perks bestowed on males having nothing to do with the construct of society. A man that shirks on household chores is a cad by his own choosing, and his housemate should just put her foot down and insist on a 50-50 split. If that doesn’t work she’s chosen the wrong man. As to the “time of the month issue” how in the hell does anyone but the woman, and possibly her mate, know it’s her time of the month? Many people have various stresses affecting their behavior, demeanor, judgment and energy. Most strive to cope with those issues and perform to their best anyway. Often this includes hiding the problem or seeing to it others don’t perceive they’re using it as an excuse of some sort. If a woman I work with, or for, is in the midst of her period I expect she’ll still perform mostly to standard. If she doesn’t I certainly won’t know it’s related to menstruation unless she tells me. If women don’t want to be viewed as limited during menstruation they merely need to keep the matter private. A great many of the items you list here would go away for many women if when confronted by them they assert themselves and make their preferences known early on. More men than get credit for it will respect and honor a woman’s wishes, whether in work or a personal relationship, if they’re simply told upfront how it’s going to be conducted.
This comment was written by steve duncan.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 11:15 am
That’s odd, Steve. Ya see, when we do make our wishes, desires, and expectations known, they are either ignored, or we are pilloried for doing it.
And when we make our displeasure with something known, or if we are assertive (or agressive, as anytime we make a peep we are agressive, and that’s very, very bad), we are bitches. See #29.
As for #32–the menstrual question–that has been used to keep us down, dismiss us, and excuse discrimination. It doesn’t matter if people know we have our periods or not. It’s a general excuse–We can’t have women be (insert occupation here) because they get all crazy during their monthlies. What’s the matter, bitch, you got your period or something? Stop being such a goddam emotional shrew!
For heaven’s sake, read the actual post, willya? Geez.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 11:16 am
“A man that shirks on household chores is a cad by his own choosing, and his housemate should just put her foot down and insist on a 50-50 split. If that doesn’t work she’s chosen the wrong man.”
Does that become #44: My misbehavior results from insufficient socialization by the women around me.
;)
This comment was written by Ab_Normal.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 11:17 am
Ah, I see the esteemed Sheelzebub has beaten me to the punch.
This comment was written by Ab_Normal.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 11:51 am
Women have made many strides in the last century. Admittedly they’ve secured rights they should have had all along. Contraceptive rights and the vote weren’t gained by whining on some blog about the unfairness of being born a woman. They were gained through hard fought battles and legislative victories and/or favorable court rulings. These were likely male dominated courts or legislatures, but let’s not get carried away giving any credit to men for those efforts. Speaking of the legislature, if women as a class are so concerned about proper representation why do they vote for men at all? The majority of registered voters in the U.S. are women. Women outnumber men in the general population. All women have to do is only vote for women, regardless of the office. Soon every single officeholder in the country would be a woman. It’s difficult to sympathize with the plight women are in when it’s entirely within their power to remedy it. Men may present you with problems, but you’re your own worst enemy. Quit voting for men, for anything. In a single generation you’d control every elective office in the nation, by sheer virtue of simple math. You want a woman President? Recruit a candidate and get every woman in the country to vote for her. Men would be powerless to win that election. There are less of us than you. Vote an entire series of women into the Presidency and you’ll soon have 9 women on the Supreme Court.
This comment was written by steve duncan.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 12:21 pm
Re: steve duncan and “women whining on blogs”.
Before women got the vote, they organised. Hundreds made significant commitments, essentially unpaid careers, to organising and EDUCATING. Susan B. Anthony led the life of a travelling salesman back when women didn’t travel alone and men who travelled had lousy conditions and accomodations. She lectured about women’s suffrage to any audience that would sit still. Elizabeth Stanton stayed home most of the time and raised her children, but also wrote many or most of Anthony’s speeches (Stanton didn’t like public speaking and did like writing), and wrote newspaper pieces and the history of the movement. Everywhere that Anthony spoke, a local organiser was either already present or was recruited as a result of the speech. We don’t know the names of all of the local organisers, but these people educated their communities.
And how is this different from blogging?
Yes, at some point the legislative work gained momentum and the education work could recede somewhat.
You need two types to make social movements work: the thinkers and the doers. They are synergistic - the thinker Stanton, the doer Anthony.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 12:23 pm
amp, #22 might be wrong if qualified by age. An under 25 years male driver will be blamed, by insurers and by society, as a likely bad driver relative to under 25 female drivers.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 1:03 pm
It’s different than it used to be, NancyP, because it’s *now* and it threatens the male privilege of Steve, not of nameless men 100 years ago.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 1:25 pm
Let’s see, if I only vote for women for the Senate in IL, I can . . . not vote. If I only vote for women for President, I can . . . not vote. Steve, you can’t vote for women if they’re not on the ballot, and if you refuse to vote unless women are on the ballot, then you are effectively letting men decide who will rule. Not sure that’s such a good idea.
Incidentally, I disagree a little on a few of these. I think that many more men are sexually assaulted, outside of prison, than we know; because men cannot reveal that information in this society without even more repercussions, it festers. Do women still have a much greater chance of sexual assault? Absolutely. I also am not sure about #25. I think that all clothing sends a message, and that relatively value-neutral choices are available to women–even though many other “choices” are available, and expectations may differ. I think the point is more that men can dress relatively neutrally without incurring questions about their sexuality, their attractiveness, etc.
One thing this list does bring home to me, though, is that, while it is absolutely not my job to educate men about these issues, it is also absolutely my responsibility to think about these issues–and not get involved with men who haven’t.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 1:27 pm
Hmmmm, my male privilege is being threatened? Good! I hope women manage to take it away altogether. I didn’t ask for it, don’t want it, and will be glad to be rid of it. More power to women I say. Oh, I make sure everything I do in my personal relationship is a 50-50 split, hope my partner is as successful as she wants to be, open doors, send flowers, and make breakfast. I’m still waiting for a response regarding the power of women to control elective offices, and by eventual extension the court and executive branch, merely by choosing to do so and voting accordingly.
This comment was written by steve duncan.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 1:39 pm
Gee carla, let me see here. No woman is on the Illinois U.S. Senate ballot. So, women get together, recruit a write-in, buy some newspaper ads, TV ads, radio ads, and make it public there’s a woman running for the U.S. Illinois Senate seat as a write in. The massive unhappiness women experience as a class of voters causes the candidacy to catch fire. Since women as a class are so suppressed, oppressed, and depressed as to their lack of proportional representation in the Congress they follow through on my “women vote only for a woman” strategy and vote the woman write-in candidate into the Senate. Again, women as a class have total control of the country, by sheer virtue of population numbers. What is so difficult to understand about the fact THERE ARE MORE WOMEN THAN THERE ARE MEN????
This comment was written by steve duncan.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 1:42 pm
Steve, a little over an hour and a half passed by between when you asked about “the power of women to control elective office,” and the time when you complained that you were “still waiting for a response” to your point.
(Actually, Carla had already answered you by that point, but presumably you cross-posted so hadn’t seen Carla’s response yet when you complained.)
Two things.
One, I’ve answered your question in a new post.
Two, please try being more considerate before you get impatient. An hour and a half is no time at all. Although you don’t seem to have considered this, I have a life; I have a job; I have other things to do that sit around answering your posts within 90 minutes! I don’t owe you answers - and I certainly don’t owe you them in under an hour and a half!
Sheesh.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 1:46 pm
Steve, if all we are only a bunch of women, whining on a blog, then, um, what are you doing here?
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 1:46 pm
Steve, the tone of your response to Carla was rude, condesending, and generally uncivil. If you can be polite about it, you’re welcome to stay on my blog posting all the comments you want. If you won’t choose to be polite, then I’ll have to ask you to not post on my website. Your choice.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 1:47 pm
Ampersand, I assume you have many readers. I enjoy your blog immensley. My plea wasn’t specifically directed at you. I didn’t even have you in mind. Don’t personalize this, a tendency I’ve noticed in the past you’re prone to do. Also, I’ve addressed the “not on the ballet/can’t get on the ballot” issue above. The write-in candidacy, while far more problematic, is still viable if women organize and vote as a class. And screw 50/50 representation, go for 100%. Think big!!!
This comment was written by steve duncan.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 1:49 pm
oops, IMMENSELY–I can spell ;-)
This comment was written by steve duncan.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 2:26 pm
Naughty Steve Duncan! I hope you feel told off!
This comment was written by Oerad Schaeffer.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
I think you need one more Amp
#44 As a man, when I argue about any of the above items and a women points out that said argument in and of itself is a form of privilege, I can make a witty remark or use a condesending tone to dismiss her instead of listening to her point.
BTW, I’ll be putting this up at Empower if you don’t mind :D
This comment was written by Morrigan25.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 4:40 pm
It is a little startling how he smacked down Carla and then kissed your ass. But I’m trying to give the benefit of the doubt, here.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 8:52 pm
and that relatively value-neutral choices are available to women
“Relative” to what? Men’s clothing choices?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 9:28 pm
That’s an excellent list. I’d like to add one more item, though, that I think is very important: I will not be told that I have to make myself appear less capable in order to attract a partner.
When I was in high school, and even at the beginning of undergrad, I was told often by my mother and other womyn in my life that the reason I didn’t have a boyfriend was that I was “scaring boys off.” If I wanted to be in a relationship, I needed to stop acting so smart, stop being opionated, etc. I was often strongly encouraged to play to my weaknesses. (I suck at sports.) What was so very surprising about that to me is that I came from a fairly progressive family.
I’ve talked to my friends about this, and they have had similar experiences, whereas my male friends have never been told that they needed to act less capable in order to attract a woman. And the fact is that while this might be changing, it’s still often thought that a “smart” woman isn’t as sexually appealling, or that physical and intellectual attractiveness are somehow incongrous in a woman, even more so than in society in general.
This comment was written by acallidryas.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2004 at 10:03 pm
The article was very accurate, I think. I was thinking of “Traditionally, media outlets geared towards my demographic don’t try to sabotage our self esteem” could be an addition. Granted, the tides are shifting slightly on this issue with the “metrosexual” trend. The magazines geared to women, especially, are heinously laced with a demeanor of pop-feminism. In one issue we can be told that we need to lose weight, painfully remove almost all body hair, get new clothing, alter our personality for a man, and learn how to really please him. And women pay for this.
This comment was written by L.B..Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 3:39 am
Acalli, that’s an interesting point and I would take it a step further and say that not only are men not expected to “play dumb” in order to increase their attractiveness, but are expected to highlight personal and professional accomplishments to potential partners, since accomplishment makes a man more, not less attractive.
This comment was written by Amanda.I do see that changing in some arenas, but only by willful action. A number of men you’ll meet are making a conscious effort to pay attention to, be proud of, and brag on the accomplishments of women in their lives.
Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 6:04 am
I’d like to back up Amanda and acallidryas… as a woman in the field of software design (not Q&A, not marketing of software, not push-button programming, but actual hard-core programming of software and firmware), I’ve run into this one many times.
I am hopefully going to be giving a talk to a Women in Technology group at the end of the month, and it’s sort of depressing… what is the core of my advice to these young ladies going to be? “Grow a thick skin, you’re going to need it.”
Every step I take, I am behind the 8 ball (it seems, sometimes). If there is a 70 hour week to be worked (and there are many), I am a bad mother for not being there more often for my little girl. If I refuse to work the unpaid overtime, I’m a bad team player.
If I were male, putting in the overtime would be “the right thing to do”, especially if I had a supportive spouse (or no spouse at all, a lot of programmers are young, male and single). But as a woman (well, more as a mother), no matter which way I play it, I loose.
Even my progressive, supportive and awsome small company, who values me and would hate to see me go, told me last year “Don’t get pregnant again. There’s too much work to do.”
This comment was written by wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 6:17 am
Oops, I got a little side-tracked from my original message.
1) An intelligent woman is threatening. I have had many, MANY clients who, on their first meeting are red-faced and occasionally spitting mad that “the company sent a WOMAN” on site for the job. I usually manage to win them over after a few hours (all but the most obtuse and least intelligent) but that is business.
In the personal world, I have long learned just to shut my mouth. Talk about sports, ask why the NHL is going on strike, or ask a history buff to talk about who Stalin was and what McCarthyism was… it works on women too. Getting people to talk about themselves and their opinions etc. makes them feel great, no one wants to hear about you ;-)
2) It goes both ways. An intelligent woman is threatening to men in most settings, she is also offensive to “other women” (I somehow don’t think it’s just my neighbourhood), especially in the parenthood jungle.
Admitting that you are smart or have reasoned opinions is a big no-no socially. I’m going to spend the next 12-15 years of my kids lives warming benches at soccer, hockey etc. and reading a dippy magazine to avoid socially isolating my kids… who would let their little girl play with mine, who thinks boys and girls should be allowed to play hockey together, and that professional gymnastics is a disgusting, mysoginistic and cruel excuse for a sport?
This comment was written by wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 6:39 am
Thanks for the support, folks. Steve, I take it that your answer was sarcasm rather than a genuine suggestion, so I’ll take the followup post by Amp about how people get on ballots as an adequate response.
re: to what ” relatively value-neutral choices” are relative: That was a poorly phrased way of saying that not all clothing choices for women are completely fraught–we don’t only have to choose between, say, shapeless clothing and streetwalker (not that there’s inherently anything wrong with either of those choices, for that matter). I think there are female equivalents to men’s cotton twill slacks and a button-down shirt or polo shirt. Don’t misunderstand–I generally hate the choices available for women, and, in part because of my build, I often buy men’s shirts (I’d buy men’s dresses, too, if there were such a thing . . . :-)). I’m just quibbling, a little, probably because I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about clothing.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 7:20 am
carla, sarcasm? If you’re referring to my follow up suggestion of running a woman as a write-in candidate, what about participating in democracy is sarcastic? It only goes to show how far women are willing to succumb to feelings of powerlessness that such a suggestion is labeled sarcasm. As to the near impossibility of getting on a ballot absent membership in a “major” political party, Bernie Sanders of Vermont would beg to differ. The entire tenor of this little list Amp has posted infers women as a class suffer from all the inequities, inconvieniences and injustices listed. Suggesting that women as a class take charge and vote in women willing to affect change is met with derision, skepticism and pessimism as to the means to do it and the possibility for success if tried. Go ahead girls, have a good cry about the evils of testosterone. If I were in your shoes I might choose to run and vote in people wanting to change it all.
This comment was written by steve duncan.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 7:25 am
Dear Steve,
If you were in our shoes, you wouldn’t be able to run.
Love,
This comment was written by funnie.funnie
Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 7:29 am
Holy shit, that was you?? I’m doing research into language attitudes and found this article somewhere on the web a year or so back. Together with McIntosh’s original, and someone else’s “Heterosexual Privilege” checklist, I’ve found it useful in developing my ideas on linguistic privilege in minority language contexts.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 7:34 am
I’ve always enjoyed that checklist, Barry. I remember it from our Usenet days. Glad you posted it here again. Good job.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 7:35 am
Amanda: “A big one that I notice constantly is that men can expect not to be interrupted or challenged by the opposite sex, though they are usually free to interrupt or challenge women. If they are interrupted or challenged by a woman, they can expect to have plenty of people rush to their defense.”
You only have to look to the blogosphere to see that in action. ;)
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 7:44 am
“Hmmmm, my male privilege is being threatened? Good! I hope women manage to take it away altogether. I didn’t ask for it, don’t want it, and will be glad to be rid of it.”
Steve, are you saying that you don’t feel a need to work on taking away your own male privilege, that you prefer to wait for a woman to do it for you? If men continue to take advantage of male privilege that it’s women’s fault for not doing something to stop it? ;)
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 8:03 am
Question: Knowing about these advantages, what are we meant to do about it, other than feeling bad (as I do, as a man)?
Pointing out these advantages is likely to provoke defensiveness and defensive responses, as shown by Steve’s posts above. I think, in part, this is because men feel attacked by such lists, even if they are people of good conscience, since they don’t know what they are expected to do about it. Something that makes you feel bad and offers no solution can often feel like an attack.
So, what do we, as men and women of good conscience, to do about this? I think presenting some ideas about how to rectify the situation along with the list could make it seem less like an attack to many men. Assuming that somehow rectifying the situation is the point of the list.
I could, as always, be wrong. Just my opinion.
This comment was written by mooglar.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 8:15 am
#4whatever: I can expect those who challenge my privilege to feel obliged to phrase it in a way that puts my easy-to-hurt feelings above their own right to challenge male privilege.
Sorry, mooglar. As a practical advantage, feminists do try to make sure not to make men feel personally attacked, but it’s pretty much impossible when some men are going to feel attacked by anything that threatens their privilege, no matter how nicely it’s put.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 8:26 am
Okay, Steve, since it wasn’t sarcasm, let’s take it seriously. First of all, male privilege notwithstanding, I don’t believe in voting for someone because of the genitalia they happen to possess; plenty of women (e.g., those standing outside of Planned Parenthood clinics) would disagree pretty strongly with any candidate I’d support, no matter the genitalia. Or, another way to look at it, just because someone has the same genitalia as I do does not mean they would propose or support the same policies I support–that is, even if i could become that write-in candidate, for example, there is no reason to believe that all women would support me–and, in fact, there is no reason to believe that all women would support any given woman–nor should they. Suppose a woman espousing Alan Keyes’ views were the write-in candidate–would I be better off voting for her, simply because of her genitalia, than I would be voting for Obama? If you think so–and the logic of your argument, such as it is, suggests that you do–then it’s not clear what you could possibly mean by “better off.” This may be news to you, Steve, but women are not all the same, and proposing solutions that can only be accomplished if women were all the same is not particularly helpful or serious. Women also have “class”-type interests other than those dictated by their genitalia. We could certainly argue that sex affects any notion of class, and vice versa, but to suggest that the class of sex is the only one that is relevant is ridiculous. you also make it clear, by the tone of your posts, that you don’t have the foggiest clue what being in any woman’s shoes could possibly mean. I’m sorry that you can’t see these points, but it’s often the case that the people who would benefit most by such understanding remain immune to it.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 8:30 am
acalli and wookie, hear hear about the #44 boys don’t make passes at girls who get As. I was feminine-looking and casual (but modest) dressing in professional school, but not deferential in manner, and as soon as class rankings were released, I was labelled as the class lesbian by some of the frat boy gentleman B+ legacy types that wouldn’t have gotten any female classmate’s interest (though the frat boys undoubtedly snared some gold-digging nursing students).
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 8:36 am
Mooglar, first, I don’t require that you feel bad; it’s my opinion that guilt isn’t a particularly useful response to most things, particularly in situations like the one you describe. Some things you can do:
When you are in conversation with someone, or some group, pay attention to the flow. Make sure that you don’t interrupt women–or, at least, don’t interrupt them any more than you interrupt men, though not interrupting anyone is probably a good idea. Try to adopt methods that are inclusive–go around the room, solicit everyone’s opinion, in ways that give people time to think. Examine your own assumptions about how people do/should talk, think, act, and find the places where you have a double standard. If you have kids or spend time with kids, encourage them to do the things they find fun, and help them discover new fun things; if you have particular interests, share them with kids who are interested. Recognize that kids (and adults) go about learning in different ways, and some of those differences are shaped by gender expectations. if you’re feeling really ambitious or powerful, do what you can to make your workplace equitable–do men feel free to take time off to raise their kids? do women get paid the same as men in the same positions? are women as likely as men to get promoted? and challenge your notions of what “competent” means: can it only mean Glengarry Glen Ross competence, or are there other kinds of competence? facilitation, for example, often works best when it’s invisible, but that means good facilitators don’t get credit for their work.
none of this may be helpful to you, but I hope some of it is.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 8:38 am
Mooglar, you can also go to any bookstore, find some books, and start reading. Call your local college and ask about a syllabus from a women’s studies course (or take the course) that can give you some historical perspective.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 8:55 am
The point of the list is to open eyes to generally invisible assumptions. Men who complain that they feel blamed because they don’t get explicit instructions, well, use your imagination and your brain. Asking women what is needed in general terms is respectful and helpful. So is using your God-given brain instead of expecting to be given detailed instructions before acting at all. A woman might want her mate to cook dinner once in a while. She shouldn’t have to answer multiple questions about I need a detailed meal plan, how do you cook this, where’s that, did you buy X, every blasted time he makes a meal, year after year after year. She shouldn’t have to teach him how to sort laundry year after year. Inability to do simple chores without constant checking in is either a form of passive-aggressive resistance to being asked to lift a finger, or a sign of infantilism or clinical major depression or onset of dementia.
eg, #35, 36 on religion. Don’t denounce recent more accurate non-gendered translations of the Bible (eg NRSV) in favor of the Word of God (KJV) dictated by God “himself” in Jacobean English.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 9:00 am
You mean “implies.” The speaker implies; the listener infers.
(Sorry if that seemed pointless, but I couldn’t resist the Cerebus reference.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 9:12 am
Mooglar: your feeling bad doesn’t help my situation at all, so it’s really not part of my agenda in pointing out your privilege.
The reason these things are done are simply because privilege tends to be invisible–at least some aspects of it. For example, on the original white privilege checklist by McIntosh, she mentioned things such as ” I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race,” and “I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.” I think that very few white people are unaware that racism exists, but they don’t think of it existing in those types of contexts. Even though they know they have privilege, they are really not aware of the wide variety of situations they have it in. So, given that such privilege is invisible, if people don’t point it out to you, how will you ever learn that it exists?
What to do is, I’m sorry to say, up to you. I’m not a man, I don’t have the same amount of power as you do in this society, so expecting me to come up with the solution to a problem that was created by and mostly perpetuated by men is sort of unfair. However, like previous posters, I’d suggest that you do some reading first. Also, you might monitor yourself a bit more and when you catch yourself out making sexist judgements–for example, making a comment that implies your female co-workers are obliged to be attractive for you–stop yourself. You could also call out other men on their sexist attitudes when you hear/see them being that way.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
Amanda wrote:
This comment was written by mooglar.>>some men are going to feel attacked by anything that threatens their privilege, no matter how nicely it’s put.>What to do is, I’m sorry to say, up to you. I’m not a man, I don’t have the same amount of power as you do in this society, so expecting me to come up with the solution to a problem that was created by and mostly perpetuated by men is sort of unfair.
Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 12:53 pm
Mooglar, remember that the personal is political . . . so, yes, in my opinion, changing assumptions about who does the housework by actually DOING the housework is a radical act. I lived alone for a very long time precisely because I had no desire to take care of (read: clean up after) someone else. Does it address many of the things on the checklist? Probably not, but, hey, you gotta start somewhere, and doing and teaching (by example, if by no other way) that things can be different things become different. I realize that’s a little more starry-eyed-sounding than I am in reality, but I think the everyday stuff matters, a lot, because it shapes our everyday thought patterns, experiences, assumptions, etc.–and that, in fact, is what the checklist is about.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 12:55 pm
also, though, don’t conflate power and privilege; one can be relatively powerless and still benefit from privilege, in the sense of the assumptions on the checklist.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 1:07 pm
Wow. As a woman and a feminist, I find myself much more sympathetic to Steve than I do to the original list. I don’t even know where to start. Job-wise, I think in many situations a female candidate has a better chance. I don’t think women put their entire gender on trial when they speak, express aggression, or get behind the wheel. Men also have major issues with rearing children, and men are judged for not having children. I have friends whose newborns cry when the father picks them up, because they are so bonded to the mother. You think that’s easy for men? Men deal with much higher expectations with regards to career. I think men are much more aware of violence than women. We may have to deal with harrassment, but most of us have never felt that we might get forced into a fistfight at a bar. Men are much more frequently the victims of violent crimes than women.
Now, I would like to see many things change. But sometimes life is just difficult, and sometimes it’s unfair, and it’s not always society’s fault.
This comment was written by M.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 1:21 pm
m:
Job-wise, the empirical evidence is pretty clear that women do not, in fact, have an advatage in the job market compared to men (but men do have an advantage compared to women). There are a few jobs which favor women over men - they tend to be low-paying, low-status jobs.
If it’s not your experience that when a women gets into a minor car accident or cuts someone off or something, there are many (although not all) people who will complain about “women drivers,” then you’ve been luckier than me.
As I said in the introduction to the list - which you either didn’t read or didn’t pay attention to - nothing in the list says that men have it easy or nothing bad ever happens to men. If you think that’s what I’ve said, then I really think you didn’t read what I said very carefully.
However, I disagree that men are more frequently the victimcs of violent crime than women (outside of prison). The statistics that show that severely undercount intimate violence and rape.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 1:32 pm
A fine list. (And sorry to come into the discussion late but, damn!, Amp just posted it yesterday!)
Catherine MacKinnon remarked on how our dominant social norm is so prevalent and unchallenged that its force is exercised as consent, its authority as participation, its supremacy as the paradigm of order, its control as the definition of legitimacy. I appreciate learning how different my (male) experiences are to other people’s experiences, especially in the unstated ways.
This post complements another post regarding the prevalence of rape, in which Amp discusses the social pressures imposed on men to achieve a “masculine” image, how fragile this image is and how much effort men put into maintaining it. These posts illustrate how gender roles constrain both women and men to the detriment of both (and, ok, especially to the detriment of women).
That said, let me quibble with a few entries:
Consider #2: A man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. This seems true of men working in traditionally male jobs, in contrast to women in those same jobs. But what of men and women in traditionally female jobs? When a female nurse is hired or promoted, does everyone whisper, “Well, she only got the job ‘cuz she’s a woman….” And when a male nurse is promoted to supervisor, you don’t think people question whether he got the promotion based on his qualifications rather than his gender? In short, does Statement #2 reflect an unstated assumption about which jobs are real jobs?
# 6. If a man does the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think the man did a better job. Really? If dad cooks dinner for his kids, everyone will assume his cooking is better than mom’s cooking? When two kids get hurt during the field trip, and a mom comforts one kid while a dad comforts the other, all the observers think to themselves, “Too bad there isn’t a dad here to comfort that first kid?” Again, does #6 reflect an unstated assumption about what which tasks are real tasks?
# 17. Kid’s media features non-stereotyped male heroes. Really? Effeminate male heros? Gay male heros? Don’t get me wrong; female heros stretch the range from A to B, but the range of male heros in kid’s lit. didn’t quite get all the way to Z during my childhood. (My “Sleeping Beauty” video includes a segment on “the making of Sleeping Beauty,” in which one of the illustrators stated that, unlike prior Disney movies, they were trying to give all the characters a “less realistic, more stylized” look. I understood what he meant, but I had to laugh just the same.)
#30. Men can seek legal protections without being seen as representing a selfish special interest, because harm to the interests of men is understood as harm to society at large. Really? So when men complain that judges are biased against them in awarding child custody, people don’t regard them as a bunch of whiners seeking to promote their own interests against the good of society?
