What Media Girl and Lorraine said…
| June 7th, 2005This post was removed by request of the author.
18 Responses to “What Media Girl and Lorraine said…”
Leave a Reply
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.
June 7th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
How the progressive blogosphere responds to…what? Feminist issues? The disagreement over at Kos? DemSpeak?
I’m not disagreeing, just not sure where that sentence was going.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
I guess the term “male privilege” suggests some unjust special law to me (I’m not sure about others). For example, when people talk about male privilege, I think the implicit ideal is to “end male privilege,” not to “extend male privilege to human privilege.” This makes a lot of sense in some cases: for example, no one, male or not, should have the privilege of raping someone and usually getting away with it. In other cases… not so much, at least judging from the “male privilege” lists I occassionally see (that Amp’s posted, for instance). For example, walking down the street without being hassled is often listed as a male privilege. Obviously, this is something feminists want to extend to everyone, not something they want to take away from men.
I guess the issue is that when people list privileges, there are some privileges which make men think, “well, I really shouldn’t have to give that up. Rather, women should enjoy it too. Since it ought to be continued and expanded, not ended, it must not be a privilege.” In other words, I think a big stumbling block is the negative connotations of the word “privilege” itself, and the “we should get rid of this stuff” implicit in it.
This doesn’t explain the entirety of the refusal of liberal men to acknowledge male privilege, but I think it accounts for the rejection of certain things as special privileges (e.g. being unlikely to be a victim of domestic abuse): because if they think of them as special privileges, they think that they should view the experiences of women as the normative ideal, and the experiences of men unfairly advantaged, which they don’t (and rightly so).
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
i am a traveller and student in your strange land, and it often takes being in a minority or marginalized group to understand what it feels like to be able to do or say anything you want to do without facing the music for it. in my own example, i did not pay any attention to any of these issues before i came overseas to the US to study. i was a hindu male from an upper-middle class family in india, not caring about anyone’s life but my own and protected by the equivalent of the white male privilege that exists here. since i have been here however, my level of awareness and sensitivity to other people’s concerns has grown significantly because i am in a similar position. the change in my outlook would have been glacial at best and non-existent at worst had i remained in my own little coccoon and this is a problem a lot of people face. i realize that this may sound flip, but sometimes we don’t pay attention unless we find ourselves in a position where we no longer have the ability to control or influence the big picture in any way. this is made worse when you get accepted into a social circle filled with the dominant social groups who just happen to accept you into their fold. this often creates an illusion for the ‘token x ‘ to think that they are somehow special or that they are actually part of the dominant group. the unfortunate result of this seems that those who are in the best position to effect some sort of change in outlook are the ones least inclined to do it.
all of this is personal observation: nothing more, nothing less. i just felt like i should share it with you
This comment was written by almostinfamous/adithemopur.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 1:50 am
I sometimes get the feeling that for many liberal men, they take the Peter Griffin approach to feminism: “Yes, Lois, you’re a feminist and I think that’s adorable. But it’s grown up time now and I’m the man.”
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 7:24 am
My husband, who is as about as liberal and pro-woman as they come, even has trouble with this issue at dkos. He kept bringing up that there are negative stereotypes for men as well (bumbling sitcom dads, etc.). And what I kept trying to tell him is yes, that’s absolutely true. However, men get balance, in the form of a myriad of positive male role models–powerful businessmen, authority figures, inspirational heroes, etc.–that women do not have, in nearly the same amounts. I told him, it is not so much one stupid pie fight ad; it’s the cumulative effect of all the women-as-bimbo-toys shit we see in our lives, which are still much more prevalent than the positive images. He had to think about that for a bit. He has trouble still accepting how much privilege he has, being a firm believer in self-determination.
But we did both agree that Kos was being an ass. So that’s clear, at least.
This comment was written by emjaybee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 9:45 am
Nice point, Julian. Though, to be cheeky, I wonder if to extend the privilege of non-harassment to women, it might help if men knew what it feels like.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 10:42 am
[...] ight have had to read it. I read a vague allusion to people being annoyed with Kos over at Alas, and went over there to see if I could find what the problem [...]
This comment was written by A Bird’s Eye View » Sexism and supposed liberals.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 11:14 am
I think the biggest problem with addressing male privillege is… cluelessness. Seriously, until I started coming around feminist websites, I’d never heard the phrase. Never considered it. And that’s after a full education, college included.
I think we’ll continue to have problems, because unless someone is both willing to listen and willing to reflect, the issue is never addressed. If someone who has always considered himself liberal, who was predisposed to agree with the arguments, and was willing to agree and examine the impact on his life didn’t encounter the idea until his late twenties… that’s the problem. [I'm still working on a solution.]
If I had not already considered myself liberal, or if I had unconsciously exploited male privillege further before I encountered the idea, I don’t know if I would have considered the idea long enough to reflect on it. [Yea, another laundry list of complaints. I could make one too... and turn the page.] I certainly wouldn’t if I’d been predisposed to ingore “hippies like Amp & PA”.
This comment was written by ScottM.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
“I guess the term “male privilege”? suggests some unjust special law to me….”