#37. Women in couples do most household chores, including “the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.” I’m not so sure about this one, either, although my objection is no credit to men. The guys I know arrange to do the household chores that ARE the most repetitive, and leave to their wives the task of taking initiative. So we guys put away groceries, do laundry, load and unload dishwashers, vacuum, etc. (as well as yard and car stuff) - you know, stuff that’s not very time-sensitive that you can do while listening to the game on the radio. Our wives do the stuff that requires attention and responsibility: plan menus, shop, cook, schedule Dr. appointments, meet with teachers, buy presents, schedule kid activities and vacations, addressing the kid’s emotional needs of whatever description, etc.
So when get distracted from my household chores, I end up shrinking my wife’s pants. Not good. But when she gets distracted from her household chores, Junior doesn’t take his medication and ends up in the hospital. REALLY not good. I’m much happier doing the routine stuff, believe me.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 2:09 pm
Mooglar:
I think that simply being aware of the list is actually a big step in the right direction. And I think that that goes towards women as well as men. These are societal problems, not ones that lay solely with male perceptions.
The problem with so many of these socialized sexist structures is that there is no real legal action that can be taken to combat them. It’s been my experience that most people don’t actually want to be patriarchal or sexist, or thought of as such, anyway. The way to attack these privileges is to make people aware of them.
This comment was written by acallidryas.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 2:20 pm
Yes, #6 is absolutely accurate and so invisible that it is hard to see. True, there are instances where male privilege asserts itself by the assumption that men just *can’t* do filthy, thankless tasks like feeding children or laundry. But that’s usually when said tasks are pretty much thankless.
This comment was written by Amanda.Cooking a great example, though, because if you expand beyond making macaroni and cheese, there is a history of women’s contributions being systematically devalued. The great home-type recipes of the world that women have developed feeding families are “comfort food”. Slap men behind the stove and you get “cuisine”. Part of this, of course, is men have traditionally only cooked professionally and women at home, but that alone creates the belief that men’s cooking is better enough that it deserves to be paid for.
Recently, I threw a big party at my house, which I made a lot of food for. It was repeatedly suggested to me that I lean on a specific friend for help, because he’s a great cook. He is; I won’t deny it. But I was great on my own. Would anyone have suggested I help him cater his own party? I doubt it–though I do help him all the time, without credit. I don’t want it. All I do is chop and mix. But if he helped me make my recipes, he would definitely get praised. Invisible privilege in action.
Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 3:30 pm
On the role of guilt -
I think it is not completely a bad thing!! If I *don’t* feel guilty after reading a white privilege checklist, that’s a problem. Am I really without guilt??
If I let my feelings of guilt for the unearned privileges I’ve enjoyed and the racism that I perpetuate (not purposefully!) turn into anger at the people who are suffering, well that’s a huge problem. And not one that somebody else can solve for me with ingratiating disclaimers.
Can you imagine if women dealt with guilt in this way!?! Think of the millions of really great moms who feel guilty because they don’t measure up to some yardstick of motherhood, and that might be every single mom, Do they start to take it out on kids??
This comment was written by Tara.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 5:42 pm
I have friends whose newborns cry when the father picks them up, because they are so bonded to the mother
Um, and how did those newborns get so bonded, exactly?
Don’t tell me “breastfeeding.” Newborns breastfeed a lot, but it’s not 24/7. There’s nothing preventing a new daddy from rocking, cuddling, changing and soothing a newborn.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 5:52 pm
I have friends whose newborns cry when the father picks them up, because they are so bonded to the mother
This comment was written by lucia.Hmmm….seems to me I rarely had problems when I baby sat babies. They must bond quick!
Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 6:05 pm
Knowing about these advantages, what are we meant to do about it, other than feeling bad (as I do, as a man)?
Good question. What do you, as a man, think would be a useful approach to end this kind of privilege?
I’m serious. There’s nothing about being male that affects your problem-solving ability. Why should women have to come up with all the solutions? Expecting women to be the managers and solution-providers is, after all, another problem of privilege.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2004 at 9:00 pm
Amanda said: “True, there are instances where male privilege asserts itself by the assumption that men just *can’t* do filthy, thankless tasks like feeding children or laundry.” I’ve already talked about this with my daughter. She reported that a friend of hers was fond of pointing out that we wouldn’t have civilization if it wasn’t for women keeping men fed and clothed (’cause men are too stupid to do that for themselves, y’know). I said that men are perfectly capable of learning the skills needed to take care of themselves and it’s just giving them an excuse to be lazy when you say they aren’t.
re: Men’s cooking. My husband is a stay at home dad, so he does most of the cooking. I occasionally take his homemade cookies into work, and I’ve had to explain just about every time that, no, my husband baked them. I’ve noticed this usually gets an incredulous response from my co-workers, especially the younger ones. It’s like I said my cat baked them — they’re amazed that the cookies are edible, much less tasty. Some folks also seem surprised that our daughter is in good mental and physical health — why, a man can’t be a good as a mom, can he?
But I think that’s straying away from male privilege. (Sorry. I’ve been at work for 14 hours and I’m trying to maintain consciousness while a database process runs. I should probably be off reading comics.)
This comment was written by Ab_Normal.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 1:27 am
What I Want To Know…
This comment was written by Pacific Views.The Carlyle Group takes over U.S. nuclear program, sets sights on the weaponization of space. This steams my clams on so many levels, I don’t even know where to begin. Digby says stop the handwringing over the Kerry campaign. We…
Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 2:06 am
“I would like to point out that men, as a group, have more power in this society than women, as a group, but that doesn’t mean that every individual man has more power than every individual woman, or that I have more power than you. For instance, Condoleeza Rice and Sandra Day O’Connor have more power than I do. So, some women have more power than some men, even in our lopsided society.”
I have to disagree. The women you named have only the power that men are willing to grant them, and that power can be stripped from them at any given moment in a way that would not be true for men in their position.
Also, if you are a white man and you met them on a social level, would they really have more power than you? I don’t think so, unless it was some official function, where, again, they would have to rely on the support of other men. If it were an unofficial situation and they were without male protection, you would definitely have the upper hand. You would be free to insult them and most people overhearing would likely support you in that. Hell, most people would probably cheer you on for taking those uppity bitches down a notch or two.
Even in their official capacity, they have to be very careful in making any decisions that might upset the status quo, and therefore, get men riled up. To my mind, that’s not really power.
“#30. Men can seek legal protections without being seen as representing a selfish special interest, because harm to the interests of men is understood as harm to society at large. Really? So when men complain that judges are biased against them in awarding child custody, people don’t regard them as a bunch of whiners seeking to promote their own interests against the good of society?”
Oh come on. Anyone who’s been paying attention to these guys knows that for most of them, children are the least of their concerns. For the most part, they’re interested in punishing women. How often do they even mention their children, or discuss practical issues of child rearing, or indeed anything other than how poor men are being shafted by the Feminazis who now (apparently) run the world? Give me a break.
“#2: A man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. This seems true of men working in traditionally male jobs, in contrast to women in those same jobs. But what of men and women in traditionally female jobs? When a female nurse is hired or promoted, does everyone whisper, “Well, she only got the job ‘cuz she’s a woman….” And when a male nurse is promoted to supervisor, you don’t think people question whether he got the promotion based on his qualifications rather than his gender?”
Oh boo hoo. Considering that traditionally female-dominated jobs are low-status and low-paying, how much of an issue is that, really? And yes, it is different, but there are a whole load of other sexist/misogynist assumptions that go with those professions, so trying to make out that men are somehow being mistreated here is silly.
“# 6. If a man does the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think the man did a better job. Really? If dad cooks dinner for his kids, everyone will assume his cooking is better than mom’s cooking?”
Home cooking is not seen as a “job” but rather a relatively unimportant, unskilled task that women are “naturally” programmed to perform, and therefore not worthy of the same analysis given to “important” skills. Also, FYI, the common response made when women point out that they do most cooking is, “Yeah, well all the great chefs are men.”
“#37. Women in couples do most household chores, including “the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.” I’m not so sure about this one, either,”
Well, there have been studies upon studies upon studies done over several decades in many different countries that attest to this, so IMO the weight of all available evidence says that it’s true.
“# 17. Kid’s media features non-stereotyped male heroes. Really?”
Actually, this one I agree with you on. There are a wider range of male characters (including a tendency to use male as default for characters who don’t necessarily have to have gender–like talking trees in a cartoon) than for female characters, but that range is still ridiculously narrow. However, as little girls still have it much, much worse than little boys, I know where most of my concern goes.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 6:05 am
Mooglar, I quoted from an article about male privilege from XY Online on my blog. The article was written by a man. It included things already mentioned like being aware of interrupting in meetings and stopping yourself. It’s a good place to start if you’re looking for how to stop male privilege once you’re aware of it.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 6:14 am
M, while fathers sometimes experience their babies cry when they pick them up, attachment theory holds that secondary attachments (like that to a father) are very important. Yes, a child’s primary attachment is most often to the mother. That’s because she takes on the primary caregiving role much more often than do fathers, regardless of her employment status. However, fathers are important, too. Bowlby is a good source for information about attachment theory. He has his critics but his theories are quite sound.
Regarding violence, it’s true that men are more frequently the victims of violent crimes than women. Most men are victimized by other men. However, women, not men, are most often victims of intimate violence, and that violence is most often committed by men. That’s a difference that is important to point out.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 6:26 am
“#30. Men can seek legal protections without being seen as representing a selfish special interest, because harm to the interests of men is understood as harm to society at large. Really? So when men complain that judges are biased against them in awarding child custody, people don’t regard them as a bunch of whiners seeking to promote their own interests against the good of society?”
“Oh come on. Anyone who’s been paying attention to these guys knows that for most of them, children are the least of their concerns. For the most part, they’re interested in punishing women. How often do they even mention their children, or discuss practical issues of child rearing, or indeed anything other than how poor men are being shafted by the Feminazis who now (apparently) run the world? Give me a break.”
***Raising hand*** Me, me, me. I know those guys well. ;-D By the way, since most parents settle out of court and decide on their own that mom should have custody, the fathers’ rights battle cry that courts are biased against men is false. Actually, when men make an issue of custody in court, they get some form of it (most often joint legal custody) more than half the time.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 6:59 am
One of the risks we’re now running in this thread, I think, is moving from a general list that provides useful fodder for thinking about our own lives to other kinds of generalizations that sound more like attacks on all people of a particular sex. I’m sitting here thinking of a bunch of counterexamples to many of the things people are saying–specific people’s specific lives; people who have changed or challenged some of these assumptions, even as they and we recognize that we need to keep fighting the good fight. We–and I include men and women in this–don’t win any arguments, or change any thinking, or change any social structures unless we recognize when something is working, when we realize that we have made progress. We have to know progress when we see it.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 7:27 am
“One of the risks we’re now running in this thread, I think, is moving from a general list that provides useful fodder for thinking about our own lives to other kinds of generalizations that sound more like attacks on all people of a particular sex…We–and I include men and women in this–don’t win any arguments, or change any thinking, or change any social structures unless we recognize when something is working, when we realize that we have made progress. We have to know progress when we see it.”
Well, no permanent, meaningful change is going to take place until a) men recognise they have privilege and b) men accept they have privilege. This is not a problem about women, and it’s not something women are in the position to do much about, other than pointing out that it exists. And I don’t accept that pointing out privilege is tantamount to “attacking” men–though of course we’re not short of men who will claim that it is.
I think it’s also important to recognise that although, yes, small positive changes are being made in some small areas, a lot of that change is cosmetic, and is limited to certain parts of the world, or even certain segments of certain social classes. They are hardly wide-sweeping and all-inclusive.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 7:48 am
“#2: A man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. This seems true of men working in traditionally male jobs, in contrast to women in those same jobs. But what of men and women in traditionally female jobs? When a female nurse is hired or promoted, does everyone whisper, “Well, she only got the job ‘cuz she’s a woman….” And when a male nurse is promoted to supervisor, you don’t think people question whether he got the promotion based on his qualifications rather than his gender?”
Can you define “traditionally female jobs” for those of us reading along? Do you mean those jobs that women have “traditionally” held for only the last 60-odd years?
The jobs that women have “traditionally” held were once men’s jobs, traditionally. Women got those jobs b/c of the disposable status that their gender affords them. That and child labor was outlawed.
The truly traditional jobs that women have held (midwifery comes to mind) are generally illegal in this day and age.
This comment was written by S. Ellett.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 8:06 am
carla said:
This comment was written by mooglar.>>also, though, don’t conflate power and privilege>Why should women have to come up with all the solutions? Expecting women to be the managers and solution-providers is, after all, another problem of privilege. >The women you named have only the power that men are willing to grant them>a) men recognise they have privilege and b) men accept they have privilege. This is not a problem about women, and it’s not something women are in the position to do much about, other than pointing out that it exists.
Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 8:46 am
When I was a kid, I knew that I didn’t want my mother’s life (even though she was quite happy with it, my parents have a great marriage, etc. etc.)–but I really didn’t know how to formulate an alternative. I grew up in a small, working-class town, and there weren’t any lawyers, doctors, dentists, etc. who were women. I knew, on some level (especially once I discovered Ms. magazine at the library), that women COULD do those things, but I’ve had to invent the “how” for myself, as have many women of my age and class background. My point, then, is that the small bits of progress we’ve made aren’t just a boon for the immediate beneficiaries–they serve as instruction, as object lesson, as living example of the possibility of change. The fact that, despite pretty traditional division of labor in my parents’ house, my dad spent a lot of time with us as kids means that my brother now has a model for spending time with his kids–even though, once again, the division of labor in their household is pretty traditional in many (but not all) ways. Do I think this changes the whole wide world? Of course not. Does my brother, for example, recognize male privilege? Nope; not even a little bit. But I look at the number of men I know who have taken much more active roles in their kids lives, I think about the number of men who count themselves as feminists, etc., and I have to feel that something good is happening–otherwise it’s too depressing. there are many paths to permanent, meaningful change, and male recognition of privilege is only one of the paths. (That is, if you want my brother to agree to the checklist, well, good luck to you; if you want him to incorporate changes that could, but wouldn’t necessarily, come from agreeing to the checklist, you’ll do much better.) I would love (and I advocate and work toward) meaningful structural change, but I also recognize there are other levels that have to operate.
This comment was written by carla.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 8:57 am
“This is pretty scary thinking. By this theory, women are utterly powerless to do anything about their own fate and are weak playthings whose freedom from bondage is entirely dependent upon the whim of men. This is actually the sort of thinking that led to patriarchy and male privilege in the first place. I believe that women have the intelligence, courage, and power to alter their own destinies and will someday succeed despite the efforts of men to stop them. But maybe that’s just me.”
I think that (esp for those of us in the US) after 9/11, everyone can agree that terrorism has far reaching effects and implications. I believe that women are intelligent, courageous, and powerful. I also know that we live in a rape culture. Your convenient absence of this fact in your “reasoning” is telling, and in fact is the true “blame the victim” scenario.
I do not believe that women are “utterly powerless” to affect change; I do however, understand quite perfectly, that men are more than willing to use violence to keep women from enforcing their power. It is naive to subtract men’s violence against women from women’s political desires and attempts at social change. Just last night I watched an episode of CSI where one female character was raped twice and then murdered — AND THAT WAS ENTERTAINMENT! So if our notions of entertainment rest on the violation of women, what does this imply for our (women’s) more serious efforts at politics? *This* is what Crys T means by men (not women) recognizing their privilege.
“Scary thinking” is not women saying that they are incapable of forcing men to recognize their privilege. “Scary thinking” is using the rape and murder of women to entertain a society. Nice try at a reversal though!
This comment was written by S. Ellett.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 9:37 am
I’m sorry for being unclear. I agree with you: I don’t think women can force men to recognize privilege. I guess should have included more of Crys T’s statement:
>>Well, no permanent, meaningful change is going to take place until a) men recognise they have privilege and b) men accept they have privilege.
This comment was written by mooglar.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 9:49 am
“For instance, S. Ellett, you can take some small measure of power into your own hands: don’t watch shows that glorify violence against women.”
Better yet! I can ask you to talk to all your male friends about how violence against women shapes and influences women’s decision-making capacities and how it influences men’s ideas of women’s “utility.”
I get what you’re saying. I just think it is skirting the issue of women’s societal/political power. You are assuming that power means the same thing in men’s hands as it does in women’s hands. Level playing field and all that.
This comment was written by S. Ellett.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 10:18 am
>>#30. Men can seek legal protections without being seen as representing a selfish special interest, because harm to the interests of men is understood as harm to society at large. Really? So when men complain that judges are biased against them in awarding child custody, people don’t regard them as a bunch of whiners seeking to promote their own interests against the good of society?
>Oh come on. Anyone who’s been paying attention to these guys knows that for most of them, children are the least of their concerns. For the most part, they’re interested in punishing women. How often do they even mention their children, or discuss practical issues of child rearing, or indeed anything other than how poor men are being shafted by the Feminazis who now (apparently) run the world? Give me a break.
Thank you for the testimonial.
>>”#2: A man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. This seems true of men working in traditionally male jobs, in contrast to women in those same jobs. But what of men and women in traditionally female jobs?
>Oh boo hoo. Considering that traditionally female-dominated jobs are low-status and low-paying, how much of an issue is that, really? And yes, it is different, but there are a whole load of other sexist/misogynist assumptions that go with those professions, so trying to make out that men are somehow being mistreated here is silly.
Quite right. After all, for men to complain is to demonstrate weakness. It’s worse than silly. It’s downright UNMASCULINE! Ridicule is certainly in order. It’s reassuring to see that gender roles are being thoroughly maintained on this site….
….ok, let me try to be a little constructive here….
Amp stated that a man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. I note how that’s not entirely accurate. And, I’m pleased to receive acknowledgment that the circumstance for men in traditionally female jobs is different. Thank you.
In our effort to disclose unstated privilege that arises through traditional gender roles, however, I hope we can avoid reinforcing those gender roles. In particular, I ask that we not marginalize men in non-traditional circumstances.
[For the uninitiated, “marginalization” is a traditional rhetorical technique used against minority groups over the years: Establish a category (say, couples), characterize an archetype (married, middle-class, middle-aged, able-bodied, educated, employed white heterosexual Protestant couples), acknowledge that not all elements of the category conform to the archetype, but then dismiss those non-conforming elements as of marginal concern, and design policies to address the needs of the archetype. “Deconstruction” involves disclosing the unstated archetypical assumptions and the non-conforming elements of the category.
Commentors such as Katherine MacKinnon and Robin West argue that contemporary norms were designed for men and note how they fail to reflect women's experiences. Commentors such as Patricia Cain and Angela Harris share this view generally, but argued that the offered accounts of women’s experiences themselves marginalize non-conforming women’s experiences - in particular, the experiences of lesbians and black women, respectively.]
Yes, if a job is archetypically performed by a woman, then by definition a man performing that job will not conform to the archetype. Yes, such men are minorities, just as women in the workplace are minorities. I am not persuaded of the wisdom or fairness of dismissing minority experience generally.
I observe that Amp’s list does not reflect the variety of men’s circumstances, but rather appears to address the circumstances of some archetypical male. I don’t mean to criticize, exactly, because I don’t know if any list of “male privileges” could actually account for the variety of men’s circumstances; perhaps Amp’s list may be as good as it gets.
Yet my observation stands. Whether you choose to attach significance to the concerns of people with non-conforming experiences or to ridicule those concerns, well … that’s your privilege, isn’t it?
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 11:08 am
NR, from what authority do you speak?
;)
Can you address my question: which jobs are “traditionally” women’s? Or as you say, “archetypical”? How do you measure “traditionally” or “archetypically”?
If we see men in what we consider by today’s standards a “woman’s” job, I think we can scrape the thin veneer of history to see that that job is in fact traditionally a man’s job that a woman has struggled to gain. Woman’s labor (note the difference between labor and jobs) has traditionally not been paid or recognized as such. Therefore, there really aren’t any men in traditionally women’s jobs, now are there? By the very definition of male privilege, labor doesn’t become a “job” until a man does it.
This comment was written by S. Ellett.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
>[W]hich jobs are “traditionally” women’s? Or as you say, “archetypical”?
I dunno. Nurses came to mind. Primary school teachers? Secretaries? Realtors? Flight attendants? Lingerie sales staff?
>How do you measure “traditionally” or “archetypically”?
Well, the list of male privilege suggests that a man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. I sensed that men differed from women in this matter largely because there are typically fewer women than men in most job categories. So I flipped this (unstated) assumption and asked about jobs in which the hiring and promotion of a woman would be the norm, and the hiring and promotion of a man would be the exception.
Anyway, I guess my measure is a functional one: By “traditional female jobs” I meant any jobs in which co-workers would regard the hiring and promotion of a woman to be the norm rather than the exception.
>If we see men in what we consider by today’s standards a “woman’s” job, I think we can scrape the thin veneer of history to see that that job is in fact traditionally a man’s job that a woman has struggled to gain. Woman’s labor (note the difference between labor and jobs) has traditionally not been paid or recognized as such. Therefore, there really aren’t any men in traditionally women’s jobs, now are there? By the very definition of male privilege, labor doesn’t become a “job” until a man does it.
A thoughtful observation!
>The truly traditional jobs that women have held (midwifery comes to mind) are generally illegal in this day and age.
For what it’s worth, a midwife friend assures me that midwifery is legal to various extent throughout the US. See http://www.cfmidwifery.org/states/ to check on the status in your state.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
Amp, I’m pretty sure I read everything carefully. It’s just that I don’t agree with it. Is that okay, or is disagreement just another tool of the patriarchy?
Okay, okay, cheap and uproductive shot. It’s just a little frustrating to post something fairly innocuous and receive a barrage of sarcastic and skeptical comments.
Way back when, I would read lists like the one above and agree with them completely. I’d feel angry and hopeless, and I’d usually take it out on my hapless, clueless boyfriend. I think two things changed for me: I see the world as a friendlier place, and I don’t see myself as a victim. All of my beliefs about women and equality are still there, but I recognize now how much baggage we bring to our own “objective” observations.
As for the newborn stuff, I’m not sure what to make of the comments I received. Yes, the newborns I mentioned were breastfed - in fact, I know several new mothers who decided NOT to breastfeed because they saw how strongly it pushed Dad out of the picture. Of course this situation doesn’t last forever, and I totally agree that fathers should bond with their children, etc. I was however trying to point out a different perspective; many new fathers feel sad and lonely after their babies are born. Many mothers say quite explicitly that they love their babies much more than they love their husbands. If mother and baby love each other exclusively, where does that leave Daddy?
I do agree that women have a ways to go in achieving equality, though I think now our attention should be focused more on developing nations. However, all my friends seem to be living and struggling with problems regardless of gender. Both my male and female friends dislike their bosses, work on their fitness, go on dates, fight with their families. At some point, the problem stops being about faceless oppression and becomes improving and accepting our individual paths. Our lives and society will never be perfect. Are men really better off in the vast soup of the world? I’m not sure. They die an average of seven years earlier, and no one knows why. Can you imagine the outrage if that situation were reversed?
This comment was written by M.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 12:08 pm
“This [the opinion that women are mostly powerless to come up with a solution to patriarchy] is actually the sort of thinking that led to patriarchy and male privilege in the first place.”
Okay, WOW. I suspect, given everything else you’ve written, sir, that this is not actually what you meant, but please realize that this sentence implies that it is the fault of women for being expected to do thankless unpaid labor and beung denied even basic human and civil rights is the fault of WOMEN for ALLOWING it.
If someone punches me, it’s assault, whether I begged them to or tried to duck. If someone rapes me, it’s rape, and my lying still doesn’t make it any less so. Giving someone permission, tacit or otherwise, to be an asshole does not diminish in any way their full and total responsiblity for being an asshole.
That said, your first question was, What can we do about this problem?
Firstly, let me address some other members on the comments list: take a chill pill, people. Isn’t men not asking what would be best for women as well as themselves precisely what we’ve been complaining about? You’ve backed this well-intentioned individual into a corner from which he has no escape: if he doesn’t ask what can be done, then women are not being given the power (held by men such as himself) to effect change in their favor the way they want it done; if he does ask, then he’s putting all the responsibility for women’s social and political empowerment on women.
The most important that has to happen for ANY relation between people to improve, ever, is to communicate. Mooglar opened the lines of communication. Please don’t shut them down by berating him for doing just that. I get the distinct impression he was asking for ideas that may not have occurred to him and asking if he could join what is and should be a collaborative effort–”So, what do we, as men and women of good conscience, to do about this?” Efforts are so much more effective and rewarding when one has the cooperation and support, and minds of others bolstering them, and Mooglar should get major points for recognizing this. Others on the list could do as well.
In that spirit, I would suggest the following to Mooglar:
The most powerful changes I’ve seen happen in people happen when they have a friend who challenges their thinking. If I were to ask you to do something, then, it would be to call your male friends on sexist behavior. Don’t let them refer to women as numbers on a 1 to 10 ranking system. Tell them they’re being assholes when they’ll only date women less intelligent than they are. Don’t let them refer to women as inanimate objects, e.g., “look at the ass on that!”. Remind your married or involved friends that their female partners have every bit as much of a right to a career as they themselves do, and that there should be an equal distribution of chores and childcare duties. Political change starts with social change, and social change starts with personal change.
If you’re straight and planning on hooking up on any sort of long-term basis with a woman, take on 50% of all the work it takes to keep two people alive and healthy. Make sacrifices in your career and in your pride so that women can have more of both. If you have children, expect them to treat all people with the same respect and civility. Teach them that “sissy” is not a good word and that there aren’t girl toys or girl colors.
If a woman is being a real asshole, assume that she’s either having a bad day or is just a nasty person, not that it has anything to do with hormones. Don’t let women get away with excusing bad behavior on their hormones. Don’t let men get away with excusing bad behavior on their alleged animal instincts.
Don’t let anybody ever call you a pussy for doing any of this.
And keep asking women what they want, even if your attempt here wasn’t as successful as it perhaps could have been; it’s a sign that you value their opinion and respect their humanity. Don’t expect them to come up with all the solutions, of course; but don’t think that any one person, including yourself, can.
This comment was written by Morphienne.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 12:22 pm
I do want to add something to my post. One of my male friends just told me that his wife (whom I’ve never met) is pregnant. It occurs to me that I didn’t ask him at all about whether he would be taking a paternity leave or really, assume that his life would change in any major way, whereas I would definitely have asked a woman. So while I don’t agree with the list overall, it has made me think twice. :)
This comment was written by M.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 12:22 pm
M, a lot of what you wrote that you seemed to think “disagreed” with me was examples of how men sometimes suffer, too. That’s isn’t disagreement with me, and in my opinion, implies that you didn’t account for the part of my post which said: “More commonly, of course, critics (usually, but not exclusively, male) have pointed out men have disadvantages too ? being drafted into the army, being expected to suppress emotions, and so on. These are indeed bad things ? but I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes. Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that sometimes bad things happen to men.”
I’m sorry if my post would have once made you feel like a victim. That’s certainly not my intent, nor do I think it’s an inevitable response to the list.
As for the rest of my response to you, I don’t think it was sarcastic at all, let alone “a barrage of sarcastic comments.” I just stated why my experiences, or research I’ve read, has led me to disagree with your take on the facts. For instance, you seem to believe that women are advantaged over men in today’s job market; I’ve read a lot of research on the subject, and I think you’re mistaken about that.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 12:24 pm
>[W]hich jobs are “traditionally” women’s? Or as you say, “archetypical”?
I dunno. Nurses came to mind. Primary school teachers? Secretaries? Realtors? Flight attendants? ”
All of those jobs are traditionally men’s jobs. Originally men’s jobs.
Wanna try again?
This comment was written by S. Ellett.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 12:35 pm
Amp, the “barrage” I referred to wasn’t really you, there were a number of comments after yours. And to be honest, yes, I’d say I disagree with a large majority of what you wrote (but we can still be friends!). I’d also say that at some point saying “well, men suffer too, but women have it worse” starts to get blurry. For instance, more men die in work-related accidents. Who cares? Well, I do, because the love of my life died in the WTC. He was a white, insular, wealthy, privileged male, and he had the privilege of dying at 28. Yeah, he’s one individual, but that’s what our lives are made up of, individual people and circumstances. We can look at larger trends and consider whether they have bearing on our lives, but I think it’s a huge mistake to assume that we are shaped more by these amorphous forces than our own choices.
This comment was written by M.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 12:51 pm
M., I agree with you that overwhelmingly male victims of industrial accidents are an example of one of the ways that men are hurt by sexism - and I’ve said so on this blog in the past (although I’ve also pointed out that the scope of this is sometimes exaggerated by men’s rights activists).
I’m very sorry to hear about your love dying in the WTC - that’s a horrible tragedy. As you pint out, being white, wealthy, and male doens’t mean you don’t suffer tragedy. Although this is not as tragic as your loss, a close (male, wealthy, white) relative of mine has been going through unbelievable suffering in the past year due to painful and crippling medical problems. Being privileged is no guarantee against tragedy and suffering.
But I think too much focusing on “individuals” rather than classes can lead to ignoring very real systematic biases that hurt, not just random individual people, but certain classes of people in particular. Yes, anyone - male or female, rich or poor, black or white - can be tragically killed at work. But should we ignore the fact that in our current system, it’s much more likely to be a man who’s killed at work? Likewise, should we ignore the fact that although anyone can be stuck in a lousy no-benefits minimum wage job, in general it’s women and non-whites who actually ARE in those jobs? And if we’re not willing to admit that problems exist, I don’t see how we can even attempt to solve the problems.
And yes, of course we can be friends while disagreeing. :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 1:11 pm
S. Ellett wrote:
This comment was written by mooglar.>>I just think it is skirting the issue of women’s societal/political power. You are assuming that power means the same thing in men’s hands as it does in women’s hands. Level playing field and all that.
Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 2:15 pm
Mooglar–
Yep. It makes sense. I would add, also, that while women are probably not the people who should be held accountable for cleaning up the mess, since they didn’t make it, if absolutely every person, responsible for it or no, who believes the mess is a problem doesn’t get involved in some way, the mess isn’t gonna go anywhere. Nobody ever accomplished anything waiting for those responsible for a problem or those in power to do something about it. It sucks, but, hey, it’s one more log on the fire of constructive rage.
This comment was written by Morphienne.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2004 at 4:01 pm
Thanks for your condolences, Amp. I’m still sorting out where I stand on the individual vs. classes of people thing. I think it depends on what you do with it. For instance, if your husband never helps you clean, it may be helpful to learn that many other couples have the same problem. OTOH, it may be your husband does other things around the house, and you just look for things to be angry about. I’m reading a book about Henry VIII currently, and I’m repeatedly struck by how clear injustices towards women are. Henry was allowed to *execute* his wives on the pretext of adultery, while he openly fathered children with other women. *That’s* oppression. Girls getting less food than boys, not getting the same education, having their genitals mutiliated, THAT’S oppression. Social pressure to be skinny… not so sure.
This comment was written by M.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2004 at 6:38 am
If mother and baby love each other exclusively, where does that leave Daddy?
I guess if I were Daddy, I’d be wondering why my wife thought she had exclusive rights to the baby and treated my relationship to the baby as an afterthought.
I was merely suggesting that when you confront a man who is unaware of his privilege and has never thought about it before, it might be a good idea to provide him with some constructive ideas of how he can take action to help the situation.
Sure. But given that we’re talking about somebody who is just recognizing the whole concept of his privilege, falling right back into the “Here, I’m the woman, let me manage unpleasant details for you” role seems to me to reinforce that privilege, rather than undermine it. “Well, what do YOU think you can do about it?”, in my experience, provokes thoughtfulness and dialogue. Giving a list of changes is just one more honey-do list that gets conveniently put aside.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2004 at 9:38 pm
Regarding the “traditional/archetypal” jobs, pointing out that they were originally done by men may be a side issue: although it’s useful to know this, it doesn’t really answer the question, “what do people think of a man in a ‘woman’s’ job?” since most people looking at a male nurse (for instance) are going to think, “hm, that’s unusual/progressive/weird,” rather than, “hmm, that’s a return to tradition.” The average person’s “tradition” generally just goes back a couple of generations, in my experience.
This comment was written by moon_custafer.(BTW, for what it’s worth, my husband spent 17 years working in children’s daycare.)
Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2004 at 9:41 pm
I can say that as a stay-at-home dad, my husband has gotten worshipful adoration (at worst) from women, and reactions ranging from sympathy (other at-home dads) to outright contempt from other men.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2004 at 8:36 am
Bitches, Pussies, and Girlie Men: Gendered Language as Insult
This comment was written by feministe.Several bloggers have highlighted the use of gendered language language as an insult. Des Femmes has been doing a fine job at speaking plainly. Jeanne of Body and Soul weighs in as well. She says: Every time I read a liberal post which uses language th…
Report this comment to the moderators
September 25th, 2004 at 10:23 pm
As someone who has been a nurse for over 30 years, and is female, I will tell you that statistics show that even in that 96% female profession, women tend to make only about 97% of what men make. And IMHO, men do get promoted more often in the profession because they are men, (especially to administrative posts) than women. Even though we can say “he got the job because he was a man”, it doesn’t lessen the smell of male privilege from my point of view. Also, many of the men in nurse executive posts are there because they are willing/able to work insane schedules like six twelve hour shifts a week, that a married mother would not/could not do. And sorry, women have always been the ones tending the sick, the Knights Templar being an abberation. Women have always done the nasty jobs of cleaning up after sick people, and bathing, dressing, changing sheets, etc. Although I will say when I was a child, I always hoped my Dad was home when I got sick, because my mother was hopeless with sick people.
This comment was written by Eileen.Report this comment to the moderators
October 2nd, 2004 at 10:44 am
By my count, 19 of these privileges consist of the bleatings of passive-voice non-entities. This is privilege?
I took particular note of #11. As a single father raising my kids on my own, I can assure you that you’re not the first to fathom the notion that fathers get too much praise for acting like fathers. I’ve wondered when I start getting all this praise I’m criticized for getting too much of.
Even if I get all this praise, does it follow that it’s privilege? Only if I value it. Do I? Of course not! What kind of parent would I be if I let my actions be determined by the want for praise instead of the best interests of my children?
So you presume my experience and you presume my values to determine my privilege. It’s arrogant and you don’t get extra credit for being wrong.
Even if I’m to assume that the checklist is accurate (1. I don’t. 2. I nonetheless think it was done in good faith. 3. I could add to it.), does it follow that if men have privileges then men are privileged relative to women? Do you really think that half a balance sheet is of greater value than a whole one?
Let’s put it this way. I’m a tax professional and I’ve sat across the desk from thousands of people becoming intimately familiar with a private part of their lives: their personal finances. This I know for sure - that people’s sense of financial well-being is only slightly correlated with how much they make or have. I’ve talked to countless people who make $50K/year who feel like they’re kings or queens and countless people who make $250K/year who feel like they’re barely getting by. Can it be said, then, that a $50K person is privileged? Well, let’s do the $50K privilege checklist:
1. $50K people don’t have to pay so much taxes.
2. $50K people don’t have to work such hideously long hours.
3. $50K people aren’t called capitalist pigs.
This is easy. Care to add to it?
Now, I’m sure you and I can agree to forego the $50K/$250K privilege balance sheet because we already know the result. But can the same be said about the male/female balance sheet when certain time-honored indices of quality of life clearly favor women (longevity, admissions to higher education)? How do you know that feminism isn’t all about $250K people complaining about the privileges of $50K people?
Even if you’re sure of the answer, you’ve put the Male Privilege Checklist out there for people to examine and learn from in good faith. Do you think that people wouldn’t respond in good faith to the complete picture or do you really think that half a balance sheet is of greater value than a whole one?
This comment was written by Pasatiempo.Report this comment to the moderators
October 2nd, 2004 at 11:33 am
Your comment was interesting, Pasatiempo. Too bad you began it with a cludding, belligerant, insulting phrase like “the bleatings of passive-voice non-entities.” Naturally, that made me want to dismiss you rather than take you seriously. (Also, the fact that I’m pretty sure you’re someone I banned for insulting behavior, now writing under a new name, doesn’t lend you credibility in my eyes. But I may be mistaken about that, of course.)
Seriously, why would anyone intelligent open up a conversation with an insult? Do you want to not be listened to? Do you believe that opening with belligerance is a good way to get people to listen to you carefully, and with an open mind? Are you somehow unaware of the message of contempt a phrase like “bleatings of passive-voice non-entities” sends to readers?
“So you presume my experience and you presume my values to determine my privilege.”
No, I didn’t. You seem to be have misunderstood something essential about the list - the list is not about “Pasatiempo’s particular experience.” It’s about how men and women are treated in general. Of course, there are individual exceptions to every rule, especially when talking about very large classes such as women and men. If an individual item doesn’t apply to you, then it doesn’t apply to you - don’t make a big deal of it.
As for the rest, I think you’re right in some ways. I think the list is useful in some very limited environments; it gets used in a lot of college gender study classes when the professor wants to discuss privilege, for example. For people whose mind is open to the idea that male privilege exists, the list can help them conceptualize some of the ways male privilege is expressed in society.
I don’t think it’s useful as a persuasive or debating tool, since - no matter how explicitly and how often I point out that “I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes,” people ignore that and react by listing bad things that happen to men.
For me, I think our society’s sexism harms women and men both (and I’ve said so multiple times on this blog), so I have no interest in defending the position “men have everything easy.” That’s not my position, and never has been.
Perhaps it just shows that I’m too influenced by Marxism, but I do believe that it’s helpful to look at the material basis of society - that is, who has the money and who has the power - when asking where different classes of people stand. From that view, it’s clear that women - taken as a whole - are getting the short end of society’s stick. But that’s not something that can be totalled up on a balance sheet; if it’s important to you to consider men equal or greater victims, nothing I say can change your mind. After all, even before women had the vote or the right to own property, you still could have claimed that men had it worse off because they (on average) died a few years earlier.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
October 4th, 2004 at 10:36 am
In re-reading my post, Amp, I can certainly see that it might come across a bit pissy. My apologies. I’ve read you often on the web and your caliber of civility is rare as web civility goes. I would like to note, however, in my defense, that my phrase “the bleatings of passive-voice non-entities” was not meant as an insult to you; it was solely meant as an expression of my contempt for the passive voice which I regard as a source of much mischief.
By way of introduction, I’m from L.A. Without taking inventory I think I’ve visited about 35 states and without a doubt the runaway winner for most beautiful is Oregon. I’m especially fond of central Oregon where you can go from desert to rainforest and everything in between in about 10 minutes.
I’m so enthralled with the place, Amp, that I’ve pretty much decided to retire there and here’s the thing: there are lots of us. LOTS! LOTS! Are you ready for your Californication, Amp?
I grew up in the South Bay area of L.A. If you’re not familiar with that, my high school was just up the boulevard from Hawthorne High, home of the Beach Boys. I grew up where winter is a 3-week interlude in The Endless Summer, the cosmic surfer’s wave unfurls towards eternity and the best things in life truly are free. My parents were loving, hard-working ‘Bama folk with high school diplomas who made the family legacy requirement of exceeding one’s parent’s accomplishments far too easy. Life is easy. Life is good. I’ve never doubted for a second that I’m, indeed, very privileged.
I grew up in a classic baby boomer working class neighborhood back in the days when America had a working class; i.e., before we became collectively disdainful of work that reeks of productivity. The neighborhood parents played the “traditional” gender roles; the dads went off to work and the moms raised the kids. The major employers in our side of town were Bethlehem Steel, McDonnell Douglas, Garrett Corporation and Mobil Oil.
I’m not sure if this, my reference point of 50’s and 60’s working class suburbia, is more stereotypical than representative or more representative than stereotypical but I’m certain that it’s not solely one or the other; I’m certain that it’s not solely Pasatiempo’s, as you’ve dismissively suggested; I’m not sure if it’s more or less representative than Amp’s; I’m certain that it’s more representative than, say, Betty Frieden’s. There are 40 times as many lawyers today as there were in 1963 and 5 times as many people work in air conditioned environments.
The men came home from work looking dirty and broken. Dad sat at the dinner table, eyes bloodshot, where mom and sis and I had spent the day together sharing experiences and developing our own little inside jokes which we’d repeat while dad sat there looking dumb and distant. He was my role model. I wanted no part of it. I decided early on that I would never get married and have kids. Why would I entrap myself in a life of spending every day working at a back-breaking, soul-draining job only to come home to a family that I wasn’t wholly part of? This is privilege?
Mom’s life seemed to be slightly more intrinsically rewarding but I didn’t want her life, either. Her life was also limited and incomplete. It occurred to me at an early age that maybe all would be better off if we shared roles; if the women brought home some of the money and the men did some of the child rearing. But where was I going to find that? I certainly didn’t hear any girls my age say that what they really wanted was to be shipped off to Viet Nam and come home to a factory job.
Then, when I was in high school, we started hearing about what was then called “women’s lib.” The “libbers” seemed to be saying the same thing I’d been saying. I thought women’s lib was the best idea since buttered toast. But, somewhere along the way, and not that far along the way, there came the cultural mandate that, henceforth, the mandatory pretext for all gender issues shall be that men are privileged and women have suffered a long awful herstory of oppression. I don’t understand how this does anyone any good.
I can certainly understand why women today in their 20’s and 30’s believe this but I have a hard time understanding why women my age believe it. My theory is that they never really knew their fathers; they never understood how hard their father’s lives were; they never knew their father’s pain. First, I think that men of that time talked differently to their sons and daughters. They sugar-coated things when talking to their daughters and did the opposite when talking to their sons. Second, they didn’t notice their fathers because their fathers weren’t around which is exactly what I noticed most about my father – he wasn’t around and this was going to be my life – a life of not being around.
So it perpetuates itself because the only women who could know the truth never really knew the truth. To those who think it’s the truth, I say show me the balance sheet and no one does. How much life experience does it take, Amp, in your estimation, before the experience becomes the knowledge becomes the intuition – that when somebody can readily document their side of an argument and declines to do so, that’s the classic sign of a bluff? I’m guessing about 8 years. I think an 8-year-old knows this. What do you think?
I don’t hold you personally responsible for the balance sheet and you’ve declined to do it. While you acknowledge that men’s lives are not all “ice cream sundaes” you nonetheless believe unequivocally that “it’s clear that women - taken as a whole - are getting the short end of society’s stick.” You decline to say why and this, again, is the source of much mischief.
A couple of years ago, my daughter (now 19) and I were talking and she said “Daddy, women weren’t even allowed to vote until 1920.”
“You know, Jessica, it’s always said that way… ‘weren’t allowed’. One of the few legitimate uses of the passive voice is to avoid the apparent assessment of blame and I suppose it’s the pseudo graciousness of its use in this particular regard that makes it especially grating. I won’t stand for it. I want active voice…subject…verb…object…spit it!”
She stammered.
“Okay. Fine. Weren’t allowed. So tell me…what have women accomplished in the 84 years since you were allowed to vote? By my reckoning you’ve lost 21 consecutive presidential elections. That’s quite a losing streak. Shall I conclude you’re all a bunch of losers? How have you managed this when you have 52% of the vote?”
Her jaw dropped. “We have 52% of the vote? How is that possible?”
My jaw dropped. “You mean to tell me that you’ve spent your entire life in that PC Idiot Factory that passes for a school system where they’ve fed you a non-stop passive-voice pabulum of self-righteous victimization and they never once told you the single, salient FACT that you have 52% of the vote? Welllll thennnnn, I guess it’s safe to assume that they never taught you what a precinct is and how to get precinct lists and use them; how to work or direct a phone bank or absentee ballot drive; what a candidate statement is and how to write one; or how to throw a fundraiser?”
She confirmed my assumption. You know, Amp, it takes a lot more effort to teach someone a lie than to teach them the truth. And so it goes that they would rather go to the considerably greater effort it takes to teach these girls that they’re victims than to simply teach them how not to be.
Recognizing depravity when I see it, I immediately informed my daughter that with election season coming, as it was, she would pick a woman candidate for local office, I would drive her to campaign headquarters and she would volunteer. After a suitable period of time to learn her candidate’s qualifications and stances on the issues, I would drag her little victim-mongering, passive-aggressive punk bitch ass off the pedestal and show her what it means to walk precincts. And I did. And she did.
Obviously, it was wrong to deny women the right to vote and this must not be forgotten. History matters. But history matters most in proper perspective and in 1920 fewer than 10% of Americans paid federal income taxes and 2/3s of federal employees were postal workers. With only a little dramatic license I can say, perfectly sarcastically, that the great cornerstone of womanly oppression in America is that until 1920 they were denied a voice in the price of a stamp.
The history books are indeed filled with the stories of men and it concerns me greatly that this conveys a message of marginalization to my daughter. But it’s also valid to note that the history books are only about the .01% elite. This, of course, does not invalidate the marginalization point. But I do so love irony, Amp, and it delights me that I, a CPA, a member of the great bottom-liner capitalist bedrock, would reference the teeming grey proletariat masses while you, a self-proclaimed Marxist, would reference the elite of the elite. Maybe we’re both nuts.
This comment was written by Pasatiempo.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2004 at 9:22 pm
I will use this in my introduction to counseling class at South Dakota State University.
Thanks!
This comment was written by Bob Chell.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2004 at 8:18 am
Er, Pasatiempo, the PC idiot school probably was busy trying to teach your kid to read, write and all that good stuff. If you want them to have unlimited time to explain precincts and take kids volunteering and so on, they’re gonna need a few more teachers. And a lot less money. Otherwise you’ll just have to go with the notion that parents still have to teach their kids SOME things.
Alternatively, they might teach kids to speak up when their parents treat them with nasty, patronizing contempt, but I’m not sure you’d be on board with that one.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2004 at 10:44 am
That should be “a lot more money.” Geeziz.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2004 at 5:29 pm
Mythago: “Er, Pasatiempo, the PC idiot school probably was busy trying to teach your kid to read, write and all that good stuff. If you want them to have unlimited time to explain precincts and take kids volunteering and so on, they’re gonna need a few more teachers.”
Actually, they already have teachers to teach that stuff. They teach social studies. I can’t think of better subject matter for social studies than how our electoral system works and how to participate.
“Otherwise you’ll just have to go with the notion that parents still have to teach their kids SOME things”
As noted in my post, it’s more than a notion with me; it’s what I did. I took my daughter out and showed her how elections work.
“Alternatively, they might teach kids to speak up when their parents treat them with nasty, patronizing contempt, but I’m not sure you’d be on board with that one”
Oh I see. The fact that I taught my daughter how to empower herself is of minimal concern compared to the fact that I have the wrong ATTITUDE about it. This feels familiar.
This comment was written by Pasatiempo.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2004 at 7:25 pm
Crap, I just got this irony detector fixed, and you go and screw up the gain by insisting you “taught your daughter to empower herself” without noting that teaching a kid to suck up gratuitous insults, contempt and rudeness is not exactly empowering.
I can’t think of better subject matter for social studies than how our electoral system works and how to participate.
Me either. You might want to pass that on to your school board and your state’s legislature, so they can stop wasting their time on teaching to standardized tests, and cutting out anything that might be ‘controversial’ or screw up certain students’ chances of getting into Harvard should they have work that risks getting them less than an A.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2004 at 11:46 am
Mythago: “Crap, I just got this irony detector fixed, and you go and screw up the gain by insisting you “taught your daughter to empower herself” without noting that teaching a kid to suck up gratuitous insults, contempt and rudeness is not exactly empowering.”
What we learn from this comment is that this is just another BB where there are vastly different standards for insiders than outsiders. In the immediate instance we see that insiders are given far greater license in terms of language (i.e., what is considered insult). There is also plenty of evidence on this BB that anecdote that confirms the consensus is validated and anecdote that contradicts the consensus is dismissed or is the subject of condescension. In other words, this BB is typical.
Your irony detector truly can use some tweaking if you fail to see that thou doest project too much. At the very least, it’s up to my daughter, not you, to determine if my comments were “gratuitous insults” and that fact is not overcome by the sheer bounty of your arrogance. Even if my comments were “gratuitous insults,” they were directed at the school and not at her and that’s very clear in my post. You distorted that once and you were lying. You did it twice and you’re just an outright liar. Call that an insult if you want but it’s not gratuitious.
Let’s review “gratuitious”:
“Me either. You might want to pass that on to your school board and your state’s legislature, so they can stop wasting their time on teaching to standardized tests, and cutting out anything that might be ‘controversial’ or screw up certain students’ chances of getting into Harvard should they have work that risks getting them less than an A.”
There is so much in here that’s gratuitous (and snide and snippy). It’s gratuitous because you know perfectly well that the schools don’t spend all of their time teaching to tests. It’s gratuitous because you know perfectly well that there’s nothing controversial about teaching kids the electoral process. It’s gratuitous because it was meant to be.
I reacted angrily to the school’s indocrination because I found it, as I said, “depraved.” If you think I shouldn’t react angrily to having depravity thrust on my daughter, say so. If you don’t think their indocrination was depraved, say so.
I did not teach my daughter to empower herself by sucking up to “gratuitous insults.” I taught her to empower herself by becoming involved in the electoral process. You know that. You are a liar.
You should learn to speak simple truths, Mythago. Then, maybe, you can work your way up to irony.
This comment was written by Pasatiempo.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2004 at 12:03 pm
For the record, Pasatiemp, I had exactly the same reaction to your anecdote that Mythago did. Your anecdote makes you sound like someone who’s proud of his ability to intellectually bully a daughter not half his age. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but that’s sure how you sounded.
Incidnently, your “women are the majority of the voters” argument is laughably bad; it assumes that women can and should be capable of acting as a single unified force in elections. Here’s a clue for you: Not all women agree on any issue, nor should they be expected to. That you think that women being 52% of voters is the “the single, salient FACT” about who holds office, suggests that you’re a total ignoramus. Or maybe someone whose misogyny has prevented you from being able to even pretend to think logically.
I don’t care which, frankly - in either case, you’re not someone I want to waste any more of my time on. Please post your final stipid, arrogant, condesending comment on this thread, then leave my blog and never come back.
Alternatively, you can apologize to Mythago for your rudeness and insults, in which case you can stay. But I know you won’t do that, since that would involve admitting that you’re responsible for your own words and actions, and clearly that’s not up your alley.
Go somewhere else. Maybe you can find a 14-year-old to bully, so you can convince yourself you’re a big, big man.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2004 at 12:41 pm
Amp: “Please post your final stipid, arrogant, condesending comment on this thread, then leave my blog and never come back. Alternatively, you can apologize to Mythago for your rudeness and insults, in which case you can stay.”
Amp, if you can’t see that it was Mythago being insulting to me then that just validates my comments about this board lacking integrity. Nonetheless, I do respect the fact that you asked me to leave rather than banning me and I will abide your request.
This comment was written by Pasatiempo.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2004 at 8:48 pm
Gosh, go off to work for a few hours and look what happens.
Incidentially, while I know Pasatiempo is not around to read this, anyone who thinks schools have plenty of time to teach kids about precincts either a) has been living in a cave since No Child Left Behind got passed, or b) sends their kids to a private school (or lives in a wealthy school district that is the equivalent) so the schools needn’t worry about passing state-mandated tests.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2004 at 10:48 pm
Blog Post Topics for Week of 1 November
Rhetoric 1101: Blog Post Topics for Week of 1 November
This comment was written by CultureCat: Rhetoric and Feminism.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 10:59 am
Re: The List,
This comment was written by Mark O'Reilly.How childish. You can make a list equally lengthy regarding FEMALE PRIVELEGE. This list contains some highly questionable claims. Women in the workforce are given privelege due to political correctness. IF you as much render a HINT of criticism toward a female you get the old and not so true anymore label of “Misogynist.” So that in itself, the denial of Free Speech for men will trump this entire list no matter how long it is constucted.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 11:05 am
Mark:
Just to clarify, if a man is criticized for alleged misogyny, that means his Free Speech has been denied?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Folks, please settle down and act humanly to one another. That’s the most important. Not to bash one sex or the other. The site here is a male bashing site. There are privileges that go both ways, swap or offset one another. What’t the point in presenting one side of a case? The bottom line is this folks: women have for the last three decades have had every law, political correctness and government institution promote their opportunities and equality. Now, in 2005 it worked and worked so much that men are seeing it as skewed toward women. They’re right. And they’re right to now stand up for their rights. Can that be wrong? No, and any man or woman that pushes women’s rights should be ashamed of theirselves for trying to undermine the men’s movement. Zero sum game? Bullpucky!
This comment was written by Big Balls.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Ampersap,
This comment was written by Mark O'Reilly.Yes, absolutely! When you label someone “misogynist” you attemp to silence that person with intimidation and you try to discredit that person so no other person will listen to that person. It’s done all the time and it’s a tactic used by feminists so that nobody can question their credibility or hold them accountable. It’s like a facist state. Instead of addressing the issues you make a personal attack. And it works! Look at all those politicians labeled racist! Very powerful things, words are. People should be free to say anything they want, that’s free speech, except yelling “fire” in a theater. Many MEN died for this country for you, Ampersap, to have this site to express your free speech. What you SHOULD be doing is thanking those men and not labeling them with a hateful word.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Of course, calling one man a misogynist equates to calling all men, living and dead, the same. Nice logic.
Oh, I forgot. It’s now considered worse to call someone out on their misogyny/racism/homophobia than to be misogynist/racist/homophobic.
This comment was written by thisgirl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
But it’s a-okay to call someone a fascist! That’s not intimidation!
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
feminist, fascist, it’s all the same right?
oh, and you might wanna chuck a little “marxist” in there too, because that’s the very worst insult anti-feminists hand out.
This comment was written by thisgirl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
My List_It’s Great TO BE A MAN…
1.)I get the privilege to die in a war.
2.)I get the privilege to die six years earlier than a female.
3.)I must make more money than my female mate otherwise I’m not enough.
4.)I must pay for any divorce for any reason.
5.)I must pay for child support even when I don’t get to see the kids.
6.)I must have an athletic body and must excell in all sports.