When I talk about male privilege, it’s not necessarily unjust — although often (or even usually, I don’t know) it can involve quite a bit of injustice. But it is real.
Every time a man gasses up his car at 11:30pm, he’s enjoying male privilege.
Every time a man rides on a crowded subway without having to even consider that someone might grab his ass, he’s enjoying male privilege.
Every time a man gets a straight answer from an auto mechanic, he’s enjoying a measure of male privilege.
Every time a man has sex, he enjoys male privilege (because he only has to have sex when he’s aroused and wants it, while a woman can be drawn or forced into intercourse even if she isn’t aroused and doesn’t want it.)
Some male privileges are cultural, some legal, some biological — often a combination. The simple fact is that women have to be very aware of what men are around them, what their mood might be, what their intentions might be — all as a simple matter of survival. Usually it’s no big deal — it’s just life. When Jack is in a mood, Jill stays away. You don’t tug on the tiger’s tail.
But often male privilege can lead to injustice — and that can take many forms, too. It’s a complex and often subtle thing, and may be difficult to discern if you aren’t dealing with male privilege’s impositions on a daily basis.
Thus some women get mad at an ad illustrating and reinforcing sexist stereotypes and (yes) objectification of women — especially when said ad appears on a Democratic political site. Not all of us got worked up about it. I tend to just tune that kind of garbage out, so I didn’t even notice it, and still haven’t bothered to watch the clip. But I can see the concerns of those who protested to Kos.
But it was his reaction that really triggered the storm. Essentially he couldn’t see any validity to their objections, therefore he judged them to be sanctimonious. What we saw was someone generally blind to male privilege declaring that those who complain about sexist attitudes are just fringe groups whose issues and priorities are not to be taken seriously.
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Part of the problem I have with Kos’s reaction is that there are more than two possible responses to the situation. There’s a range of responses, from “Oops, I totally agree, that ad is offensive, and I’ll take it down,” to “I don’t see the problem myself, but folks are complaining, so I’ll take it down,” to “I’m not convinced that there’s a good enough reason to take that ad down,” to “I think that ad is a good thing,” to “I think that ad is a good thing, and FU for complaining about it.”
Kos took the the extreme position. He didn’t just defend the ad, he condemned anyone who complained about it. He went out of his way to be hostile to anti-sexists.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Brain: Exactly, and in doing so he gave permission for sexists to be openly hostile to anti-sexists as well.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the irony of people who (justly) complain that the right has a habit of saying “you disagree with me! censorship!” but then turn around and say “you called me sexist! censorship!”
-sigh-
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
Oh great, Amanda. Now I’ll have to send an e-mail to your gmail account talking about what a sexist manhater you are! ;^)
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
You know what a lot of it might be? It’s that, after woorking as a feminist man, and being activist, and being pro-womena’s rights, there’s still talk in generalist terms that comes across as something that all men are responsible for, and the men who’ve been working hard for womens rights often feel a bit attacked. It’s almost like they feel betrayed.
They take it as if femnists want them to admit guilt for simply being men. To admit that they’re complicit in male privelage. After working fairly hard to improve one’s self as a feminist, the last think these guys want to do is be talked about as if they were part of the ‘patriarchy’. I don’t think they want a reward, but I do think they don’t want to feel as if they were offending someone or oppressing someone just by being male.
I think there is a lot of ways of talking about things in Alas, and other feminist blogs, that involves admitting one is part of a system of social repression, and that one sometimes contributes to it just by being part of a white network, a male netowrk, etc…
It’s hard to admit that you’re the ‘bad guy’. And these men don’t see women doing that. Female feminists may do the self-criticism thing, but I’ve not seen it, and I’d be willing to bet that the liberal men who get angry at feminism havn’t either.
None of this is supposed to justify any of the behavior. It’s just an explanation that does not fall back on “men are pigs” or”even liberals can by anti-feminist”. I want to address that not all of these people are anti-feminist. I think tye just get angry at what, from thier perspective, looks like a slap in the face after them trying to do what they thought feminists wanted them to do.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 12:08 am
Josh, I think that female feminists often acknowledge where they compromise and give in to injustice sometimes. I think virtually everyone makes some compromises and gives in to injustice sometimes. People aren’t saints. No one’s a perfect feminist, or, for that matter, a perfect libertarian, a perfect communist, a perfect utilitarian, or a perfect Kantian deontologist. People want to know, “if I can’t be perfect, how good is good enough?”
I there are two ways people address this. One is to distinguish between the obligatory and the supererogatory: to find some point at which you can say, “go ahead and go beyond that, but at that point you aren’t merely fulfilling your obligations: you’re going above and beyond the call of duty.”
I don’t find this too satisfying. My preferred solution is to say, “be the best person you can be. You will probably fall short of being a perfect saint, and we won’t scold you for that, but that doesn’t mean that you have license to deny those shortcomings with ‘but I’m a decent-enough bloke.’”
Here’s an example. Let’s say you give 30% of your income to Oxfam, but you’ve calculated that you can still live in a tiny apartment with four of your friends and afford enough