7.)I get the privilege of getting more of : strokes, heart disease and cancer than my female equivalent.
8.)I get the privilege of being more likely to commit suicide tens time more than a female.
9.)I get the privilege of suffering from depression six times more than a female, and I also get the privilege of not being able to tell anybody about it.
10.)I now get the privilege to get fewer educational degrees than a female.
11.)I get the privilege of having to be strong at all times in any condition.
12.)I get the privilege of not being able to cry at any and all times.
13.)I get the privilege of being suspected of being homosexual if not married.
14.)I get the privilege of being a Mr. Fix It when I’m at home.
15.)I must date models at all times.
16.)I get the privilege of having tougher standard in sports (tennis, golf).
17.)I must stand up for my manhood at all times and risk bodily harm.
18.)I have the privilege of having the laws and courts back women in any accusatory domestic violence case.
19.)I get to pay to go to a club while my date gets in free.
20.)I get to pay for all her drinks and her dinner if we have another date.
21.)I get the privilege of having her decide when, where and how we have sex.
22.)I get the privilege of going through sensitivity training when I’m too young to even know what it is.
23.)I get the privilege of accepting homosexuality even when I don’t.
24.)I get the privilege of going up against affirmative actions policies when I try to get a job or a promotion.
25.)I get the privilege of having the role model of Homer Simpson.
26.)I must drive a nice car and live in a model home.
27.)I must now share the housework even though I already do the yardwork and work more hours per week than my mate.
28.)I get the privilege of getting called “misogynist” when I compain about anything-female.
Yes it’s so GOOD be a male! And that’s what I came up with in fifteen minutes.
This comment was written by Bike A Lot.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
With the exception of number 23 (eh?), 28 (MRA hysteria), 27 (Government’s big on enforcing that one), 24, 22, 21 (you’d have it any other way? really?) and perhaps 10, have you thought of why these things apply to men? (Or supposedly do?)
Sure ain’t feminism’s fault.
This comment was written by thisgirl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Did you even read this part of the original post?
I am not denying that the system hurts men. On the contrary, I’d argue that living in a sexist gender-role system harms men significantly - although it also gives them privileges.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Geeze, Bike A Lot, what country/society are you living in? Let’s take a look at your list:
1) Women also have that privilege these days. Men also have the option not to join the military.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.2) Is that because of equal rights laws? I believe that it is just a physical reality and not actually a “privilege” any more than having a vagina is a “privilege”.
3) I feel very, very sorry that you believe this to be true. It is certainly not true in my life.
4) Can you point that law out to me?
5) I don’t have enough knowledge to comment one way or the other.
6) I don’t, and I seem to do OK.
7) See #2
8) This is, if not self-inflicted, not a result of any pro-woman law or attitude.
9) I believe that statistics show women to suffer from depression more than men, but I could be wrong. If you can’t tell anybody about it, that’s your own problem. I have no problem telling people when I am upset.
10) I’ll leave this one to others.
11) I feel so sorry for you. That must be difficult. There are times in my life where a woman is “the strong one.”
12) I feel so sorry for you. That must create incredible strain on you. I cry when and where I need to - and I haven’t suffered for it.
13) And that is the fault of women’s rights and feminism how? I would think that is the fault of homophobes.
14) At home, my wife is Mr. Fix-It. All the tools belong to her. Me? I hate that stuff & I’m not very good at it. I haven’t suffered for this situation.
15) Wow, your experience with women must be very limited. There aren’t nearly enough models to go around.
16) And this effects your life & your equality in some way? Please elaborate.
17) I never feel the need to stand up for my “manhood”. I would certainly never risk bodily harm to stand up for it, nor do I see that I am somehow required to.
18) You might want to look up the statistics on this one.
19) If that is the agreement between you and your date. I’ve never had that problem. Although, to be fair, society does seem to expect it (and has expected it even before the days of “women’s lib”)
20) See #19
21) That seems so weird. In all of my relationships, we have decided when, where and how often to have sex.
22) Really? All, most or a significant percentage of men are required to go through sensitivity training? When was this instituted?
23) I feel so bad that you feel ashamed to reveal your bigotry. No. Really.
24) Yes, men are just not allowed to become CEO’s the way they used to be.
25) You think Homer Simpson is a role model? Dude, that’s a cartoon. Are you telling me that my role model was Quick Draw McGraw?
26) What happens if you don’t? I haven’t had any problems as a result of not doing that, nor has anybody that I know well enough to discuss these things with.
27) Yeah, housework sucks. Anything to get somebody else to do it, huh?
28) It depends what kind of “female” things you complain about. But come to think of it, I can think of anything “female” that I can complain about. Maybe you can be more specific
Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
One more thing about this host of this blog Ampersand :
It is not a “victimizing”? position to acknowledge that injustice exists; on the contrary, without that acknowledgement it isn’t possible to fight injustice.
Ampersand called into a men’s show called Glenn Sacks last Sunday night to deride the Men’s movement. He jumped on the host’s bandwagon, a Mr. Swytzer or something like that and made the asseration that men shouldn’t blame anything outside thereselves like the laws, society for their problems but for men to look at themselves first. So his above statement is Hypocrisy. It’s OK for women to fight injustice but it ISN’T OK for men to fight injustice?
This comment was written by Bike A Lot.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Bike a Lot, I’m confident that’s an inaccurate summary of what I said on Glenn’s show. However, don’t take my word for it: it’s simple enough to go to Glenn’s site and listen to the recorded archive of the show. (UPDATE: or read the transcript.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Amp, I am sorry I sent all this malarkey your way. I just liked your list so much that I thought it deserved some linkage… you’re right, of course, it’s going to fall on deaf ears among the MRAs.
This comment was written by Hugo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Not a problem, Hugo - I’ve got a pretty thick skin for insults from MRAs. (Not all MRAs are insulting, of course, but many are.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
“I get the privilege to die in a war.”
Been pointed out: not only do women serve in the military, many, many women, children and older people have ALWAYS been killed in wars–and often without even a chance, due to the fact that they are usually unarmed, unlike military personnel. Where on earth did you get the idea that it was only soldiers who died in wars?
“I get the privilege to die six years earlier than a female.”
Are you actually suggesting that women are somehow responsible for this????
“I must make more money than my female mate otherwise I’m not enough.”
And again, who exactly started that stupid idea? I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t women. I’ll also clue you into another fact: feminists think that this is a stupid, unfair mentality to have, too, and in fact, many of them have been fighting for decades to change the way society views earning as a measure of personal worth.
“I must pay for any divorce for any reason.”
Maybe where you live, but that is certainly not true everywhere. In fact, I’ve read many reports which note that divorce leaves far, far more women than men under the poverty line.
“I must pay for child support even when I don’t get to see the kids.”
Firstly, your kids are not consumer goods which you buy, therefore it’s only fair you get to “use” them. Secondly, the entire reason that mothers have usually got custody of the children is because childcare has been traditionally seen as a boring, messy, worthless task, and only women, with our “maternal instincts” and general lack of ability for rational thought, were the only ones suited to do it. In other words, sexist society dumped the kids on mummy because daddy was too big and important to do such shitty, thankless work, and now society is turning round and trying to make out that it was the Big Bad Feminists who made the system so unfair. (And, btw, I’d like to add that I personally don’t think children or childcare is boring or worthless–I emphatically do not–just that this is the way it’s been seen for ages.)
“I must have an athletic body and must excell in all sports.”
Oh please, just LOOK at the vast majority of men around you, even (hell, ESPECIALLY) the ones in power: exactly how many of them can this said to be true of? Ummm…….damn few, if any. Hell, even Arnie Schwarzenegger isn’t as musclebound as he used to be, now that he’s in politics. In fact, in the past few photos I’ve seen of him, he was looking rather tubby. Donald Trump? Bill Gates? Dubya? Come on. The whole idea is crap and patently untrue. Even most male TV or movie stars don’t fit the mould. Outside of a handful of Brad Pitts, you can come up with tons of overweight and/or unathletic actors who seem to be doing quite well, thank you. And as for guys in Real Life: well, let’s just say that most of the guys I know don’t seem to worrying overmuch about their appearance or athletic ability………again, not that I’m saying they should, just noting that your point was false.
“I get the privilege of getting more of : strokes, heart disease and cancer than my female equivalent.”
Again, this is exactly WHOSE fault?????
“I get the privilege of being more likely to commit suicide tens time more than a female.”
Yes tragic, but we could also make a damn good argument that it is exactly the stupid rules of patriarchy that lead to this………………as well as likely playing at least some sort of role in men’s earlier deaths in general and the whole stroke/heart disease thing. I keep telling men: feminism is your FRIEND, it will actually help GET RID of all those ridiculous, impossible pressures put on you.
“I get the privilege of suffering from depression six times more than a female, and I also get the privilege of not being able to tell anybody about it.”
Well, stop buying into the whole macho thang, and learn that expressing your feelings doesn’t make you “weak” and “girly” (and, while you’re at it, you might even try on the idea that “girly” isn’t a negative thing). And yes, as pointed out above, it is actually women who suffer from depression more than men.
“I now get the privilege to get fewer educational degrees than a female.”
This one is absolute shite. Untrue as hell. Women may be doing more degrees than they were before, but to suggest that men are being locked out of higher education is a crock. And, I will also note that doing these degrees doesn’t actually help women much as we are still paid considerably less for the same work as men are.
“I get the privilege of having to be strong at all times in any condition.”
This one always burns me: who the hell made it up, because it sure as FUCK isn’t true. Men have always been free to flee just about any situation they didn’t feel like dealing with, whether by abandoning their families, going off to sea/the road/whatever–hell, even if it was just getting a mistress on the side so they had somewhere to escape their families–while women have been stuck dealing with the consequences. This is like the “only men die in wars” crap: SO untrue.
“I get the privilege of not being able to cry at any and all times.”
Oh what, and I get to? If I cry in public, I’m showing the world I really am too weak and useless to really cut it in the world. If I cry in front of my friends, family or lover, I’m being “manipulative”, trying to “guilt” people into feeling sorry for me and doing what I want…………..or else again, I’m just proving how pathetic I really am.
“I get the privilege of being suspected of being homosexual if not married.”
Yuh-huh: and *I* get the privilege of being thought either a lesbian, an unnatural, unwomanly freak, or just too much of a dog if not married. Boy, aren’t I lucky?
“I get the privilege of being a Mr. Fix It when I’m at home.”
And, if I were dumb enough to buy into a mainstream relationship, I’d get the privilege of having to fix everyone’s emotional state (without ever, ever asking for any support in return, of course), plus being a scullery maid, full-time cook and nurse. Face it: every study ever done on this topic has clearly shown that women work more than men, full stop. And anyway, isn’t it YOUR damn home, too? Who should be taking care of it, if not you? If you don’t want to put up the shelves, either pay someone to do it, or do without shelves. But don’t ask your partner to do it, because she’s already working twice the number of hours you do.
“I must date models at all times.”
Again, that’s the patriarchy talking. If you don’t like it, help get rid of it.
“I get the privilege of having tougher standard in sports (tennis, golf).”
Oh, well I thought that was because you men just WERE so superior at everything? Once again: it was MEN who made that rule. Take your complaints to them.
“I must stand up for my manhood at all times and risk bodily harm.”
And I must risk bodily harm at all times simply for being born with a vagina.
“I have the privilege of having the laws and courts back women in any accusatory domestic violence case.”
There are other people here who work in these areas and who will no doubt supply at the data necessary to rip this one to shreds, but I would like to add that the ignorance displayed in that comment is jawdroppingly horrifying.
“I get to pay to go to a club while my date gets in free.”
Only if the goons on the door consider her cute enough. And again: if you think feminists applaud such policies, you are very wrong.
“I get to pay for all her drinks and her dinner if we have another date.”
Only if you choose to go out with a certain sort of woman: I have NEVER allowed such a thing to happen in any of my relationships. Everything is always split 50/50, unless it’s a thing like a birthday, when one of us invites the other, or when one of us is going through a financial rough patch. But that applies equally.
“I get the privilege of having her decide when, where and how we have sex.”
Oh jeez, you actually have to treat her as (oh god, the injustice) HUMAN? You actually have to take into account her feelings? Oh, the infamy! And, of course, if she suggests you have sex at a time or place that is undesirable for you, you are FORCED to comply at all times, right? You never, ever have any say.
I’d like to add that I find this statement beyond creepy: it sounds to me like you’re saying it’s unfair that your sexual partners have the right to say “No” if they don’t wish to have sex.
“I get the privilege of going through sensitivity training when I’m too young to even know what it is.”
I have no idea what this is about. Please explain.
“I get the privilege of accepting homosexuality even when I don’t.”
Ehhh???? What are you saying here? That you are forced to accept that there are homosexuals in the world? And this is a “men’s rights” issue why? Or are you suggesting that gay men are somehow not “real” men? But I thought that your big gripe was that you were forced into acting like a “Real Man” and that caused you pain? Now you’re defending the idea? I’m very confused. What is it exactly that you want?
“I get the privilege of going up against affirmative actions policies when I try to get a job or a promotion.”
From what I’ve been reading on the topic, it’s pretty much been proven that straight white middle-class Anglo males are still dominating in all the prestige fields, so cheer up. You still run the world.
“I get the privilege of having the role model of Homer Simpson.”
Now this one is REALLY surreal. Of course, there are no other role models anywhere for white guys other than Homer. Absolutely none.
“I must drive a nice car and live in a model home.”
And so must I. What exactly is the point here?
“I must now share the housework even though I already do the yardwork and work more hours per week than my mate.”
See above. If your mate is at all typical of Western women, she is already working roughly twice what you do. So, be a nice guy and take up your share for once, will you?
“I get the privilege of getting called “misogynist”? when I compain about anything-female.”
Um, yeah, that’s kind of like a racist complaining that he gets criticised for complaining about people of colour. You know, if the shoe fits and all that.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
OK, I somehow managed to miss this last night, but…..doesn’t anyone think that:
“I must have an athletic body and must excell in all sports…I get the privilege of having to be strong at all times in any condition…” and “I get the privilege of not being able to cry at any and all times.”
being followed up with:
“I get the privilege of having the role model of Homer Simpson.”
is pretty darn hilarious?
Bean said: “If he also thinks they are oppressive, I can’t understand why he wouldn’t A) actively be fighting against those stereotypes and B) joining the pro-feminist fight which is already doing that work.”
Yeah, I’ve been wondering about that too: seeing as many of his complaints are the EXACT same ones that most feminists have, I don’t get why we are being seen as “The Enemy”.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
and who says Homer Simpson isn’t a good role model?
take away the over-the-top, comic child abuse (which really sounds like a non sequitur) and you’re left with perhaps the best example of what a man should be on television in the past decade (and then some).
dispite appearances, he’s actually in fairly good physical condition; he runs around way to much for someone who isn’t in decent shape. he’s a devoted husband; unless they’ve done something wild in the last few seasons, which I haven’t seen to much of, he’s never once cheated on, verbally or physically abused Marge. Dispite jokes about his sloth, he’s a man with a high-school education who works full shifts (and in more than one episode, is forced to take rediculous overtime) to support his family. Marge IS a stay-at-home mom, but there’s no evidence that Homer actually insists that’s the way it should be, and he has, in fact, encouraged her the times she has entered the workforce.
additionally, he’s a caring devoted father (aside from said comic child abuse directed particularly at Bart). He does everything he can to get the best possible for his children, and when he can’t live up to some of their more outrageous demands, he does what he can to help them deal with the disappointment. Case in point: the episode when Lisa got a horse, and Homer worked a second job with triple shifts at the Kwik-e-mart to pay for it.
sure, there are aLOT of “dumb” jokes at his expense, but through various episodes, he’s proven himself to be friendly, helpful, charismatic and even insightful.
Perhaps most importantly of all, he has a sense of humor about himself, and takes the insults and indignities of life in stride.
yeah, he’s a terrible role model. much better to pick someone like Ronnie Reagan, right?
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
“I get the privilege of having the role model of Homer Simpson.”?
Why Homer? Why not Barney, or Apu, or Ned Flanders or Mayor Quimby?
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
because homer actually is a role model, instead of a one dimensional joke as Barney, Apu, and Mayor Quimby.
Ned’s a pretty good role model. Honestly, if more evangelicals in the country were like Ned, we’d be a much better place. He’s got deep felt, sincere beliefs, frequently at odds with the rest of the community, and expresses that opinion, but he isn’t rude about it.
he does believe he’s right and everyone else is wrong, but he also recognizes personal choice, and that people are allowed to choose to go to hell, as he sees it.
If Flanders took over for Pat Robertson, I’d watch the 700 Club.
you know, if I were taking ANY classes on US pop culture, “Simpsons characters as role models and the utopian state” would make an interesting thesis.
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
“I must date models at all times.”
Snarky remark #1: Wow. Even during work hours?
Snarky remark #2: This is a burden indeed, if he secretly lusts after Linda Tripp.
(disclaimer: Linda Tripp does not deserve to be made fun of for her looks. She deserves to be mocked for a whole host of other things.)
This comment was written by jennHi.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Hello, my name is Kayla. I’m 17 and I’m part of a youth driven Liberal Blog called, the Bloodless Revolution. What we are trying to do is promote acceptance and awareness for our peers about the world we live in and hopefully inspire a more open-minded approach to life. The teenage years are where people start to look for who they are independent of their household and my friends and I want to be part of that search. Teens are more likely to listen to their peers then they are to adults. I know that you probabaly think that a lot of what we say is very naive and that is why we are constantly looking for eyeopening posts to place in our Blog.
I really like this list and I think it would bring out a lot of little tendencies that we do on a day-to-day basis and not even notice. I know that a lot of this list will be lurking in the back of my mind. I personally had always viewed racism and sexism as individual acts. I forgot about the whole system and structure of stereotyping and the effects it has on the whole infrastucture of society. I would like to post this list in my blog. I would give you full credit but since my blog in completely non-profit I can’t pay you. I could have simply just copied and pasted it but I would really prefer to receive your permission since you took the time and energy to create it.
The blog address is http://bloodlessrevolution.blogspot.com/
This comment was written by Kayla.And since I forgot our group address, hehe, you can email your reply to my email account- lostandhellbound@hotmail.com
Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 12:54 am
“and who says Homer Simpson isn’t a good role model?
take away the over-the-top, comic child abuse (which really sounds like a non sequitur) and you’re left with perhaps the best example of what a man should be on television in the past decade (and then some).”
Actually, I was thinking that too: he’s probably one of the the most loving fathers and husbands that has ever been shown on TV, despite the flaws (heavens, FLAWS! can’t have that when depicting human beings, can we?). I mean, I personally wouldn’t want to be married to him, but when you compare him to the other alternatives shown in TV or movies, he comes off looking pretty damn good.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 6:47 am
Homer isn’t bad. It rather boggles the mind to think of him as a role model, per se, but he isn’t a bad person, just a comedic figure in a tradition that stretches all the way back to the ancient Greeks. And there are many other recurring male characters in town, including a pastor, a doctor, a principal, a superintendent, a janitor, a jazz musician (now deceased), a comic-book geek/entrepreneur, a mayor, a millionaire, his assistant, a bartender, workers at the nuclear plant, a brilliant mad scientist, an attack lawyer, a quack lawyer, the Itchy and Scratchy CEO….
Can anyone think of any female characters who aren’t housewives (Marge, Helen Lovejoy, Mrs. Flanders (can’t remember her given name), Mrs. Skinner) or schoolteachers (Edna Krabappel, Ms. Hoover)? I came up with Patty and Selma, the vituperative, hideous, hairy celibates. I remember four one-offs: Mindy, Homer’s coworker and erstwhile temptress, Belle the brothel owner, Lurlene, the country-music singer who’s been in two episodes, and Marge’s psychiatrist. Oh, and then there was Darlene’s mother in the Thelma and Louise episode, but I can’t remember if her job was ever discussed. I know that Marge entered the police force for one episode. And I know that in groups of working people–nuclear plant inspectors, CPS employees, evaluation committees–there are usually women, or at least one woman, but they’re never named or given many lines.
Oh, I’m sorry. Here you were all discussing male oppression, and I’ve gone off on a totally unrelated tangent.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 8:07 am
The arguments from the men’s rights activists against the male privilege checklist reminds me of a segment from “Monty Python’s Life of Brian.” It’s so appropriate.
Stan (Eric Idle): “I want to be one.”
John Cleese: What?
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me “Loretta.”
John Cleese: Whaaaaat?
Stan: It’s my right as a man.
Judith: Well, why do you want to be “Loretta,” Stan?
Stan: I want to have babies.
John Cleese: You want to have BABIES?
Stan: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
John Cleese: But… you can’t HAVE babies!
Stan: Don’t you oppress me!
John Cleese: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb. Where is the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
Judith: Here, I’ve got an idea. Supposed you agree that you can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans, but you can have the RIGHT to have babies!
Michael Palin: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your
RIGHT to have babies. Brother, sister.
John Cleese: What’s the point? What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when HE CAN’T HAVE BABIES???
Michael Palin: It’s symbolic of our struggle against oppression!
John Cleese: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 8:57 am
A partial list of non-homemakers:
Amber the Squishee-refill lady.
Bernice Hibbert, job unspecified but she always wears suits
Brandine Spuckler is a farmer, has worked as a stripper
Mindy Simmons, chair-warmer in sector 7G
Edna Krabappel, 4th grade teacher
Audrey McConnell, 3rd grade teacher
Elizabeth Hoover, 2nd grade teacher
Mrs. Blumenstein, teacher, debate team coach
Mrs. Cummerdale, gym teacher
Mrs. Pummelhorse, gym teacher
Mrs. Holmes-Indigo, science teacher
Marge Simpson, realtor, cop, teacher, waitress, others
Unnamed Scottish janitress at magnet school
Mrs. Muntz, waitress
Mary Bailey, state governor
Constance Harm, judge
Roxie, secretary to Mayor Quimby
Lindsey Naegle, entrepreneur
“Mom”, of Mom and Pop’s hardware
Ms. No Means No, character on Krusty’s show
Lurleen Lumpkin, country star
Rachel Jordan, Christian musician
Patty Bouvier, DMV drone
Selma Bouvier, DMV drone
J. Loren Pryor, psychiatrist
Molly Cosmos, plastic surgeon
unnamed scientist at the pharmaceutical company
Belle, owner of the burlesque house
I’ll readily concede that the show gives a lot more air time to male characters. Of course, the show also mocks pretty much everyone who is given airtime, so that’s a mixed blessing for the XY crowd.
I do notice with approval that the show shows women at every level of the working world, from the very bottom rung to the very top, with lots of representation in the professions and the business world. Yeah, there are a lot of female teachers; there are a lot of female teachers out here in the unanimated world, too.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
This is the era of acceptable sexism in the form of feminist whiners. There is no “privilege.” We earn what we have. I come from Irish ancestors who were treated lower than African freedmen in places like New York during the settling of America. They overcame it. They didn’t whine looking for a handout or sympathy. There is a big push on women’s health issues despite an average life span greater than a man’s. I was a Union Steward and saw many EEO and Sexual Harrassment hearings. Most were filed by women against men. The men would walk into the hearings and be declared guilty without even getting an opportunity to speak. They lost time and money often on baseless or ludicrous charges. Women are favored in divorces with custody and support regardless of their fitness to be parents.
This comment was written by Daniel.The Armed Services are all voluntary but only women can be relieved of that obligation by simply getting pregnant.
Those of you who think we men are “priviledged” need to grow a backbone and fight for what you want to achieve. If you get it and find you have no time for marriage and subsequently no children and discover your life lacks because of it, don’t whine about it. Remember the old saying, ‘Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.”
I see nothing wrong with women going out and being the breadwinners. We “priviledged men” have had it pressed upon us for decades. I’ll stay home and keep house and then bitch at you endlessly about what’s wrong with the house and what chores you should be helping with and bore you with all the gripes about what the fellow next door said at the Barber shop.
We’ll ignore your sexual needs and treat strangers nicer than we do you.
We’ll spend hours on the phone talking about your inadequacies with our friends. You can spend hours at work with an ungrateful boss and lazy coworkers, then come home after fighting traffic and have more work to do and then get turned away for intimacy because we’re not “in the mood.”
In short, we’ll trade places with you.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
Wow, Daniel. That is simply the most complete, best troll post I’ve ever seen. You didn’t miss a cliche. That’s impressive.
It’s also fairly ludicrous.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
We’ll ignore your sexual needs and treat strangers nicer than we do you.
You…you want to turn into my ex-husband?!
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
mythago, I weep for you.
because, if you think about it, for Daniel to turn into your ex-husband, you would have to marry him first. Which, from the sounds of it, would be the sort of peaches-and-cream life undeserved by any woman short of Ilsa Koch.
as I assume his thing about ignoring sexual needs was supposed to be a jab at women, I suppose I have to pose a question.
What the hell is wrong with Daniel? I, for one, have my sexual needs nicely fulfilled. but if I were dating someone who wasn’t, I’m pretty sure I’d go looking for someone else who was more interested in fulfilling them.
so he must not particularly have much to offer, if he can’t expect to find someone he has compatibility with.
or maybe he’s just expecting too much, like “he must date super models” and as such, knows beggars can’t be choosers.
mean, yes. but trolls deserve it.
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
January 29th, 2005 at 4:56 am
“Edna Krabappel, 4th grade teacher
Audrey McConnell, 3rd grade teacher
Elizabeth Hoover, 2nd grade teacher
Mrs. Blumenstein, teacher, debate team coach
Mrs. Cummerdale, gym teacher
Mrs. Pummelhorse, gym teacher
Mrs. Holmes-Indigo, science teacher”
Firstly, Piny’s question was “Can anyone think of any female characters who aren’t housewives (Marge, Helen Lovejoy, Mrs. Flanders (can’t remember her given name), Mrs. Skinner) or schoolteachers (Edna Krabappel, Ms. Hoover)?”
Secondly, most of the other characters you’ve mentioned are either one-offs, or appear only very, very occasionally, unlike, say, Lennie & Carl, Barney Gumble, Mr. Burns & Smithers, Apu, Comic Book Guy.
I love the Simpsons, but that doesn’t make me blind to the fact that it does engage in that time-honoured TV tradition of completely underrepresenting females within its world.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
January 29th, 2005 at 5:14 am
“The Armed Services are all voluntary but only women can be relieved of that obligation by simply getting pregnant.”
Yeah, we all know that pregnancy is simply stroll through the park.
“Those of you who think we men are “priviledged”? need to grow a backbone and fight for what you want to achieve. ”
Uhhhhh…..we ARE. That’s why you’re so upset with us, because we refuse to accept the status quo, remember?
“If you get it and find you have no time for marriage and subsequently no children and discover your life lacks because of it, don’t whine about it.”
Got new for ya: For decades now, there have been studies which suggest that unmarried women are generally HAPPIER than married women. Also, and this may be a big shock: not all men are so insecure about themselves that feminists frighten them away. Though I support any woman’s right to be happily single, I myself am quite happily married to a self-confident, nonthreatened man. And, this is the REALLY scary bit: we’re actually VERY GOOD FRIENDS to each other. Sorry to terrify you with that, but you need to know that these things do happen.
“Remember the old saying, ‘Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.”?”
What, guys like you will stop being so scared and will finally accept that women are human????? Promise?
“I see nothing wrong with women going out and being the breadwinners. We “priviledged men”? have had it pressed upon us for decades. I’ll stay home and keep house and then bitch at you endlessly about what’s wrong with the house and what chores you should be helping with and bore you with all the gripes about what the fellow next door said at the Barber shop.”
Yeesh. Look, if you are speaking from the voice of experience here, well, all I can say is don’t blame all women just because you chose to hook up with a frivolous airhead. Maybe if you didn’t find strong, competent women so terrifying, you might find a better partner? However, there’s something about the above paragraph that just screams, “Media-derived stereotype”, so I’m guessing that you aren’t even actually married or living with a partner, and this is simply how you imagine women to be. Y’know, actually getting out and having ACTUAL HUMAN CONTACT with women would probably get rid off all those silly ideas.
“We’ll ignore your sexual needs and treat strangers nicer than we do you.”
In my experience, that’s what most men ALREADY do. (?????????)
“We’ll spend hours on the phone talking about your inadequacies with our friends.”
Yeah, right: that’s a major way for me to pass my time.
” You can spend hours at work with an ungrateful boss and lazy coworkers, then come home after fighting traffic and have more work to do”
That’s already how most WOMEN live their lives. I do have a serious question: where do you MRA types get the ridiculous idea that most women don’t have jobs? Even amongst my married friends, even those with kids, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t work full-time.
“and then get turned away for intimacy because we’re not “in the mood.”?
Again, seriously, this sort of comment betrays just how creepy the whole Men’s Rights thing is: apparently, to these guys, sex on demand–no matter how the other person is feeling–is a male “right”, and “withholding” sex (or, in Real World talk, just not wanting sex) is somehow an evil women’s plot to defraud men of something that is “rightfully theirs”. These guys have literally no conception that a woman’s vagina actually belongs to her and is not the property of whatever male happens to be around and wanting it at any given time.
This is deeply disturbing, disgusting, and shows just how repulsive the minds of these men truly are.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
January 29th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
The Armed Services are all voluntary but only women can be relieved of that obligation by simply getting pregnant.
Not anymore; pregnancy doesn’t result in an automatic discharge these days. In fact, a number of the women killed in Iraq left children behind.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 7:25 am
If you get it and find you have no time for marriage and subsequently no children and discover your life lacks because of it, don’t whine about it. Remember the old saying, ‘Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it
Wait a minute! Does this mean that men don’t get married and have families? I better call my dad and tell him I’m just a figment of his imagination, as is his wife.
Of course, you know that all us women are housewives. And no woman works hard ever. I myself don’t have a full-time job or a house to look after. And every time I complain about how I hate talking on the phone after a friend, male or female, calls just to chit-chat, I’m just lying to myself.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 9:34 am
And of course if you don’t get married, you can’t have children–it’s just a biological fact!
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 9:47 am
Oddly enough, yesterday we popped over to a neighbors’ /friends’ house for the first time since the Ms. had the baby. Yeah, I thought the baby was cute and all– And I congratulated the Ms. for navigating through the long pregnancy and labor with both her and the Mr.’s sense of humor intact. I was happy for them that the baby appears healthy, though a bit on the small side aparently. And yet… and yet… I still was completely unstirred by any desire whatsoever to have a baby of my own. Whatever my life lacks for, I don’t think that it’s pregnancy and birth that would give it meaning.
Considering how overwrought MRA’s seem to get on this board, perpetually whining about how one misplaced sperm ruins their lives forever– not a woman’s life– just theirs, you’d think they’d want to find out which cluster of brain cells in my head supposedly created this “unnatural” lack of desire for babies. You’d think they’d want to isolate it, grow it, and run around slipping it into the soft drinks of unwary young girls.
But then I guess they’d have one less “threat” to hold over my/our heads. Tsk. Poor things.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 10:22 am
Oh, they want women to have lots and lots of babies. Just not theirs.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Mmm, non-maternal-instinct-substance. {Drool}
I have a personal theory that feminism and increased choice for women will end up reducing women’s overall participation in the workforce.
Unproven but reasonable assumption: at least part of your unstirredness-towards-motherhood is genetic.
Broad historical fact: in conditions of survival, women with such tendencies passed them on to the next generation. Every womb was necessary for survival; every womb had the babies it could have, and the desire of the woman owning the womb were of limited impact.
Broad contemporary fact: we’re not in conditions of survival, and women who don’t want to have babies don’t have to have babies.
Under survival conditions, feminism and women’s choice could have very limited impact, if any. Doesn’t matter that you want to join the hunting party; the tribe needs you back at the cave, making babies, and so the elders (male and female) coerce you if need be. Under modern conditions, feminism can have a huge impact. The womb-controllers can relax; they have enough volunteer wombs and don’t need to be fascist about things.
So under the new regime of relative freedom and choice, you can choose not to be a mother. Which means that your genes don’t get passed on; your line ends.
Over time, natural selection does its simple-minded job and the women who desire motherhood and yearn for babies are the women who have all the babies. The women who don’t desire babies, don’t have them, and their genetic contribution to the species ceases.
We end up with a female population almost all of whom have the “have a baby” genes and almost none of whom have the “I don’t want a squalling brat” genes. At which point there’s still freedom of choice, earned by the labor of previous generations of feminists, but women are only making one choice, foregoing paid work and instead being homemakers.
At least, during the baby years. There would still be lots of women working, they’d just be doing it (mostly) after they had their kids. (And of course some women would have to work for economic reasons, but that’s always the case.) Freedom of potential choice leads to a reduction in the range of actual choices made.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Sometimes I am still shocked at how men can live side-by-side with women day in and day out and still be completely oblivious.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 11:16 am
It’s the result of careful training, Amanda.
This comment was written by FoolishOwl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 11:33 am
I have a personal theory that feminism and increased choice for women will end up reducing women’s overall participation in the workforce.
Except that your theory seems to be the opposite of what’s actually happening–women are increasing their overall participation the workforce, but limiting their childbearing.
And choosing not to be a mother, i.e. to physically bear children, doesn’t mean “your line ends.” For starters, if you have siblings who have children, your genes get passed on.
Evolution also never required “yearning for babies.” Reliable contraception’s been around less than a century. We have a yearning for sex; that led to the babies all on its own. (Evolution’s also kind of Rube Goldberg-y sometimes.) Women who yearned for babies had them; so did women who didn’t want kids so much. Not wanting to get knocked up is not contraception, as women throughout history have been sadly made aware. There’s no reason at all to think there is a “baby yearing” gene, other than the modern tendency to think everything humans ever do or want has a “gene,” as if we were computer programs who can’t perform a task not hard-coded into us.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
[sigh]
Is there an anthropologist in the house who might explain to Robert that there are tribes in which women both hunt/gather and nuture offspring ?
Robert, I was being sarcastic with my brain-juice comment. I think a desire to not spawn –like the rest of a human’s personality– is likely the result of both nature and nurture. I don’t do evolutionary pop psych, except as a joke.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
P.S.– Robert, what in the blazes is the point of your whole “Nyah nyah your type will die out while mine goes on and takes over the world” schtick, anyway ? Do you think that somehow I’m supposed to be broken-hearted at this (totally baseless) theory of yours ? Well, forget it. Even if I believed your theory, I would never limit myself to believing that the only way a person can leave a legacy on Earth is through replication of their own genes. Uh uh. No way.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
It’s idle speculation, wondering about the impact of changes to behavior.
Any emotional content you perceive is added by you.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
No one is in any danger of dying out–most people, feminist or not, have children. The biggest threat to human reproduction is rising infertility in both men and women, not politics.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Any emotional content you perceive is added by you.
Oh, Thank You. I’ll remember to use that disclaimer next time your dander is up over my delivery on some delicate topic or another.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Robert, I know you’re a smart guy and I know you have a basic understanding of evolution. So I admit that I can’t help wonder whether the actual idle speculation is “how much of a rise can I get out of people here if I post this?”.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Not a rise so much as a reasoned response; whether “that won’t work, silly, here’s why” or “hmmm, what about x y z”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
Have you seen this? It’s a “Female/Feminist Privilege Checklist” and quite entertaining. I happened to blunder into this newsgroup (soc.men) one day and got caught up in some pointless arguing. Not that there isn’t some truth to some of the stuff there — it’s just hard to find it in amongst all the name-calling that goes on.
But see - now that I’ve found this blog, I can get rid of that newsgroup like some kind of pesky rash and never have to be called a (I kid you not) “festering femmeroid” (sic) again.
This comment was written by bluesmama.Report this comment to the moderators
January 31st, 2005 at 6:42 am
Robert has a point: I mean, after all, men and women with the gay gene rarely end up having children, and now you hardly hear anything about there being any gay people in society. there what, like 3 gay people left anymore? they’re obviously an endangered species.
This comment was written by karpad.obviously, any gene that results in humans producing fewer offspring exit the genepool, and thus, within a few years, no one will even have a job, men or women. everyone will just eat and fuck, and our robots will make sure we all get food.
I know that I have a genetic predisposition to having a robo-butler wait on my needs while hedonistically indulging in my sexual appitites.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 31st, 2005 at 7:21 am
Bluesmamma, did you mean this?
http://niceguy.dearingfilm.com/Checklist.php
A… “rebuttal” to amp’s list, then one of his own.
A delightful read (personally, I don’t think he’s worth the energy to argue with… the whole “pearls to swine” concept).
This comment was written by wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
January 31st, 2005 at 10:33 am
Oh, God, he even calls himself a ‘nice’ guy. Bonus!
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
February 1st, 2005 at 9:23 am
Robert’s post is too odd for me to not address:
So under the new regime of relative freedom and choice, you can choose not to be a mother. Which means that your genes don’t get passed on; your line ends.
First of all, Robert, you’re assuming that there is such a gene. Probably not, since my generation is composed of the offspring of women who were entering their childbearing years at the beginning of the sexual revolution, thus we’re children of women who chose to have children, thus we should logically have that gene already.
Second of all, you’re dismissing a world of factors in your “When given the choice, women would rather stay home with their children” assumption. Fewer mothers may want to stay home with their children. The concept of “having it all” (children and a job you love) is still considered relatively unacceptable, but it may not be that way for much longer. More women may graduate with college and graduate degrees and get better jobs that require a higher education. Over time mothers may feel more comfortable with the high quality of child care that’s available. Employers may institute more child care programs within their companies; the federal government may fund more child care initiatives. Also, just because you choose to be a stay-at-home parent doesn’t mean you believe that sexism in the workplace in any form is reasonable. Nor does it make sense that fewer women in the workplace will lead to fewer feminists.
Third of all, you’re implying that those of us who choose not to have children do so for political reasons–that is, that we should be unhappy about the possibility that our actions will lead to a world that’s somehow worse than what we hope to make it. I can assure you that that’s simply untrue. I couldn’t care less if every other woman in the world wanted to be a mother; that would not affect my decision. I didn’t decide against having children because I’m a feminist, or because I support reproductive rights, or because I think the world would be a better place with fewer people in it. It’s because I don’t want to care for a child. I don’t advocate my decision any more than I advocate motherhood–although I believe it should be less stigmatized. And again, there’s no evidence that this “worse world” will actually happen. (It could be bad in a lot of other ways, though…)
Freedom of potential choice leads to a reduction in the range of actual choices made.
I don’t understand this at all. Manufacturers of consumer products believe the exact opposite. The company that recently released vanilla- and citrus-flavored toothpastes is, I’m sure, banking on enough consumer interest to make their endeavor profitable. And even if that doesn’t happen, it sure won’t persuade people who currently enjoy whitening toothpaste to abandon it for a traditional cavity-fighting one.
Until recently, women were encouraged to stay home. When that pressure was relaxed a bit, more women began to work. And as parenthood + career = fulfilling life becomes a serious option for women, I expect them to take advantage of it.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2005 at 3:04 am
46. It will never be assumed I’m someone’s secretary.
This comment was written by vulgarcriminal.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2005 at 9:38 am
While many of these are right on the button, I would say that many of these do not apply in English society as I have experienced it, primarily those dealing with children, upbringing, and education.
This comment was written by Marcin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
This list really only applies to the men who are condescending towards women, and it will become outdated as time moves on. My boyfriend and I are in a very understanding relationship, and my experience is that, while many of these stereotypes hold true in the media and history, today’s generation is much better at ignoring things such as gender, race, age, etc. I can only imagine that future generations will become even more so.
While I am all for equal rights, I am not a feminist. Mainly because I belive that the path to equality does not lie in the formation of unequal conditions. Currently it is easier for women to get accepted to many technology oriented schools and programs, simply because they are in the minority and schools want to encourage women to enter these fields. However, if I want to study art-history or painting, does that put me at odds agains the equal rights movement?
I think that the bottom line is choice. I, and every other person, should have the choice to live how I chose. If I decide that the ’sterotypical woman’ is the kind of woman I want to be, who are you to tell me I’m wrong. I just feel that putting all men on the defensive from the get-go may not the best way to indoctrinate ourselves into society.
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
BWA HA HA HA HA HA!
Excuse me while I wipe the tears of bitter mirth from my eyes.
That’s better.
Noooooo, there’s no sexism in the fine arts. Your demographic talents would be wasted in that field. You’d be doing much more for the cause if you entered a field where women haven’t already advanced to the upper echelons of the industry and the canon. I mean, you might as well become a firefighter or a Navy SEAL or an archbishop.
And you’re absolutely right, by the way, about not hurting any man’s feelings or challenging any man’s assumptions in blunt language. All of history’s successful civil rights activists understood that they’d catch way more flies with honey than with vinegar.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
If I decide that the ’sterotypical woman’ is the kind of woman I want to be, who are you to tell me I’m wrong.
Tell you you’re wrong? Heck no. It means less competition. By all means, if you want to be the kind of woman who your boyfriend or lover is dissing behind your back when we all go hang out at the bar, I wouldn’t dream of stopping you.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2005 at 7:51 am
If our genetic makeup goes so far as to include genetic inclinations towards social or political viewpoints (and some scientists theorize that they may), then what you say may prove to be accurate, Robert. But I think some of your thinking as a tad questionable (especially the part about fewer women in the workforce.)
However, I think that a lot of what you say will play out, but because of a far simpler mechanism: religion. Look at demographic trends; on average, the American women who give birth to the most children tend to be Mormons and Catholics. The more conservative a family, the more children, the more chances to pass those values onto the next generation.
Some analysts believe that this trend is already playing a part in politics, btw. Our overall population is aging, which decreases the pool of people from which significant cultural reform is likely to come from.
Hestia:
It’s interesting though that this is what has happened.
mythago :
I’m not sure how your comment applies to Sarah’s statement. Whatever lifestyle choice a woman makes, they’re likely to marry a man who embraces it.
This comment was written by daffodil.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Whatever lifestyle choice a woman makes, they’re likely to marry a man who embraces it.
I doubt men are any less likely than women to do the “I love you, you’re perfect, now change” game. That aside, the rest of Sarah’s post was a rather broad hint that women in the sciences get there because girls are receiving special treatment, and that women should be very careful not to do anything that might upset men.
Such women aren’t likely to push themselves into the ‘man’s world’ of work, especially in male-dominated professions. That leaves less competition for me.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
I agree with you there (although I dont think she meant it with the malice you imply), but I still don’t see what that has to do with husbands talking behind their spouse’s back.
This comment was written by daffodil.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
If she thinks that being a ’stereotypical woman’ assures that her stereotypical-man husband will cherish and respect her role, I wouldn’t lay money on it.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2005 at 7:01 am
bean writes on 1/27/2005:
“Also … yes, it’s true that men are significantly more likely to be “successful”? (so to speak) at committing suicide. However, women are 4 times more likely to attempt suicide.”
Yet further proof that if you want something done right, get a man to do it.
My fiancee is the only straight person who works at a gay bar in our city. I have helped bar back, work the door, etc numerous times, and some of the stufff I have seen and been subjected to has been absolutely appalling, but that tends to be the case in this type of setting, so I try to take it all with a grain of salt.
But the latest straw, the one that made me crack completely up was a 40ish woman who stripped down naked on the dance floor in the name of women’s rights/equality. “I’ve marched in protests and parades for 20 years for women’s issues. You can’t be a true feminist unless you’re a lesbian.”
What the hell? So by becoming Lady Godiva and grinding your naked ass on the dance floor you are somehow advancing the women’s movement? And strippers get a bad name?
Oh, that opening bit ws just a joke for all of you who didn’t get it.
This comment was written by Bow Deane.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Well, I was thinking about steves…. IDEA? about women voting women into office and then taking over?
First thought i had was… 1/3 of all the women voters will have their vote decision beaten or abused out of them by men.
Leaving only 2/3 of the women to vote.
about 50% of all people dont vote. So pretty easily you can see
how they have already lost without the votes of men.
I mean WHY SHOULD WOMEN CHANGE IT BY THEMSELVES??
Secondly -
NO MATTER WHAT A WOMEN DOES OR SAYS OR THINKS OR VOTES, It is NEVER A WOMENS FAULT that men do the horrible things they do to women. That includes excluding women from political power.
MEN need to stop MEN from abusing women.
Steve, why dont YOU start a mens group that can get women into office?
GEt some MEN to gather some of MENS money and launch a campaign that would let women know that MEN wanted to financially support a womens movement to end politcal bias and unfairness.
I bet you would get more womens support than you thought existed.
This comment was written by Shelter Volunteer.You might even learn a thing or two about the priviliges you assume as a man. And if it was successfull I bet people would assume it was a mans efforts that made it happen.
-Male volunteer at a domestic violence shelter for women.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 4th, 2005 at 7:01 am
I was raised in a feminist household. I’m pretty ambivalent as an adult about activism. I’ve yet to see much evidence that it works.
Basically my view is this: Women loose their rights because they are White, Black, Christian, Muslim, etc first. Then they are women, and maybe then they are people. The entire Civil Rights movement relies on the assumption that everyone is a person first (therefore equal) and then what ever minority group later.
As a note, I do not get PMS. Ever. Never have. Not a genetically strong trait in my family. So having men assume I’m PMSing if I am upset makes me fume. Women do this to other women also. Bad.
As if everyone else hasn’t already made better points, but it’s just my view.
This comment was written by Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
July 4th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
“I’m pretty ambivalent as an adult about activism. I’ve yet to see much evidence that it works. ”
I’m a little baffled as to how anyone can say that. Women did not have rights all along just as men did; neither were these rights magically handed to us one day when the male leaders suddenly slapped their foreheads and cried with one voice that women should have the same rights as men. Same as with blacks.
Any people which was thought at one point to be obviously excluded from the rights of others–namly white men–did not suddenly find those rights waiting for them one day after many hundreds of years of not having them. The only reason those rights were granted in the first place was through the activism of people who realized that as long as no one acted, the people in charge weren’t inclined to change the system.
Activism doesn’t simply work, it’s the ONLY thing that works.
This comment was written by Mythaeld.Report this comment to the moderators
July 4th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
So having men assume I’m PMSing if I am upset makes me fume.
The best way to respond to on-the-rag questions is to say, with amazement, “What a coincidence! I was about to ask you the very same thing.”
Oh, that opening bit ws just a joke for all of you who didn’t get it.
Oh, making an insult and then trying to cover your ass by saying “it was just a joke!”, with the insinuation that anybody objects has no sense of humor, is pretty lame. And transparent.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 4th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Crap in a hat. I am the Broken Italics Queen today.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 4th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
(Skims down the list, having been linked here by a blog.)
Well, that was informative. I appreciate the heads up, though I’ve known about most of these myself for some time. I work for a fellow who’s generally a nice guy, but has this odd tendency to refer to women as “bitches,” in a “ha, ha, just serious!” sort of way. I’ve called him on it. He claims that I’m just pretending to be a gentleman because women enjoy that. He says this even when women are absent…
Particularly ironic, given that he’s gay and probably would be at least a little annoyed if I casually talked about “those faggots.”
This comment was written by Wellington.Report this comment to the moderators
July 5th, 2005 at 8:04 am
I came to this discussion late, but I can’t let Nancy P’s dig at nursing students (post #39) slide by.
Nursing students work harder than almost any other undergrad student (I should know; I have a degree in languages, I’ve taken classes in stats and programming, done grad work in English and psychology, AND have an RN).
“Golddigging” nursing students is a myth. Nursing students who go into school hoping to meet MDs, are pretty quickly scared off by the amount of work they have to do — IF they can even get into school. Those few who do meet and marry MDs tend to be the people who met each other on the job, understand what each other have to say, and spend time working together.
Nurses work hard. But it is a profession where one can work almost anywhere, at whatever time one has available to work, for a living wage. Plus I can work until I die in some capacity, if retirement doesn’t work out.
This comment was written by Jodie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 5th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
I’m a librarian, so I know from “traditional women’s jobs.” And it’s well-known within my profession that while women are a majority of library directors, the number of men in directorship positions is grossly disproportionate to the total number of men in the field, that men tend to hold the more prestigious (i.e, higher-paying) directorships, and that women directors are paid less than men directors at the same level (large public libraries, research university libraries, four year college libraries, etc.). In a profession where the salary for people who all hold a professional degree can range from $18,000 to over $250,000, some of these discrepancies are glaring. 75-88% of librarians are women; women hold slightly more than half of the directorships in academic and public libraries.
Part of the problem is that men in the field are seen (by women and men) as somehow “special” - I don’t know how better to describe it - in the same way that stay-at-home fathers are often seen as “special” and deserving of praise. It’s as though they deserve promotion and pay simply for taking such a low-status, “woman’s” job. This frustrates and puzzles me because it happens despite the fact that libraries tend to be friendly, progressive, flexible places to work (and hotbeds of subversive activism, to boot!). Friends of mine who are social workers (both men and women) report the same sort of thing, so maybe it’s something that women and men in these “women’s” professions need to be more aware of [I hate the phrase "women's professions" almost as much as I hate jokes about shushing people].
I left traditional librarianship to work in “knowledge management” for a corporation. Compared to what I made in academic libraries, I make a lot of money, though I hardly make fast-track corporate bucks. I still find myself ghettoized as “the librarian”, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that I’m the only person in the department with relevant professional or academic experience, and I find myself constantly having to remind people that I didn’t get a master’s degree in the alphabet, or shelving books, but in what they mostly think of as “IT” (read: male and professional and impressive) concepts, like information organization and retrieval, and in how people seek out information. ‘Cause, you know, librarians have only been coming up with information systems for oh, the past several thousand years [/bad-day-at-work snark].
This comment was written by Erin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 6th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Word, Erin. Those are some of the many reasons I am no longer a librarian, although I still volunteer in the library in my kids’ school. (Somewhat snarky aside: until about 5 years ago, this library was so undervalued that most of the budget was spent solely on stuff they could get grant matching funds for - Internet access and other sexy stuff like that. Net result, parent volunteers were doing most of the book prep and cataloging. The current librarian has had to re-catalog the entire collection and told me that on her first day she discovered a Bill Clinton biography in the catalog under B for Bill.)
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 6th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Erin and Lee, I can only begin to imagine the kind crap you get from people who for some reason think you must not be “good enough” for “other work.”
I’ve been working at a national chain bookstore for a while, and it’s amazing how stupid and uneducated people assume we are, despite the fact that the vast majority of us are either in, or have graduated from, college. My patrons at least have the (lame) excuse that, well, we are just hourly employees after all.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
July 6th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
My best friend, who is a bookstore employee with a B.A. in English and a master’s in library science, would shout “Amen!” to that one, Jenny. She often strikes up conversations with customers about purchases of theirs that she’s read, and she says that at least once a week someone gives her a look like “You can read? What are you doing here then?”
This comment was written by Erin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 5:40 am
Its an interesting list as far as it goes. I could take issue with some of the points raised and maybe suggest good reasons for some of the other ones but in broader sense I suspect most of what you say is right.
The main criticism of the list is that it comes across as a list of whinges without offering any deeper analysis or doing anything positive with the data you have assembled. What might be interesting would be to attempt to analyse which items on the list are changing within society and which are remaining static. This ought to create discussion and deepen understanding. I would expect to find a certain commonality between those aspects of patriarchy which are in remission and a similar undercurrent in those which are remaining entrecnhed. Deeper understanding is the first step to offering a solution and without offering a solution you really are just whinging.
This comment was written by Oliver Longden.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 6:44 am
Oliver — that is your homework to do, not mine. If you’re not willing to do the work, well then you’re just whinging, eh?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 10:51 am
>>The main criticism of the list is that it comes across as a list of whinges without offering any deeper analysis or doing anything positive with the data you have assembled. What might be interesting would be to attempt to analyse which items on the list are changing within society and which are remaining static. This ought to create discussion and deepen understanding. I would expect to find a certain commonality between those aspects of patriarchy which are in remission and a similar undercurrent in those which are remaining entrecnhed. Deeper understanding is the first step to offering a solution and without offering a solution you really are just whinging. >>
Oh, fucking whatever. There certainly is value in the simple act of identifying disparities, particularly to people who aren’t in a position to notice them. Not just that, but of course there have been studies on changing levels of disparity–attitudes towards sexual expression in women, for example; beliefs about reproductive choice; female representation in different career fields; wage disparities; marital ages; healthcare. Feminist thinkers and sociologists have been toiling in those trenches for decades, and your total ignorance of their work is yet another example of unacknowledged, unreconstructed sexism.
We’ve got solutions, too–they’d already have been implemented, but they share one big problem: they require men to work at changing their own attitudes and actions, and to examine their own lives and the lives of men around them.
And speaking of work that you can do, what are your solutions? How would you end sexism in our time? You seem to understand that it’s a problem. Have you thought about solving it?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2005 at 11:56 pm
Erin:
They’ve only given her looks? I’ve had at least two people straight out ask me that. While the circumstances were slightly different (I was admitting I majored in physics, not just demonstrating that I could read), I was highly insulted both times. But of course, both people (one of them a manager) thought they were being complimentary.
I would also like to add that I’ve also had someone ask me if I “read, you know, besides blogs?” This was at a local political gathering, and the person doing the asking was one of the ringleaders of the group, which in part explains why much of my political activity is restricted to the internet.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
boy lots of replies where to begin, nowhere, I think the list only emphasises the mentality of society over the generations which are very slowly changing, traditional jobs of past usually went to men, but once woman started to get into it, then the presitige left and men sought other careers.
example, teachers in the bygone years were men, woman took over later, now it is not considered a very glamorous job, tho I have had male teachers in junior high and high school and I liked them as much as the woman teachers.
secretaries used to be men, now it is predominatly woman, because of it’s association with woman’s work it loses it’s glamorous positon, the traditional role gave woman only one choice motherhood and housework, field work to help the husband if a farm, or helping out in the shop if he had one as a business.
a man had more options married or not, he could be a blacksmith, banker, (more tellers around here are woman )horse trainer, cattleman, farmer, carpenter, but woman’s options were practically nil. her choices were to marry this man or not, and to have children and keeping the house clean and laundry and cooking all the meals and taking care of children regardless of how tired she was.
the man’s options were to work at his career support his family financially adn that was about it. he could help out with the children or not, he wasn’t penalized either way, he could get involved in community affairs affecting judgements on how things should proceed in their neck of the woods. and sometimes he did repairs around the house.
but it must be remembered with privileges comes heavy responsibilty, the more privlege you have the more responsibility you have to shoulder. the hardships of that can negate any privlege depending on the circumstances.
sometimes those in power are really powerless to change things if they want some changes done because of peer pressure and fear of losing prestige or their positions. sometimes one guy out of ten wants to change an injustice but the others like the status quo. so he either gets with the program or is booted out and his reputation is booted as well.
husband and wife should work as a team, if one is not happy that should be addressed, and things changed if possible. if one is not happy the other won’t be. trouble comes when one wants to abandon the relationship and leave the other hanging with whatever they left whether mortgage, children, medical concerns not to mention the heart ache of losing your partner and lover.
and it is true, society (tho indirectly and subtly) does expect a man to be a man! not to wimper and to be proud, (well we know pride can lead to one’s downfall) and to seek his own paths and not let a wimpering woman and childre desuade him from fulfilling himself (to abandon his kids if they interfere with his goals) and that no one will condemn him for that.
a woman would be condemed for that, and it is true a man who sleeps around when married is having affairs, (trying to tone down the seriousness of it by calling it an affair rather than what it truly is treachery and adultery, ) and sometimes woman now a days do that too, have affairs. men who sleep around are called studs, where a woman is a slut,
which is contradictory considering if the man sleeps around to become a stud a woman has to become a slut for him to do so? this is a perfect example of a double standard with a catch 22. sometimes men are pressured by other men to sleep around even if he really doesn’t want to, friends, (friends yea right) call him a wuss, a chicken a girlie man or whatever to make him feel he has to prove himself.
such a guy should vacate those type friends and associate with people who will encourage the kind of behavior the guy himself wants to do. these impressions about woman and men roles are fashioned from childhood by what one sees and hears and tv is the perfect example, woman are treated as weaker sex with treacherous hearts looking to suduce a man, or she is protrayed as get in the way person or one who causes a mission or troubleshooting a problem to get messed up because she tried to help and the man has to try and undo the damage she created.
or as a woman who is independant in words but gets into trouble and the man has to come to her rescue. Such as “I can take care of myself” when a few seconds later she gets right into trouble and the man rescues her and gets sexual favors as a result.
or the woman in the show is so stupid and can’t do anything against a situation and is helpless or whatever, or is always falling down when running I mean the list is endless.
it really is disgusting how they portray woman on tv and guys too sometimes they get the short end of the stick to, society pressures bear more influence then we would like to admit sometimes. in many cases if not most men do have the upper hand simply because of prejudices and automatic character strengths simply because of his gender.
he is a man therefor he has all these wonderful qualities (even tho he may be a total jerk or totally incompentent). so here is the typical scenario you see on tv all the time, maybe this really is in real life, white, male, with money, middle age gets into power way before anyone else does. the majoritiy of the congress and legislators etc fit this description.
there are some females and some blacks, are there any hispanics? I don’t remember seeing them on there. the vast majority are white male and middle age or higher in age.
so naturally they will vote in laws and such that favor white men with money, how can they not? poor people don’t give contributions or have influences in other areas like wealthy people do. they can’t relate to poor whites, hispanics or woman, they mostly never had to live on fixed incomes or live from paycheck to paycheck, maybe a few but not the most.
they don’t know what it is like to work for someone else and have to skimp and budget and not have medical coverage being wealthy those in power do not have to worry about that they just vote themselves a raise or otehr perks and take it out of the poor person’ s pockets who by the way have no way to fight back.
so much of that list is probably true, in the eyes of socieity as a hole, this is something that was passed from generation to generation. all without words but through actions.
RR
This comment was written by Roberta.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Like Spiderman?
This comment was written by ms. b..Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
Bravo. Very true and wonderfully written. Thank you!
This comment was written by Melissa.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
what do you mean by spiderman?
cause he is so much trying to help others that he has no life of his own? please explain. thanks.
RR
This comment was written by Roberta.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
The most famous quote from the first Spiderman comic book, written by Stan Lee, is “With great power comes great responsibility.” The phrase has been repeated often in subsequent Spiderman stories, including in both of the recent movies.
For Spiderman, it pretty much means what you said - that because he’s been given great power, he’s obligated to use it to help people, even if it means he has very little life available for himself.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Your clothes will nearly always have adequate pockets and will be sized in inches or centimetres rather than code numbers, your shoes will likely be comfortable to walk in and you will not be expected to wear socks that are expected to tear on a regular basis.
This comment was written by Alison Rowan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Has anyone ever compiled such a list exploring the privileges of race?
This comment was written by Dargie.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
It’s noted in the original piece up top. There’s a link.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Only one point - as a teacher, I can see a lot more girls succeeding these days than boys. University admission is more female than male. Look at any standardized school-achievement test, and you’ll find girls doing better overall. The exception is in recent immigrant families, where girls are often overlooked in favour of the eldest boy in the family, even if the girl is the smarter of the two.
Also, in elementary education at least, men are outnumbered 6 to 1. The ratio of male high school teachers to female is also dropping to be about equal in most places.
This may be why education in the States doesn’t get nearly the funding it deserves, and why it always ranks right up there with nursing, another female dominated profession, when governments in Canada want to cut some spending. Still, the inequalities exist in the other direction in many educational institutions.
This comment was written by Velvetpage.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Look, I haven’t read all the comments, and I’m not going to. But I am going to say this: Women may not have 100% equality in the workplace, but rather than sitting around on our arses and continually bitching about it, why don’t we go out there and actively change things.
When we sit around and say ‘oh men have it better because…’ or continually blame them for their own short comings or ’socially constructed’ strengths and weaknesses, then we, to an extent, are belittling the original feminist agenda. Feminism is all about empowerment, and to sit around just ‘talking’ about the problems does the same as ignoring them. If these things seriously bother you (I think you’re a little delusional about a lot of it, but hey) then go and do something about it. These things will only change with action.
This comment was written by Pheebs.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:12 am
I wonder where people get the idea that talking about things and doing something about those things are mutually exclusive, and that action for change occurs in isolation in silence.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:03 am
I’m not suggesting that action and talking are mutually exclusive… what I’m saying, is that none of this is ‘new’ talk. In fact, while all the people say this is marvelous etc etc, I think you will find that a lot of the items on this list are about the environment in which men feel unable to come forward due to society’s ‘poof’ mentality (or supposed poof mentality). I really don’t think a lot of these things are issues, and as I read, I can see how many of them can be turned on their head as an advantage for women.
We’re too busy saying things are so crap, rather than looking around and seeing how well off we actually are. And if we still think we’re not well off, then now is the time for action. I’m not talking about bra burning or symbols of female emancipation, I’m talking about talking to people who CAN make a difference. Not a web audience of people who most of all couldn’t give a flying F about action
This comment was written by Pheebs.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 6:57 am
When I talk with my friends trying to work out a solution to something in my personal life this is really important stuff, when women do it’s trival gossip.
This comment was written by delta_tango.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:35 am
Whether it’s new talk or not, I can say that reading through this list and the many, many comments made about it has given me an insight that I didn’t have before into the views of many different people. And I think that there’s a lot to be gained from rational discussion - from taking into account ideas that you don’t agree with, rather than dismissing them outright and preaching to the choir.
I will certainly not argue with the fact that women–at least in western society–are much better off than we once were. (I think that is also true for men.) And that change has come through hard work and activism, and the fact that people’s minds have been changed, along with what’s considered acceptable and right. I am thankful for that.
But just because things are better doesn’t mean that we should ignore injustice where it still exists, simply because we should be happy with what we’ve got. And I think that an important part of that change must come through real, reasoned dialogue, which is approached in good faith with an open mind. It’s difficult, and I struggle with it, when I’d rather just dismiss or ignore someone’s ideas that I find repugnant, rather than try to understand their reasons for thinking that way. Also, I think it’s productive to really examine one’s own beliefs and why we hold them so dear. If nothing else, it makes me better able to argue with the people I disagree with!
Talking and thinking may seem counterproductive, but I think that going out and acting on ideas one hasn’t examined can be even more damaging.
This comment was written by Rebecca.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:51 am
OK Pheebs, what action should feminists take that they aren’t already taking?
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 11:13 pm
I’ve seen the list before, and there is a lot of truth on it. I say that while still being offended by being lumped in a group with those guys.
One thing I have always noticed in any 2 sided argument is the tendency for both sides to do the same thing and each criticize the other for it. For example, a man posts his list of downsides to being a man, and the overwhelming response is “that’s not feminists fault”. Who said it was? Isn’t this the same thing as the men getting defensive and demanding that women take action to reduce male privilege?
I do think that women could do more to change their situation than they realize, but I also realize that there is a certain justified fear women can have about making a fuss and pissing the men off. Shouldn’t be justified, but it IS often enough that I can’t really fault any individual woman for saying men have more power, regardless of population stats or political position. On the other hand, most women that I personally know who were/are in abusive relationships were being pretty stupid to get into them in the first place (everybody knew and sometimes even warned them that the relationship would be that way). Two things to note there: 1.I said most, not all. 2. Saying that someone is being pretty stupid to get into an abusive relationship doesn’t mean that they are a stupid person in other areas, or even that they continued making stupid decisions regarding relationships.
Also - the argument about women doing more work in a day than men stikes me as crap- not because it isn’t true, but because in my home(and most of my friends), it is her fault. I told my wife before we were married that she was going to be doing most of the housework. Not because it was her job, but because she would be the only one noticing that the mantle had dust on it, or the carpet needs vacuuming, or there are spots on the mirror, etc. If she doesn’t clean, I don’t care. I’ll gladly help when the toys are scattered, I need a clean dish to eat off of, etc.(yes I am a slob). One interesting thing is that BOTH men and women do more housework after marriage than either one did while single (although women admittedly usually do much more than men, the men do more than they did single).
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
Two more things (the first one may be worth reading, the second- I just like to point out):
There have been a couple of posts upset about men complaining that their wives control their sex lives, as if this complaint says that the man thinks his wife exists to please his penis. I don’t think this is what is meant by that complaint. There are times whe I do not want to have sex(not as often as the wife, but it happens). however, if she asks twice, I will do it. I wouldn’t for a date or girlfriend, but she married me - what is a few minutes of my time? I waste more time filling her car up with gas… But she does not feel the same way. While I could ask my wife to cook me dinner, and she would, even if she didn’t feel like it, I can’t ask that she have sex if she doesn’t feel like it. I think most men don’t understand the difference. You would think that it would be the men who wouldn’t do it if they didn’t feel like it (after all, our body has to actually do something that we don’t have control over). But that’s just not the way it usually seems to be, and most men feel that is unfair (maybe their wife doesn’t cook dinner as a trade-off, or maybe they don’t feel that it is equitable). In any case, I hate that a lot of women accuse men of being borderline rapist when men complain that their wife doesn’t do something for them that they would probably do for their wife.
Regarding the workplace - I will say one thing that will probably get somebody upset - I have always argued that having the same JOB does not mean the same WORK gets done. For a lot of jobs, this does not apply, but it does skew the averages, especially in lower income jobs where people like to compare hourly rates. My first job was in a movie theater. There were girls(not being derogatory- I was a boy at the time) that had the same job as me (projectionist/manager). However, it always annoyed me that they got paid the same as I did, because when Thursday night rolled around, I could tote the movies up and down the stairs and build them up and break them down with no help. But when it was my day off, there had to be 2 people to do the same job, because the girls couldn’t carry the films upstairs. Why should my boss pay 2 people to do 1 person’s job? Same thing happened at a later job. I had the same position as the lady in the next desk, but I had the privilege of carrying the boxes of paper up and down the stairs, putting the office furniture together, and still being held to the same output standard as she was, while making less money. So that’s my venting - it’s not really relevant, as it just addresses that two people with the same job description don’t always do the same job (after all, there are high school girls who could carry the film upstairs, and boys that couldn’t, they just didn’t work with me).
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 8:14 am
So Jay’s experience is different and that means we’re wrong. Oh, yeah, and women and girls do less work because that’s what he’s seen and his vision and judgement are….what, exactly?
Yeah, Pheebs, thanks. That was productive. You do realize that by telling us to shut up you’re just bitching yourself, right?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 10:01 am
Ginmar - who said you were wrong? I didn’t- My experience is my experience, not yours. I just wanted to point out that there is more to think about than just ‘I have the same job as you, so I do the same work’. I have been in the other position too, where I made the same money as the person next to me, even though she had to make arrangements for flowers to go to funerals, hospitals, etc. and help plan all group functions. She also had to do the same work that I did. That wasn’t fair either, but when it happens that way, people notice it. When it is a man doing extra tasks because he is a man and it is expected, nobody notices. This does NOT mean that pay inequalities between men and women don’t exist, just that we will NEVER be able to say that two people with the same job description should be paid the same, regardless of gender.
And I never said women and girls do less work. I said THOSE TWO did less work than ME. If they had been working with a different male, they may have done more work than him, just because he didn’t do as much as me. Everything men say isn’t meant to degrade women. Anything I say to degrade women is said sarcastically to my wife, and usually followed up by(or preceded by) her saying something equally bad about men (both statements false, and both of us know it).
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Men and not women who started Microsoft.
This comment was written by JohnB.Men and not women who started Google
Men and not women who started Dell
Men and not women who started HP (but it was a woman who almost destroyed it).
Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 10:31 am
Men and not women who started Microsoft.
Men and not women who started Google
Men and not women who started Dell
Men and not women who started HP (but it was a woman who almost destroyed it).
Good point, but absolutely not relevant. Many women have started successful businesses, and many more might have if some of the male privilege didn’t exist to give men an edge in doing so. (would you invest in a company that is doing something completely differently than everybody else in the field, if it was run by a woman? Many investors wouldn’t, because it’s probably just a woman’s hare-brained attempt to participate in something she OBVIOUSLY doesn’t understand)(cause she’s a chick, and chicks just don’t get the business world). And yes, there really are a LOT of people with that attitude. More than most guys probably like to admit.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Yes, JohnB, and I find it telling that you seem to imply that that’s because of some sort of innate quality, rather than the sexism that tells women:
1) That they’re bad at math, and can’t be engineers.
2) That they’re supposed to be gentle little flowers who don’t have (or shouldn’t have) the ‘cutthroat instincts’ it takes to succeed in big business.
3) That they shouldn’t be working anyhow, because, after all, that interferes with their ability to take care of their husbands and children.
And you know what, JohnB, that’s without even going into how goddamn sexist the business world itself is, and how many extra hurdles a woman would have to face if she came to the table with the EXACT SAME idea, business model, and technology as the Google boys did.
BTW, HP was founded in 1939, Microsoft in 1975, Dell in the early 80’s. You think that the banks were just leaping to provide small business loans to young women who hadn’t graduated college yet the same way they’ve lept to make sure that Bill Gates and Michael Dell were able to pursue their dreams?
Christ, man, I just hope I’m able to get this comment in before some of the other posters here get to you . . . your ignorance is literally breathtaking.
I gasped.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
Interesting list. I was skeptical when I saw the title of the thread, but there are definitely valid points in it to ponder.
carla, Amp, if you’re still out there listening; I’m an Illinois citizen and remember when we HAD a female Senator (and black, to boot!). I voted for her. I did so because I thought her policies and ideas were better than her opponents, not because she was female or black. Unfortunately, she turned out to be a lousy Senator (at least in my opinion), and got turned out of office.
So now, a question; apparently the mechanism exists in Illinois to get a female candidate nominated for Senator in a major party. Why cannot this be repeated?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
I disagree with some of the points of the list, and they exhibit such blindness that it causes me to discount her other complaints.
I know enough men who have been raped, who have been beaten by their girlfriend, who have been sexually harrassed in their job, that it *know* it’s not “vanishingly rare”. It’s just “vanishingly rare” that it gets reported.
When a man is assaulted in such a way, come on, who’s he going to report it to. And the few who dare to, get doubly assaulted by the female lobby.
This comment was written by Mark Atwood.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Um - that is a really good point on a one at a time basis, and one that probably deserves to be discussed, but when talking about men and women as groups, it doesn’t really mean much. MOST men can shrug off an attack from MOST women. I know my wife was trying to drive home drunk once when we were dating. I wouldn’t let her, and she proceeded to slap the crap out of me in public. She hit me several times and kicked me. I didn’t even have a bruise in the morning. If I got drunk and hit her, I could send her to the hospital with one punch. She was still in the wrong, but I try to have a little perspective on it. I agree that attacks on men are MUCH more common than most people on this board would believe, but one of the reasons they don’t get reported is that when a man has sex against his will, he is usually completely CAPABLE of putting a stop to it, and doesn’t. That doesn’t mean it isn’t rape, but it is in a different category in my opinion.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 7:10 am
…And we have the inevitable appearance of the guy trying to change the subject: “But women do it, too!”
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
With regard to work related issues, if we have laws like this, the tide may turn.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4429408.stm
This comment was written by Alice.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
“33. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if i don’t change my name.”
Second “I” should be huge, too, right? ;)
Thanks for the list, link will be spread through my journal. =)
[Thanks for catching that typo - I've corrected it. :-) --amp]
This comment was written by Martyna.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
#24 often does not apply in Pagan or other alternative circles, where women are actually rewarded for having sex with lots of people, particuarly if they are bisexual.
This comment was written by Butterfly.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Hah! #33 wasn’t a problem for us. As it happened, my wife’s “maiden name” was the same as mine. In fact, that’s how we met; we were seated alphabetically by last name in homeroom in high school in our Junior year.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Here’s a point-by-point analysis of this list:
http://craptaculus.com/site/thamus/437a30da.shtml
This comment was written by Kareem Uvsumyungi.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2005 at 9:57 pm
If anyone who is not familiar with Latin is unsure, yes, I am a man: Carolus is the Latinised form of the Anglo-French name. Now that is set straight… About the checklist, well, it is accurate, to some degree. Indeed, many men do act like jerks, boors, etc. But one might argue that the very principle of being a gentleman is in effect sexist. Since I try to adhere to that principle, does that make me sexist? I think not: I try to treat all people I meet with equality, regardless of race, gender, or religion. The people for whom I have no respect are those who are clearly incompetent (id est, those who evince ignorance with determination and refuse to see/acknowledge the basic things one of their age should know).
As for relations with a potential spouse/girlfriend, of either I have none, and never will have: even though I am not a homosexual (another maligned group against whom I have no prejudice; I just do not think their lifestyle should be forced in the public face), I have little romantic interest in women. Why? Simple. I cannot take time from my greater goals of self-improvement and to perhaps walk my personal “cursus honorum” to be romantically involved with any woman. In addition, in spite of my egalitarian and tolerant views, at times, I can be a rather hateful person (the world, and its corruption disgusts me), and my thin, mangy, appearance (like that of my brothers from Austria, Nigeria, and Germany) is unattractive to all but the most desparate, or maybe the most accepting of all women. I do not criticise women for finding my appearance unattractive: how many men would go for the “ugly” woman, just because she is not “hot?” I can find beauty in a woman twice, or thrice my age; I find beauty in the poor women in some of the world’s worst regions, for I admire their strength and will to live. If ever I do wed, then no “hottie” shall I seek, for this I do not need, and shall never have.
If more men could view things as I did (without my sometimes hateful view of the world), then perhaps things would be different. My advice, if I may humbly offer it, to the women who feel oppressed: work hard, and have faith. Even if the major religions do present God as a male, keep in mind that the nature of God can never be truly comprehended by any person. The “male” personification of God may arise from the ancient words for Him (e.g. “Dominus,” “Deus”), and, in Christianity, for example, from the connection between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. I believe that in America, for one, we shall fall behind the rest of the world if we cannot rise above these petty differences in race, gender, and religion. I say to all men: treat all the women you meet with respect. Only the people who do not prove themselves worthy of your respect, regardless of race, gender, etc. should you think of badly.
But this is just my belief and manifesto. I do not compell anyone else to adopt it, except out of their desire to see the world differently.
Ach, ich habe sehr viele geschrieben!
This comment was written by Carolus.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 9:45 am
Well, it’s nice to know Carolus isn’t sexist! I was worried about that one. And of course Kareem’s ‘refutation’ is so much more valueable to me than my own experience and the experiencesd of other women. Kareem assumes he’s original and carolus assumes we need to know he’s not sexist. Fascinating.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 10:11 am
ginmar,
Where does the analysis (not ‘refutaion’) say you have to discount your own experience? It doesn’t. It in fact acknowleges most of the items as sexism, but places some of them in different categories. But, using your standards, this list attempts to tell me that it is more valuable than my own experience, does it not?
You are, of course, under no obligation to listen to me, or care that Carolus proclaims his lack of sexism, but why do you find it “fascinating” that the two of us posted comments on this list?
This comment was written by Kareem Uvsumyungi.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 11:02 am
By the way ginmar, it does appear to be original. Every ‘refutation’ I have seen has actually been a pure reversal: pointing out that “women” have advantages too. The one I linked to attempts to point out deficiencies in the items themselves, as well as bring up the original checklist’s unspoken assumptions of using the groups “men” and “women” to make inferences individual people in the first place. Did you read the bloody list, or just assume you knew its contents?
This comment was written by Kareem Uvsumyungi.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 11:04 am
You and carolus’ responses are both defensive; you take the list personally and you dimiss items that you don’t feel you do. Well! You don’t do them so they don’t exist, do they? Also, frankly, your attitude sucks. “Weepy face?” You poor dear. You don’t feel privileged? Have a sex change and then get back to me.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 11:45 am
ginmar,
No, in fact, the list does acknowledge they exist, it just says that *some* of them should be no concern of yours. For example, the original list says it is a male privilege that women are expected to be 20-40 pounds underweight. “Expected by who?” and “Why should I care?” come to mind. You are an individual, act like one. Do you let other people’s expectations rule you? I don’t. Lots of things are expected of me, some specificaly because I am male. I get to pick and choose which ones I accept. You have that same ability, use it.
If your partner won’t do dishes, why is (s)he your partner? etc. It really is that simple. You are not some fragile china doll. You are a supposed to be a strong human being. That is why it uses the “weepy face” for those items that depend entirely on other people opinions: you don’t need to care.
You’re last sentence though really says it all, though. I am not a woman, therefore I cannot ever possibly comment negatively on even a single item on that list. I should just accept them without question. And yes, it was “defensive”: the original list was speaking about me, personally (me being a male and all), was it not?
This comment was written by Kareem Uvsumyungi.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Ginmar and Kareem, let’s please try to keep the discussion civil.
Kareem, out of curiosity, are you the author of the analysis you linked to?
I read it. It’s not the first analysis to take this approach (keep in mind I’ve probably read more responses to the list than anyone else!), but I agree that it’s a better and less common approach than the pure-reversal lists.
In particular, the complaint about me using “weaselly” words is one I’ve seen several times before. I’m not sure how to respond to that criticism; weasel-words make prose weaker, but this isn’t a work of prose, it’s a description of what women have told me and what I’ve read in the social science literature. It seems to me that truthfulness requires me to talk about what is probable; skipping those hated weasel-phrases would make the list less honest.
For instance, I wrote “If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.”
The analysis gave this a “blog of goo,” for using the weasel phrase “chances are.” But the social science research I’ve read on this question didn’t find that men were offered better prices than women 100% of the time; it found that most but not all of the time, men were offered better prices than women. “Chances are” seems like an honest way of describing that.
Now, the analysis you admire so much objects to “weaselly” phrases like “chances are.” But if I skip the weasel-words (”If I buy a new car, I’ll be offered a better price”) then I’m no longer being honest.
Kareem, given all that - and given that it’s a common problem for the things I’m talking about - how would you suggest I write the list to remain honest while avoiding so-called “weasel” words? If you have a solution, I really would be interested; I’m more than willing to revise the list to improve it, if people suggest improvements I can get behind.
* * *
Weasel-words aside, regarding the car-sales thing, I want to point out that the author of the analysis gives this item a “bigfatX,” and writes that ” car salesmen look for people who don’t know any better and price accordingly, even if you’re a man.”
Well, duh. But the real question is, faced with a woman and a man who know better (or don’t know better) equally, will they both be offered the same price?
A study published in Harvard Law Review tested the question empirically by sending testers to employ identical negotiating techniques at randomly selected car lots. The researchers found that, even though the negotiators used the exact same initial offers and the exact same negotiation strategy, car salespeople consistently offered men - and in particular, white men - lower prices than were offered blacks and women.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 12:25 pm
In practice, what people think of you makes a big difference in life. For instance, many economic studies have found that fat women - much more than fat men - are penalized in the job market for having extra weight. It’s not as easy to say “why should I care?” when you get a lower paycheck then an otherwise-identical thin woman would get.
More generally, as I wrote in an earlier post:
There’s more to that post, but the above is pretty much how’d I respond to the “weepy face” critique.
Kareem writes:
Not if you read the items logically. If I say “men, on average, are taller than women,” that doesn’t speak personally to any individual man, and if an individual man knows he’s actually shorter than the typical woman, there’s no reason for him to be insulted by my statement. On the contrary, my use of the dreaded weasel-words acknowleges that there are individual exceptions to the average I’m talking about.
So why do you take it personally?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 12:34 pm
I get to pick and choose which ones I accept
That says it all about your level of privilege, doesn’t it?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 1:12 pm
>>You’re last sentence though really says it all, though. I am not a woman, therefore I cannot ever possibly comment negatively on even a single item on that list. I should just accept them without question. And yes, it was “defensive”: the original list was speaking about me, personally (me being a male and all), was it not? >>
Not at all. You should not, however, assume that your experience is either representative or complete. I’ve never seen any clerk follow a black man around a store; that doesn’t mean that minorities are not suspected of shoplifting. I didn’t suspect minority customers of dishonesty when I worked retail, and did everything in my power to treat them with the same courtesy I showed towards all my customers; that doesn’t mean that minorities are not slighted by customer-service employees. I was followed around a store once as a white fifteen-year-old; that doesn’t mean that racism is not displayed towards black people, or that clerks suspected me for the same reasons.
>>Not if you read the items logically. If I say “men, on average, are taller than women,” that doesn’t speak personally to any individual man, and if an individual man knows he’s actually shorter than the typical woman, there’s no reason for him to be insulted by my statement. On the contrary, my use of the dreaded weasel-words acknowleges that there are individual exceptions to the average I’m talking about. >>
Exactly. “Male privilege” doesn’t translate to, “All men at all times are better off than all women,” but to, “Men do not suffer in any situation where women are disadvantaged by sexism.” For example, men do not have to wear makeup to work at Harrah’s. Some or most of the time is still better than none of the time, and most of the exceptions (male children, men in prison) apply to women, too.
Also, everything Amp said about choice. Ginmar’s ability to buy clothing is affected by the cultural insistence that she be a certain weight. The quality of the medical care she receives is affected by the cultural insistence that she be a certain weight. Her employment prospects are affected by the cultural insistence that she be a certain weight. Her insurance premiums are affected by the cultural insistence that she be a certain weight. And if she decides to keep herself underweight in order to prevent all of these problems, her health could very well be affected. Amp could probably find more examples than I can. It’s all well and good to tell people to buck up and ignore insults, inconveniences, and hidden fees when you yourself aren’t suffering them.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 2:33 pm
To add to the “treat everybody equally” defense: I could be as nice and as respectful to every person of color as possible, but that wouldn’t change the fact that people of color as a class don’t have institutional, economic, or cultural power. Same goes for gender.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Ampersand,
Then I suggest you rewrite the checklist to mean what you say then. If by “expected to be 20-40 pounds underweight” you really mean “If I’m fat and a woman I get worse pay rates”, say that. Do that for all the items you further explain above.
As for the weasel words, they are still weasel words. I’d suggest *emphasizing* them by not trying to apply it to “males” and not using first person pronouns. Besides, those items are *not* dismissed because they have weasel words, as you’ll note, several of them have both a blob of goo and a checkmark.
The biggest beef I have with the weasel words are that you *are* talking about averages, not people. It is sexist to treat people as a gender. It is, really.
piny,
Sorry, it is personal. That’s why the items start with “I” and refer to “me”. The Harrah’s case is interesting, I’ll grant you that. It seems to me to be a clear cut case of sexism. So I suggest that we change the checklist to something like “If I worked at Harrah’s, I would have the choice to not wear makeup”. This is not to dismiss that case, but “chances are” in the vast vast majority of cases, women choose to wear makeup. To dip into the “we got it bad too” pile: men can’t work as waiters at Hooters. Is that sexism, and if so, should it be allowed?
And I’m sorry, but your last paragraph does not convince me of anything. You seem to be talking about being overweight, not being underweight. If, in fact the item was meant to convey that fat women are subject to “hidden fees” because they are overweight and fat men do not have these, then let’s change that item to reflect that.
mythago,
You can choose too, you really can. There are valid instances of “male privilege, yes, but when it is merely “I am expected to stay at home with the kids”, that *is* a choice you can make.
It is very interesting that any of my objections can be dismissed by noting that I am privileged, so I can’t know.
This comment was written by Kareem Uvsumyungi.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 3:21 pm
It is sexist to treat people as a gender.
It is not sexist to recognize that people may be treated differently depending on their (perceived) gender.
any of my objections can be dismissed by noting that I am privileged, so I can’t know.
Choose not to know, or choose to ignore, rather than “can’t know”.
As I’m sure you know, choices do not occur in a vacuum. Everything from laws to social pressure affects our choices. It’s fine to say “I don’t care what people think of me,” when you forget that “people” includes police officers, potential employers, co-workers, and so on, not merely your friends and in-laws.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Wow, it’s like you’ve never even seen the word “underweight” before. That’s amazing.
The point isn’t that women are expected to be ‘not fat’ (although that’s true, and unreasonable) but that in order to meet the prevailing standards of ‘not fat’ most women would have to be unhealthily underweight.
Thus, it’s a two-fer. Set crazy standards and then mistreat women for not meeting them.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Yeah, I don’t see the problem with saying “chances are” either. I am taking a Sociology of Gender course right now, and most of the research I’ve read confirms several points on your checklist (such as 37, 38, and 39). Surprisingly, a study I’ve read actually contradicts #44 (”On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men”). I can find the citation if you like. I think I’ve also read about some other disadvantages for women at the interactional level that you don’t mention in your checklist.
I agree, and I’m also confused by people who insist otherwise. I don’t think that cultural expectations completely determine how we live, but they do make a difference even when we reject them, because rejecting them requires expending energy and often paying a price (such as social censure, exclusion, guilt, or shame). For example, with #41 (”I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight”), it’s true that women don’t have to accept such a body image. Nobody is forcing them. Yet rejecting that body image may have hidden costs such as shame. These kinds of costs are difficult to quantify, but they are still real.
To understand how overarching cultural expectations do matter, I have thought of an example that is easier for me (and probably for other men) to relate to: paying for dates. Men don’t have to pay for dates. Nobody is forcing them. But there is still pressure to be chivalrous and fork up. Men who reject this pressure must still risk uncomfortable situations on dates when the bill comes. And men who choose not to pay may be made to feel guilty, as if they aren’t “real men.”
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 3:26 pm
As for my reaction to the checklist in general: some of it I agree with, some of it I don’t. I don’t think there is any wrong with making a list that focuses only on male privileges, though I would also be interesting in seeing a list of what you believe to be female privileges.
Here are the main points I have problems with:
#16. “As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.”
Yet the pressure on males to be active and outgoing can be a big problem for males who have naturally introverted temperaments. Actually, the pressure on all boys to engage in rambunctious, rough-and-tumble play can actually be a cause of bullying, because it gives physically larger, aggressive, and extroverted males an opportunity to victimize smaller, less aggressive, introverted males.
I think you could avoid this problem if you rephrased the point to something like: “As a child, chances are I wasn’t encouraged to be passive and timid.” Being encouraged to be passive and timid is clearly a disadvantage for females, while being encouraged to be active and outgoing is not so clearly an advantage for all males.
#28. “If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.”
I agree that women who are not conventionally attractive may suffer more disadvantages than men who are not conventionally attractive. Yet I doubt that the disadvantages for men are “relatively small and easy to ignore.” For example, hasn’t it been shown that male status and job opportunities are positively related to height? Height is part of conventional attractiveness for males (think of the “tall, dark and handsome expectation). I agree with your basic point here, though I think the way you phrase it is an overstatement.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 3:35 pm
>>piny,
Sorry, it is personal. That’s why the items start with “I” and refer to “me”. The Harrah’s case is interesting, I’ll grant you that. It seems to me to be a clear cut case of sexism. So I suggest that we change the checklist to something like “If I worked at Harrah’s, I would have the choice to not wear makeup”. This is not to dismiss that case, but “chances are” in the vast vast majority of cases, women choose to wear makeup. To dip into the “we got it bad too” pile: men can’t work as waiters at Hooters. Is that sexism, and if so, should it be allowed?>>
So we can discuss individual cases of sexism, but arguing that they’re related to larger social trends is completely out of order? The hell with that. The Harrah’s requirement was defended in court as perfectly reasonable; if that’s not evidence of sexism as a social problem, or of a broad difference between the way men are privileged and women are disadvantaged, I don’t know what is. And you know that “choice” is disingenuous. Women choose to wear makeup because they respond to social pressure to do so. Women are expected to wear makeup, and they suffer if they “choose” not to: it can mean the difference between being hired and being dismissed. How about this? “No matter where I work, I will not be expected to wear makeup.”
Men also can’t work as call girls. Is it really sexism that women are relegated to the most demeaning jobs? I find it hard to believe you’re not being disingenuous here.
>>And I’m sorry, but your last paragraph does not convince me of anything. You seem to be talking about being overweight, not being underweight. If, in fact the item was meant to convey that fat women are subject to “hidden fees” because they are overweight and fat men do not have these, then let’s change that item to reflect that.>>
No, I am talking about being underweight. It’s as Myca said: women are expected to maintain a weight that is underweight. Women who are at a healthy weight for them have trouble buying clothes, getting jobs, paying fair rates for life insurance, and getting adequate medical care because of it.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Or even better: “No matter where I work, my refusal to wear makeup will not have a negative impact on my chances of being hired, promoted, or positively reviewed by my supervisors.”
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Myca,
I was responding to a very specific counter-example which mentioned “fat women”. I am very familiar with the idiotic love affair some people have with underweight women (which includes “on average” “most” other women, by the way).
piny,
Then, please, by all means, ask for a rewrite of the list to remove the ambiguity and be very specific about what it means, in real terms, for each item. That is all the “weepy face” on that page means. What is wrong with asking for clarity on who we are talking about?
mythago,
No I did not forget who those people with negative opinions are: other items on the original list already deal with employment, political office, etc. If you really mean those things, let’s change the list already. If “expected by who” is answered as “police officers, employers, etc” then say that. “Expected to be underweight” by itself *does not have a meaning because you haven’t said expected by who*. Am I talking into a vacuum here?
I have a feeling I am going to get far far too many responses on this comment page to keep up with.
This comment was written by Kareem Uvsumyungi.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 4:30 pm
. If “expected by who” is answered as “police officers, employers, etc” then say that.
Oh, c’mon. I’m a lawyer and even I think you’re deliberately being pedantic here.
You’re taking “expected by whom” and interpreting it to mean “expected by people whose opinions have little to no impact on your daily life”, for some reason.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 4:40 pm
>>piny,
Then, please, by all means, ask for a rewrite of the list to remove the ambiguity and be very specific about what it means, in real terms, for each item. That is all the “weepy face” on that page means. What is wrong with asking for clarity on who we are talking about?>>
Wrong. The “weepy face” is not-terribly-clever emoticon-speak for, “Wev.” It means that mentioning those problems is whining, that the “vague, negative reactions of an unspecified group,” are totally unimportant to people’s lives . Not wanting makeup to be a condition of continued or aspirant employment is whining. Not wanting a personnel director to ask pointed questions about your children is whining.
The list is not ambiguous, merely general. Greater emphasis is placed on women’s appearance in hiring _and_ promotion _and_ social interaction _and_ customer service _and_ media coverage. You’re the one intent on reading either frivolity or vagueness into the list, and the only reason you’re making those arguments is that you’re invested in the idea that sexism and the attendant privilege of the class not discriminated against are neither widespread nor insidious.
The items as written, “My wardrobe and grooming are relatively cheap and consume little time,” “If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore,” and, “My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed,” are perfectly clear and not at all inaccurate.
>>Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome The Amazing Kreskin! Able to divine the Real Reason a particular woman was not promoted! Also able to know that no man is ever passed over for a lesser-skilled woman!>>
Also, whoever wrote this simply cannot read.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 4:40 pm
mythago,
I am taking it to mean that because some of the other items on the list were very specific about who/where/when, and the negative consequences. The “weepyface” items did not say who those people were, nor a reason why you should care what the other people thought.
Saying “who and why” would make the list much stronger, don’t you agree?
This comment was written by Kareem Uvsumyungi.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 4:45 pm
piny, I’m done with you. You seem to not be able to comprehend that I am saying that some of the items are not vague, but many of them are.
If, as you state, the “vague” ones really mean consequences like problems with employment, etc, it is not wrong to ask that the item specify what it means, exactly.
This comment was written by Kareem Uvsumyungi.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 4:45 pm
>>I am taking it to mean that because some of the other items on the list were very specific about who/where/when, and the negative consequences. The “weepyface” items did not say who those people were, nor a reason why you should care what the other people thought.>>
Incredibly pedantic. Think it through yourself. Not really the writer’s fault that you don’t understand why other people’s opinions impact on women’s lives, is it?
>>Saying “who and why” would make the list much stronger, don’t you agree?>>
No, it would make it pedantic. It would also be much longer, since the “who and why” is “any number of people in any nameable situation.” It would also be just as abstruse to people who can’t read things like this, “If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones,” and understand them.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 4:55 pm
>>piny, I’m done with you. You seem to not be able to comprehend that I am saying that some of the items are not vague, but many of them are.
If, as you state, the “vague” ones really mean consequences like problems with employment, etc, it is not wrong to ask that the item specify what it means, exactly. >>
[Weepy face.]
I can read. I’m talking about those items–you know, the overwhelming majority of items on the list, especially if you don’t count the ones dismissed out of hand–that are marked with the “vague [and trivial]” weepy-face. And the “critique” says in the beginning that concern over other people’s opinions is not merely vague but trivial.
And what you seem not to understand is that it isn’t merely employment that we’re talking about; sexism is not a limited handicap. A woman is disadvantaged by sexism in most interactions; not merely as an employee, but as a mother, daughter, sister, granddaughter, wife, girlfriend, employer, manager, supervisor, plaintiff, defendant, colleague, candidate, patient, caretaker, student, professor, and all of the other relationships that women enter into. Because she is a woman, a woman’s appearance is a liability whether she is buying a car or walking down the street, waiting a table or appearing as a plaintiff in a sexual-harassment case. _That_ is sexism, and that is what the male-privilege checklist is trying to describe. Talmudic lists unto the end of time are one way of communicating the pervasive influence of sexism, but they’re a waste of time and they’re only necessary to the least generous, most disingenuous readers.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 6:05 pm
the list really seem kind iffy on a few points 22 realy striks me as worng
This comment was written by luanda.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 11:03 pm
Saying “who and why” would make the list much stronger, don’t you agree?
Not really. You can’t stop nitpicking.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:39 am
luanda Writes: the list really seem kind iffy on a few points 22 realy striks me as worng
You’ve really never heard any jokes or semi-serious comments about “women drivers”?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 6:40 am
Gee, a one-line dismissal really adds to the conversation.
Sorry, akeem, but treatingwomen’s concerns as trivial is nothing but arrogant and insensitive. Whether you believe it or not, it’s obvious that what women actually go through doesn’t interest you.
It’s really easy to dismiss something you don’t experience. But it’s necessary to dismiss the complaints of those upon whom your privilege is based.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:02 am
Hmmm, to me, it looks like many “woman’s concerns” are trivial. Look at 33, 37, 38, and 39, for example. Those are purely a matter of choice (you don’t have to marry a jerk, etc), but they appear on the same list as rape and sexual discrimination in promotions. That trivializes the serious ones. Once again, it’s women hurting the women’s agenda.
This comment was written by lili.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:39 am
Lilli:
First of all, how is it “women hurting the women’s agenda?” The list is clearly written by a man, not a woman.
Second of all, as many wise women have said, “the personal is political.” Let’s take this one, which you describe as a woman marrying a jerk:
If it were just one isolated marriage, then yes, you might have a point. But it’s not one isolated incident; it’s a common pattern found across huge numbers of marriages. These patterns happen not just because most men are jerks (most men aren’t jerks, by the way), but because the learned norms of our society make some paths - such as the “of course the man’s career is more important” path - the path of least resistance, for both men and women. To take other paths requires being a social rebel, pushing against centuries of accumilated prejudices and traditions.
It’s as if we’ve been given a menu, in which certain choices - “women should do most of the housework and childrearing,” for instance, or “the husband’s career is more important” - are printed in huge, bold print, and the alternatives are only in teeny, tiny print on the back of the menu where no one notices them.
Some people would say “well, if people are ordering the big, bold print items more, that must represent their preferences and we should never question them.” But feminists say “let’s try and create a new menu, where all the options are equally obvious, and then people will realize that there are a whole range of options they can choose from.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:47 am
Amp: also on that subject, wasn’t it you who did a cartoon about how the effects of sexism make it a rational choice for most couples that the man’s career should be protected? (Something about a tiny advantage screwing the woman over, if I remember).
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:19 am
Ampersand,
So I was wrong: it is a man with a lot of women followers hurting women.
Talk all you want of patterns and “pushing against centuries of accumilated prejudices and traditions”, it is still every woman’s simple choice. If your man doesn’t do the dishes or insists you change your name, he’s a jerk and you should get rid of him. It is that easy to defeat male-centered traditions. I know you deny it, but I think you are trying to make women into victims by denying that it is that easy.
And you are wrong, most men _are_ jerks.
This comment was written by lili.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:28 am
>>Talk all you want of patterns and “pushing against centuries of accumilated prejudices and traditions”, it is still every woman’s simple choice. If your man doesn’t do the dishes or insists you change your name, he’s a jerk and you should get rid of him. It is that easy to defeat male-centered traditions. I know you deny it, but I think you are trying to make women into victims by denying that it is that easy.>>
No choice is ever simple, particularly when it involves things like dissolving a marriage. If you don’t understand that, you’ll never understand feminism.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:29 am
Nick: Yup, I did that cartoon - you can see it here.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:53 am
lili…. it is still very clearly male privilege that regardless of who actually does the housework in a home, if it is not “acceptably” (define at will) clean when entered by someone who doesn’t live there, it is the woman’s fault. If the man protests that it was his job, the third party is almost certainly going to either say or think that the man “doesn’t have his wife trained well” or is “pussy-whipped”. A bachelor who keeps a clean house is still generally considered to be either exceptional, wealthy enough to have a maid, or gay.
In any case, a man simply doesn’t have as much invested in housecleaning as a woman in US (and most western) society because it’s not his responsibility and this is so generally accepted that men who take the responsibility are considered exceptional.
As for “if a man doesn’t do the dishes or insists that you change your name he’s a jerk and you should get rid of him”, my husband is, in fact, somewhat irregular about doing dishes, though he is capable of it when he so chooses. I, too, am irregular about doing them. My husband asked me to take his name, and wisely pointed out that the name I was born with belongs to a father I’m not particularly close to. Is he a jerk? Frequently. He cooks, he takes care of the kids as an equal partner, he works full time, he cleans periodically, and he provides a freezer full of venison every winter. Why should I allow your definition of when to get rid of a man (because he has bought into certain systems and stereotypes) when overall he is my best friend and a more or less equal partner? How is that a solution for myself, my sons, or even my husband? How does dumping him in any way change the fact that he has male privilege, even if he only exercises it occasionally? Just askin’
This comment was written by odanu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Lili — going back, I looked specifically at the issues you described as “trivial”. Let’s examine the Catch 22’s inherent in each of them.
The name change: I’ve gone through it, twice. I reverted to my maiden name between marriages. Both times, my decision was analyzed extensively by people who had no vested interest in the outcome, and my desire to retain my maiden name (which is now my middle name) was viewed as “selfish” by an astonishing number of casual acquaintances “worried about the effects on my child(ren)”. In the case of my first marriage, any children were strictly theoretical. My second marriage was held up for almost a year as we wrangled over the name issue, not because of my husband, but because of the extreme disapproval of his entire extended family. Unless you want to insist that such decisions exist in a vacuum, and such issues as job security (it was often co-workers and employers who disapproved of retaining my maiden name) and cutting off contact with my husband’s family of origin are unimportant, then this is clearly an issue of privilege.
Household labor and child care: Watch any sitcom. Popular culture has it that the average man is so incompetent that he is unable to run a dishwasher or change a diaper without help. This is not a disadvantage to a man portrayed this way, it is an advantage. If a man cannot be trusted to perform a simple household or child rearing task because it is too difficult for him yet can be trusted to run governments and multinational governments, play with firearms and use lawnmowers, it is an excuse to allow men to bail from the boring and repetitive tasks of housekeeping and child rearing. This reinforces the concept that these tasks are the natural province of women, for whom these tasks are “uniquely suited”. Women like myself, conversely, who are not particularly interested or efficient housekeepers, and take a laissez-faire approach to child rearing, rather than being viewed as equally competent as similar men for “important work” are maligned as “unfeminine”. Is it possible to swim against this tide? Sure. Is it easy? It is not. It is exhausting. There are times in my life when I give up the fight for household equality simply because I need rest, and it is more restful to spend four hours a night after work cleaning house than to spend six hours per night arguing about it.
Career sacrifice: In what way is this trivial? A person who, for the sake of the household, decides to give up a career and either start again from scratch in a new area or work at home as a parent is giving up a great deal of autonomy, and is being placed in a very vulnerable position vis a vis the other adult householder. Again, if this were something that was viewed as an individual choice rather than a societal expectation, no big deal — but that’s not what we have. “Mr. Moms”, despite becoming marginally more common, are still considered exceptional and lauded for their “tremendous sacrifices”. At home mothers, on the other hand, are often vilified as lazy, unmotivated, or “buying into the stereotype” even if its their choice, for good and sufficient reason, to stay home and work.
The bottom line is that the issues raised in the Male Privilege Checklist are raised in the context of a society with specific assumptions about men and women that are harmful to both genders but vastly more harmful to women.
This comment was written by odanu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Well, yup. That about sums it up. Men bad, women good.
Are women even capable of doing anything bad to men in the 21st Century? Or do men have complete control and dominance in the sin department too?
I would like to see some research to back up many of those erroneous claims on the list - like that women pay more for cars than men? That list is just another ranting and raving diatribe designed to pump up the sisterhood and devalue men.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:02 pm
I never said “men bad, women good”; nor did I say that “men have complete control and dominance” over anything. Why not try reading what I said, rather than this made-up strawman stuff?
Go to your library and look this up: Ayres, Ian. “Fair Driving: Gender and Race Discrimination in Retail Car Negotiations.” Harvard Law Review, volume 104 (4), pages 817-872.
The researchers found that, even when using identical offers and negotiating techniques, men and whites were offered better deals on cars than women and blacks.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:18 pm
Odanu,
When I met my ex husband he couldn’t use the washing machine. He’d never learned, because his mother did it all for him. Her choice, mind you, because she wanted it done *right*. She socialized him to see housework as woman’s work.
In counter point my husband grew up with a Military stay at home Mom that insisted that her son’s not only learn to keep house, but that they do all the housework. I’m strive to meet her example with my own children. As a result of her socializing my husband he actually keeps house better than I do. But then again, I don’t care if someone says that he doesn’t have me trained. I would assume that people come to my home to visit me not to look under the rugs.
Yes, it often is expensive to choose to go against society’s norms. I can only imaging how angry and frustrated Rosa Parks had to be to sit in that front seat of the bus. She made the choice to buck and unfair, sexist and racist system and in doing so helped spark the civil rights movement.
My point is that even though I have three children to raise, and a husband that makes less than half of what I do and isn’t offered insurance.. I would quit tomorrow if my gender ever became an issue for promotion or pay. Every time a woman stands up and makes that choice she strengthens the movement as a whole. After all what is a movement but a group of individuals joined in the common cause of changing things.
We have come a long way, and there is a ways to go yet. The situation is worse globally, but even here in the state’s there is still progress to be made.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:21 pm
Rob,
Try this
It is a citation from Fair driving: Gender and race discrimination in retail car negotiations. Harvard Law Review.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Interesting study, but it doesn’t prove that blacks and women pay more for cars. It proves that blacks and women get worse starting offers, probably due to a racist or sexist assumption of incompetence on the part of the sales person. The negotiating methodology selected for the study is one which will automatically preserve that disparity.
To test whether a dealership was actually discriminating (as opposed to just taking advantage of people whom it thought didn’t know the real price) would be to learn the market value and minimum acceptable dealer markup for a particular car, and then send a variety of people into the dealership with that figure as their only, non-flexible, offer. A racist dealership will refuse to sell the car to a black person for that price, but will yield to a white person.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:13 pm
I think it’s funny that you think that these are two different things.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Robert, I read the same study you did. The assumption that a woman or a person of color “didn’t know the real price” is a major piece of the discrimination. It also follows from this very well done study that, since different starting prices are offered to different classes of people, different people pay different prices for cars. Of course, in less than ten minutes of searching I found two abstracts of academic articles (in Economics) that discuss gender and race discrimination in auto pricing
It’s also interesting that you have led a life so free from discrimination affecting you that you demand proof that it exists. For those of us who experience it, daily and continually, the proof is constant.
For instance, I always take my husband with me when buying a car. He doesn’t know anything about cars, and I do, and I have generally done extensive study on the particular car I’m interested in. My husband’s sole role is to stand there and look like a white male. Although I do all the talking, I generally have a sheaf of literature on me regarding pricing and selling points, and I am the one who pays for and test drives the car, I am consistently ignored by the salesperson (tried one year to go to several different dealerships, but this behavior was so common I no longer bother), who talks instead to my non-responsive husband, and offers him the “white man” deal, which I then accept.
Because I have good credit and my husband has very little credit, I usually put my husband on as joint owner. Three guesses as to which of us the bill lists as the owner.
This comment was written by odanu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Mendy. I did not mean to imply that I do all the housework in my home. My husband makes an effort to do his share, and frankly my oldest son does more housework than either of us. That does not change the assumptions of outsiders, however, especially in this part of the US where I am still regularly criticized for working outside the home, even though both my children are school aged.
I haven’t always had the luxury of quitting a job due to discrimination. I did once, when my boss hit me in front of witnesses, but I had another job on the side that I ratcheted up to full time. I worked six years in the financial industry and was the primary provider of both income and insurance for my family during that time. I was promoted three times in the first four years, but then I was “glass ceilinged”. There were few positions for women above where I was, and those that existed went largely to women willing to be lapdogs to their bosses. I planned my exit and went back to school, and have changed fields completely.
The fact of the matter is that gender discrimination is so constant I deal with it daily. I volunteer with homeless veterans in a substance abuse recovery setting, as a group counselor. Every single time I start a group, there is always at least one client (usually but not always new to me) who feels that he has to make a pass at me or attempt to “put me in my place” by trying to embarrass or intimidate me through sexual innuendo or veiled threats. These guys have no power over me, and in fact my role puts me in power over them, but the simple fact that I’m a woman is a barrier I must overcome in every meeting in order to be clinically effective. That’s an aspect of male privilege.
This comment was written by odanu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:34 pm
I think it’s funny that you think that these are two different things.
I think it’s sad that you don’t know that they are.
Odanu, I would not be stunned or surprised to find that many car dealerships discriminate. Quite the converse, I am sure from experience that they do. I am merely stating that this particular study does not adequately support the conclusion it is being used for, owing to a flawed methodology.
It is certainly possible to blur the edges of “discrimination” to include having a poor opinion of the competence of a particular group; I don’t find that kind of linguistic sloppiness useful.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Ok, first of all, how does anyone at Harvard Law have any clue as to what really goes on at a dealership? You can find a stastistic, a report or a book written by somebody to support anything you want. Ever heard of Mein Kampf?
Being the son of parents who previously owned several car dealerships (Yes, my mother owned an equal share - and worked equally as much, and made an equal amount of decisions), and myself having worked at car dealerships in every capacity from from the lot boy/toilet cleaner to salesman to salesmanager and beyond, I can assure you that there is no conspiracy at the dealerships to sucker women into paying higher prices while giving men the “Skull and Bones Society Special Deal”. It is absurd for anyone to say that any business of any kind cares more about getting higher profits from one gender than another. All a car dealership or any other kind of business cares about is getting the most amount of product sold at the best possible profit with the most amount of repeat business. PERIOD! They couldn’t care less if it was a 3 eyed Martian, let alone whether its a man or a woman.
One thing that you may be interested to know is how much all dealerships and sales people - in all kinds of sales (not just cars), hammer into the salespeople the proper way to deal with women. There are countless numbers of books and courses on how to deal with women, because it is such a tricky area. I’m not talking about books and courses on how to get more money out of women, but rather that without a woman’s approval, the deal will never get done.
These courses hammer into salespeople things like the fact (yes another statistic) that 70% of all decisions about the car are made by a woman. So, when a husband and wife come in, and of course the husband does 70% of the talking, you had better listen 3 times as much to the 30% that the woman says. The market researchers also hammer into salespeople that it’s not about her timidity that she’s talking less, but because she’s evaluating you, what you say, how you look and how you treat her, to determine whether she finds you trustworthy. So, while husband is talking away at you 100 miles an hour that he wants a 4×4 Truck with 800 horsepower, you better put your mind into a different mode and start figuring out what the woman present wants, because what she wants is the only thing that really matters anyway. Even if husband does ALL the talking, and All the negotiating - once they get alone, she is going to tell him yes or no. That lays a virtual minefield in front of the salesperson. How do let the woman know that what she thinks is the most important to you, when typically she want to talk less? How do you properly make her feel that what she wants is important without paying so much attention to her that she feels you are hitting on her - or that her husband thinks you are hitting on her.
Also, salespeople get it hammered into them that even when a single man comes in by himself, you can still count it that 70% of the time, whether he buys or not, there is a woman behind the decision. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen this come true. A single guy gets all excited about a car, and comes back later in the day with a woman (ie. girlfriend, mother, sister or just a female friend) - she takes one look at it and says she thinks the color is ugly. I GUARANTEE you he won’t buy it anymore. If she says she really likes the blue one over there, 99% of the time, he will buy the blue one.
Car Dealerships, Realtors, Furniture Retailers and so on, have spent Millions upon Millions of Dollars over the past 2 or 3 decades training their salespeople to find out how to better relate to the female client, to make her satisfied, because they all realize that without female customers or female approval, they will go broke.
In all my years at a car dealership, I have never heard of anyone saying, nor exhibiting behaviour that insinuates that when a woman comes in the door, they see big dollar signs over her head. As a matter of fact, often it is very hard for a guy to do business with a woman because he gets so incredibly nervous about how to become friendly with her without her thinking he wants sex.
But I guess some guy at Harvard Law has a study and wrote a report, so…
Maybe this Saturday, we should all take an hour to stand at the door of Safeway and ask all single male and single female customers how much money they spent. If it shows that men spent on average $25 more than women, will it be fair to say that Safeway is sexist towards men and is trying to take advantage of them?
I will tell you about one form of blatant sexism that is found in many dealerships. Female salespeople get considerably more sales phone calls and sales customers who inquire at the reception desk sent to them than male salespeople. Many dealerships track the amount of all kinds of sales activity and it is easy for them to see this. One constant theme that keeps coming up when addressing this is that the receptionist is 99% of the time a female, and when confronted, the receptionist invariably will admit that she sends more business to the female salesperson because they want to make sure that the woman beats the men so she directs more business her way. It is a real problem that gets created, because people are out there running there little butts off to make a living, and it creates contempt between co-workers.
Yes, I know Warren Farrell is a Men’s Right’s Advocate, but don’t you think there’s some truth to it when he says that the most curious thing about sexism is that only one gender is considered to be sexist?
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Odanu, I didn’t mean to imply that you did all the housework in your house, just making an observation about individual men. You are right that there are male privilege. There are men where I work (I work in an automotive manufacturing facility) that are hateful and sexist. My response is to call them on it loudly and often. I’ve found it normally stops there.
Yes, there are glass ceilings and this needs to be changed. I don’t know what area of the country you live in, but I live smack in the middle of the bible belt. So, I do see sexism every day. But, I do not allow it to keep me from living my life. I’ve also gone back to school to change fields, and the one I’ve chosen is primarily a male field. I’m a biology major with a chemistry minor. I’m not intimidated in the least, because that is what they want. They want us to see that glass ceiling or the male dominance of a field and just quit. I wasn’t raised that way.
And I never meant to imply that my quitting my job would be a luxury, because it wouldn’t. If I quit my job it would be a sacrifice, but one I’m willing to make. I work to live not live to work. Is my job important. Sure, but it isn’t the be all and end all to me either.
As far as clothes and makeup and weight go. I almost never wear makeup to work (most women do), I don’t dress like a model, and I’m around 40 pounds over weight. I’ve not found that it makes that much of a difference in my dealings with my employers. But I have noticed that it shades my interactions with other female coworkers.
For example, several months after I had my youngest child one lady I work with made the remark, “I hate to see you letting yourself go like this.”
I was aghast, because I honestly would have expected that from a male much more quickly than a female. *shakes head*
Anyway, the point of this is to say that I agree with you, and I think you have to fight it in whatever way you can.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:30 pm
Rob:I would like to see some research to back up many of those erroneous claims on the list - like that women pay more for cars than men?
Ampersand provides a cite.
Rob:Ok, first of all, how does anyone at Harvard Law have any clue as to what really goes on at a dealership?
So, Rob, you didn’t really want to see research. Your mind was already made up. You thought maybe research couldn’t be provided, and that would prove your position. You could have just said that your family is involved in selling cars, and that in your experience #27 was not valid. But then folks could have said that the fact that your family were fair business people didn’t translate into all car salesmen being fair and treating folks equal. So you avoided that, then got annoyed when a cite was provided. Then you go on to talk about female sales people getting more calls because “receptionists” direct them that way as some form of female solidarity. What I am curious about is why are “99%” of receptionists at car dealerships female? Is there some form of gender bias or discrimination at work?
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:27 pm
And now you know why men stay silent about so many of these gender issues.
Why is it that 99% of the people who apply for a receptionists job are female?
And if that kind of sexism is at place in your workplace, should one just shut up about it because you’re a male? Imagine the huff if the genders were reversed and the men blocked the females from equal access to customers. Then it would be men trying oppress females and shoo them out of the marketplace and back to the home where suposedly all men want women to be - another beautiful assumption that is constantly made about men.
It’s no wonder so many men go silent on these issues. We can’t win if we say something, and we can’t win if we stay silent.
I did read the research, and it is so flimsy as to hardly be deemed anything of worth. Salespeople will very rarely initiate an offer. Their initial offer is the sticker price. The customer is the first one to initiate an offer. The salesperson also has no function in the negotiating process except to bring the customer’s offer to his manager, and then return to the customer with the manager’s counter offer. The manager rarely sees the customer or knows if the customer is black or white, and if the customer’s first name is say “Terry”, would not know the gender. From the description of how the study was done, no salesman or dealership would take any offer seriously from someone who spent only 3 or 4 minutes to decide on the vehicle they want. Only the most naive and inexperienced salesperson would engage in this kind of behaviour. There are over 40,000 different makes, models, sub categories and options packages for the average consumer to decide from in the marketplace. No salesperson worth his salt would even get into a negotiation without first establishing that this was indeed the car the person wanted - and that takes much more than a few minutes. Most managers won’t even look at an offer unless the salesperson has assured them that the car was test driven etc. etc.. Salepeople who don’t do this, don’t remain salespeople for long, and are very few and far between in that business.
The research looks like a sham. Put a little logic into it from your own personal perspective. Ever put something up for sale in the paper? Perhaps you want to sell your bicycle and get $200, so you ask $250. Someone calls and says they want to come by. Without even having a close look at the bike or even riding it down the driveway. They ask what your offer is, DO YOU SAY $210???? No, you tell them you’re asking $250 - MAKE ME AN OFFER, and they ask you if you will take $150 - and so on. If instead you just blurted out $210, you would have very little chance of actually ending up on $200, wouldn’t you. Soooo, you will very rarely find a professional salesperson willing to start off a negotiation that way. This makes me very suspicious of this man’s claims of how he did his research. I would have a hard time believing he went to as many dealerships as he says and actually found he could get that many salespeople to risk angering their managers by entering into those kind of negotiations. This man is just playing up that most people love to hate car dealers and won’t question what he says.
Also, using some logic, you never addressed that no business in the world really gives a crap who is buying their product, as long as they buy it. It truly is absurd to think that there is some “backroom conspiracy” to bilk more money out of one group of people than the other. Yah! All those sleazy car salesman are willing to give up significantly more of their commissions because of the “brotherhood”. Here’s a secret, there is no brotherhood. Men will sell their soul to meet the approval of virtually all women, but often couldn’t be bothered to offer to piss on one if his “male brothers” if he were on fire!
I noticed on other posts on this blog, that anything quoted from say - a Men’s Right’s Group is deemed to be spurious and false. You know what, quite a bit of it very well may be - but I’ll bet that the same amount of false statistics exist for Feminist Groups - it just seems inconceivable to people like you though, that anyone defending women’s rights could have done shoddy research.
At least there’s still the old saying: There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:32 pm
By the way, I suppose that male police officers let more men off with warnings than women, too? Yup, there’s that “brotherhood” thing.
There is a sisterhood - but there is no brotherhood!
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Rob, I actually believe that the stereotype for the police officer and the ticketing is that a male officer will always let a female driver off with a warning. The reasoning I’ve heard behind this is a) she cries or b) she says her husband will kill her if she gets another ticket.
Having family that works in law enforcement, I can tell you that though there are sexist cops, racist cops, and most other forms of prejudice; however they do ticket with equal frequency both male and female drivers that break the law. City governments make their money that way after all.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Rob:
Bah. Majority of men I know aren’t like that. Sure, some men do things for women they find attractive to get a date, or to improve the chances to have sex, but “seeking the approval of virtually all women”? No, haven’t experienced that, haven’t done that. (Sexual) approval of women is a transient thing, but friends(be they men or women, in my case, mostly men) and family are rather more permanent. Perhaps your male friends are just assholes.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:02 pm
No, Robert, look . . . to regularly attempt to overcharge the members of a specific group is discrmination. They may well be doing it because they’ve underestimated the savvy of members of that group, but that doesn’t mean that the actions is any less discrimination. Maybe black folks and women can eventually haggle the dealership down to the same price they offer white guys off the bat, but so what?
Think of it this way. If I’m holding interviews for a job position, and each time a black guy or a woman comes through the door, I assume they won’t be competent for the job, and have them jump through a series of extra hoops for the same position, that’s discrimination. It’s discrimination even if I defend myself by saying “Well, I would have done the same for anyone who looked as obviously incompetent as all those blacks and women do.” Eesh. That’s not a defense at all.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:21 pm
Myca,
So you’re trying to tell me that someone in business to make money is going to be discriminatory to someone who’s trying to SPEND MONEY?
There is no discrimination! Everything and everyone is a nice, sexless, GREEN$$$$! It’s all about the money. You’d have to be Bill Gates to be so rich as to care about anything else.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:24 pm
To prove my point,
If you give me your credit card number and authorize me to make a $1000 charge on it. I will personally write a 10,000 word essay describing how men are the scum of the earth and we should all be castrated as punishment for the bad, bad people that we are. And I’ll even back it up with statistics and research.
Then I’ll post it on this blog!
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:38 pm
No, Robert, look . . . to regularly attempt to overcharge the members of a specific group is discrmination.
Absolutely.
They may well be doing it because they’ve underestimated the savvy of members of that group, but that doesn’t mean that the actions is any less discrimination.
Sure. But the study in question doesn’t demonstrate that blacks and women will be overcharged. It demonstrates that blacks and women will be given a worse starting price, in an artificial scenario. The methodology the study used will not provide any means of correcting for that, and so the study is useless in determining whether blacks and women are being overcharged.
I am not arguing that there is no discrimination against blacks or women at car dealerships. I’m arguing that this study doesn’t demonstrate it.
Maybe black folks and women can eventually haggle the dealership down to the same price they offer white guys off the bat, but so what?
So then there isn’t price discrimination. Price discrimination has to be calculated on the basis of the actual price, not on the basis of some numbers that get bandied about in the informal negotiation to set the price.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:13 am
Robert wrote:
You’ve misunderstood the study. The study demonstrated that blacks and women are given a worse starting price, true. But that was just the first step.
In the second step, regardless of what the opening offer was, the testers counter-offered the dealers an identical price for the car (”After waiting about five minutes the tester then made a counter offer that was estimated to be the cost of the car to the dealership.”) Contrary to what you’re claiming, Robert, the disparity of the starting offer was completely erased at that point in the procedure.
After that, testers used the identical negotiating strategy - and being black or being female led to a worse agreed-upon selling price (what Robert calls “an actual price”).
So two people - one black woman, one white man - walk into a car dealership. They each ignore the salesman’s opening offer and instead offer to pay the same price for the car. They then use an identical negotiating strategy, but the salesman is willing to go lower for the white man, and as a result the agreed-on selling price for the white man ends up being lower.
If that’s not proof of price discrimination, what on Earth would be?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:22 am
Well.
Never mind then.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:34 am
I’ve heard of it, of course. However, there are important differences between Mein Kampf and HLR that you don’t seem to have considered. Mien Kampf, unlike something published in the Harvard Law Review, did not have to pass through a peer review process in which the methodology and conclusions were reviewed by scholars, who could refuse to allow the paper to be published until they were satisfied that it met professional standards. Nor did the writer of Mein Kampf have to go through a long process of becoming a qualified, trained scholar before he could begin to write.
What does someone at HLR know about car dealerships? Well, he knows that if he trains black women and white men to act identically, dresses them similarly, and sends them to buy a car, the white men will get offered better prices. Even if that’s all he knows, that seems like a finding worth discussing to me. How do you explain this finding?
Rob, no one here has said anything about a “backroom conspiracy,” nor about some “brotherhood.” Please try to actually respond to what others here say, rather than making up straw men to attack.
My belief is that people can have subconscious biases which can cause them to act against their own best financial interests. So a waiter might, without realizing it, be ruder to a black customer, even though that might reduce his eventual tip. Or an employer might pass over an objectively superior female job applicant in favor of an almost-as-good male applicant that he feels somehow “more comfortable” with.
None of this requires anyone to consciously act against their best financial self-interests, and it certainly doesn’t require a conspiracy; rather, it just requires that being racist (or sexist) can cloud people’s judgments just a little, so they make bad decisions.
So in the case of a car dealer, maybe she or he is more likely to subconsciously believe that black customers are “holding out” on them, and can be persuaded to accept a higher price. If so, then that subconscious racist belief would lead to the dealer quite rationally trying to maximize profit by not being wiling to be bid down.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:51 am
So in the case of radical feminists, they might automatically consider all men who offer any opposition to be someone to be criticized? They might automatically consider that anyone who opposes their theory to be too dimwitted to see the light and must be illuminated by the freer thinking feminine aspect of life? Is that what you are saying?
Could it not be that the feminist mentality, after 30 years of constant man-bashing has such a prejudice toward men, that men cannot possibly offer any defence without being widely criticized?
Is that what you are saying?
Or does this type of human behaviour only belong to unsaviourly white males? Of course women could never stoop to such low ideals, because this kind of sin does not exist in a feminine world?
Is that what you are saying?
Tell me what you are saying Man!
Could it be that after a few decades of man bashing, the feminist agenda cannot possibly imagine that they are doing anything AT ALL that is harmfull to their male partners? Could they be doing that subconsciously? Is it so completely implausible?
“A waiter, without realizing it, might be ruder to a black customer.” (I notice you didn’t say waitress - for shame). So I guess that women, without realizing could also be ruder to a male????
Are men really to blame for every single one of women’s problems, while women are to blame for not one single problem of men’s, even though it is in both sexes detrement to for this to happen?
Is this what you are saying? That subconsciously this could be possible?
Well, after your 45 points, you’ve finally made a smidgen of sense!
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:20 am
Goodness! Smoke some pot or something - you seriously need to mellow out, dude.
Seriously, it seems like you’re getting angry. I’ve been very polite to you, Rob; if you’re not willing to return the favor, I’m going to have to stop having this exchange with you.
Your question, if I understand it correctly, is this: Do I think it’s possible, as a matter of theory, that radical feminists on average are subconsciously prejudiced against men?
My answer is: yes. Yes, it is surely possible. Logically, lacking any empirical evidence, I can’t dismiss the possibility.
However, the difference between radical feminists and car dealers is that there’s actual, empirical evidence that car dealers (on average - your parents may be exceptions, of course) discriminate against blacks and against women. In contrast, I don’t know of any empirical studies demonstrating that radical feminists, on average, discriminate against men.
In my (anecdotal) experience, some feminists are prejudiced against men, but the large majority are not. As a matter of ideology, I think conservatives are more likely to express anti-male beliefs than feminists are; for example, the popular line of conservative thought which says that men need to be tamed or civilized by marriage to women.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:46 am This comment was written by Rob.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:18 am
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread, but I see it dissolving into “women versus men” at a rapid rate. This isn’t conducive to solving problems, in my opinion.
There are a great many male feminists that do acknowledge the societal privilege of their gender, and there are a great many women that perpetuate that same privilege.
Ampersand is an example of the former, and women that say “she’s just on the rag”, “she’s a gold-digging slut”, and “I bet she got on her knees to get the promotion.” (By the way these are all comments heard by me and made by different women.)
The whole of society needs to wake up to the fact that predjudice is still rampant in the country we live in. Racism, feminism, and classism are still around and still need to be fought.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:44 am
If it’s devolving into male versus female you can thank Rob, for just wanting to win.
And women are not aware of their privileges! Yeah, Rob, trade you. Walk a mile in my shoes for a few weeks.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:51 am
28. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
- If I’m not wealthy, no woman will have anything to do with me.
Rob, without money your attitude isn’t worth dealing with. You’ve done little but sneer at everyone in this thread, and you’ve got your opinions confused with facts. You dismiss everything if you haven’t seen it or don’t ‘think it happens.’
3. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.”
- Really? I don’t think that men are usually the ones to walk up to people and tell them to smile ““ that sounds more like a female thing.
Yeah? Amp’s written about it. Women have talked about it. Every woman here has probably had it happen to her, including me. I bet if someone pressed you on it you’d get just as defensive about disagreeing about it as you have about the car thing.
44. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
- What the hell kind of statement is that? Can that be backed up by anything of real value?
Deborah Tannen, etc., —–Have you bothered to read her? I doubt it. But everyhting you’re so skeptical about and ‘don’t think’ about on this list has happened to women.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:05 am
28. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
- If I’m not wealthy, no woman will have anything to do with me.
I must have missed the overwhelming trend of male executives dating and marrying their cleaning women. Or Harvard MBA’s marrying women who work at Wal-Mart. Just sayin’.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:35 am
Again, I apologize for me a man.
Do you really expect men to sit back and acknowledge the countless thousands of stupid little triviances that women are accusing men of? Is there anything that women are responsible for? Have women done nothing themselves? Are they really just innocent victims, while males are bad?
This is entire blog is just bubbling with anti-male, just below the surface feminist anger at men for just being born. I didn’t bring this out into the open. I didn’t create a list of 45 points crying poor me!
If you’ll excuse me now, I must run. I’m late for the meeting in the back room where all of us big bad white boys get together to discuss how we can further enslave and oppress women! It is after all, what we were born to do!
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:37 am
You should hear about a bridge I know thats for sale!
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:48 am
Wha….? Sabrina? Pretty Woman? Maid in America? CINDERELLA?
Get your head out of all those books and go to the movies, girlfriend! (You reality-based people, honestly….)
Forget the Harvard Law Review; here’s a REAL test of disparate treatment. So, whacha wearin’? Some low-heeled strapless number? And Rob, what’s your shoe size? And what color accessories do you carry?
Amp, please, we’re trying to have a serious discussion here.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:48 am
Er, Rob read Amp’s profile when he began reading this thread. You aren’t suggesting that Rob is stupid because he’s male, are you?
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:48 am
No way is Amp a white man.
I have pictures.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:36 am
Yeah, Rob’s a troll. OMGand won’t listen to you and treat you with contempt and because I get all defensive when everything’s not about me.
46. And when I get confronted with the shit that I pull I’ll whine and cry and get defensive and accuse women of hating me just because I’m a man even though I dismiss out of hand any woman who does less than kiss my ass.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:43 am
And I know it’s a minor thing, but he talks about himself in the third person, which is really creepy.
And before he asks, NO, I’m not just saying that because he’s a man.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:47 am
It’s you who’s being confronted with the stuff that you pull, and who’s getting all defensive. You are getting mad because men no longer want to be told kiss your ass because we are so bad. You are the one who has reduced yourself to name calling. Of course, if a man called you a name, you could scream that he’s trying to oppress you.
It’s frustrating, isn’t it, when someone doesn’t want to hear about your grievances, but rather only acknowledge their own. It’s frustrating when someone accuses your gender, isn’t it? Welcome to a man’s world.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:51 am
For a guy who’s always talking about his weight, Amp sure hides it well.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:10 am
Okay, 1) that’s the funniest picture I’ve seen in awhile. (2) For a corallary discussion on the White Male Privilege checklist, maybe we need to find the “male guilt” thread.
Of course a normative man will feel defensive when they read that list. It’s not like they live on a bed of roses (no one does) and do nothing but “deliberately” opress women, personally, nessecarily. Even for fairly progressive, “nice” men, that list feels likes it’s some kind of personal attack. No one likes to be slapped in the face with the idea that something that is inherently part of who they are, something they can’t change hurts and opresses other people. It makes one feel guilty, and when people feel guilty, they tend to get defensive and agressive very quickly.
How would we feel, personally, if we read a checklist of “1st world privilege” (potable water, innoculations, shelter, fuel, transportation, education, fire-fighters, policement, etc. etc.)? For those of you who are white, how do you feel reading the white privilege checklist?
Now of course, there are always those who take their defense to the extreme and become trolls. As nobody.really points out, this trolling really isn’t helpng anything, nor is FEEDING the trolls.
This comment was written by wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:14 am
Here’s an interesting read.
http://www.deltabravo.net/files/ifmenhav.pdf
I challenge you to read it, and after reading it, I wonder if you can find one point in here that you would agree with? If not, why should men continually be badgered into agreeing with the feminist lobby?
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:42 am
God, I just love the MRA trolls. If they don’t get everything they want, they whine and blame women.
Uh, Rob, sweetie, nobody dragged you onto a feminist site and made you stupid except yourself. Love it how he links to some Warren Farrel-esque screed about poor, poor men.
You want to hand over all the power, Rob, we’d be more than happy to let you make the rules, especially if we get to obey them about as well as men do—which is, not at all when it gets in their way.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:54 am
It’s frustrating, isn’t it, when someone doesn’t want to hear about your grievances, but rather only acknowledge their own. It’s frustrating when someone accuses your gender, isn’t it? Welcome to a man’s world.
I do pity you since these eeeeeeeevvviiiillll feminists have apparently kidnapped you, tied you to a chair, and forced you to read this thread and post on it.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:55 am
these eeeeeeeevvviiiillll feminists
Damn you evil feminists!
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:52 pm
>>I’ve read the White Privilege Checklist numerous times (far too many to count). Sure, there are things on there that may not directly be about me, as a white woman.>>
It’s not exactly that you must have these things, is it? Gay men are passed over for promotions; black men are discriminated against in sales. It’s that, if you don’t have these things, you’re not being deprived of them because you’re a woman. Moreover, any women in your circumstances would also suffer because under whatever additional prejudices you’re faced with.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:58 pm
I think Rob forgot to read the disclaimer part of Ampersand’s post:
“More commonly, of course, critics (usually, but not exclusively, male) have pointed out men have disadvantages too - being drafted into the army, being expected to suppress emotions, and so on. These are indeed bad things - but I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes. Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that sometimes bad things happen to men.”
This comment was written by Donna.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:52 pm
I suppose I am personally lucky in that I have the privilege of having an ex-husband that pays no child support (I make more money than he does) and still gets to see the kids. I won’t allow my personal issues with the ex affect my children’s lives to that extent.
I am also personally privilged to be told the my husband should be at the plant working (even though this isn’t his desire nor mine) and I should be “at home like a good little woman”. Oh, and I have the privilege of hearing my own gender tell demeaning jokes about other members of my same gender, and males get to laugh at it.
I wish certain men and women would understand that I am not the sum of my reproductive organs, but a fully integrated, fully functioning human being with needs, wants, and desires that are all my own and have nothing to do with men.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:18 pm
JAILER:
Eh, heh heh. [cough cough cough cough cough]
BEN:
You lucky bastard.
BRIAN:
Who’s that?
BEN:
You lucky, lucky bastard.
BRIAN:
What?
BEN:
Proper little jailer’s pet, aren’t we?
BRIAN:
What do you mean?
BEN:
You must have slipped him a few shekels, eh?
BRIAN:
Slipped him a few shekels? You saw him spit in my face!
BEN:
Ohh! What wouldn’t I give to be spat at in the face! I sometimes
hang awake at night dreaming of being spat at in the face.
BRIAN:
Well, it’s not exactly friendly, is it? They had me in manacles!
BEN:
Manacles! Ooh oooh oh oh. My idea of heaven is to be allowed to
be put in manacles… just for a few hours. They must think the
sun shines out o’ your arse, sonny.
BRIAN:
Oh, lay off me. I’ve had a hard time!
…and so on, and so on. It seems to me that people on both sides of this debate are operating with a really weird concept of ‘privilege’. I f you ask me what it means to be privileged, I’d say it’s getting more, or better than I’m entitled to get according to some explicit or explicit rules governing the situation in question. Furthermore, there must be some link between my getting more than what is due unto me, and someone else getting less.
Thus, by way of illustration;
If Rodney King, as a black small-time thief, gets videotaped being beaten up by officers of the LAPD and, in spite of this, is unable to secure a conviction against his assailants, then that is of course an example of the opression of the black lumpenproletariat. If I, as a white guy in a similar situation, am likely to get a closer approximation to Justice, well, it’s too bad about the opressive nature of a class-society, but it does not make me *privileged*. Me getting justice in no way deprives King of his chance of getting justice.
Or another, more hypothetical one. Say I’m a self-employed freeman potter in ancient Athens, who employs no slaves. Am I ‘privileged’ as because I can move about more or less as I please, while others are in chains? Nah. How about because I buy produce made by slaves? No, not even because of that; the products in question would cost me about the same (or possibly less!) under a no-slavery system, the only difference would be that more of what I pay for them would go to the labourer. In other words, mr Slave, your beef is with your master, not with me.
I don’t know, do you see what I’m getting at? A lot of the items on the list are like this:
> 7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison,
> my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible
I, for one, intend to hang on to, and fight tooth and nail too keep that ‘privilege’, if you don’t fucking mind. This strange complaint that the raping is *unequitably distributed* is completely insane.
Or like this:
> 23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
Which begs the question of how exactly it comes about that I’m a) entiltled to not ‘have my sex put on trial’ and b) it is automatically assumed that I give a fuck what people think about Men Who Aren’t Me, and c) as per above, that non-bigotry towards me must somehow automatically mean bigotry against other people.
Another odd thing is how everyone, for example wookie above, assumes that my reaction, as a (”normative”?) man, to this list is going to be “male guilt”, as opposed to, say, fist-pumping and hoots of “HELL, YEAH!! WOOOO !! PRIVILEGE!!!”
Further, even if men, all of them, simply by walking around and not getting raped and all that, *are* thereby oppressing the womenfolk, and the opressors really are made to feel guilty by lists like this one, so what? When have the opressed ever emancipated themselves by guilt-trippping their opressors? How is that supposed to happen?
Ah, hell. I don’t know. The whole thing just seems politically regressive to me. Bitching and infightning aming the proles.
This comment was written by Sad Eyed Dude of the Lowlands.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd,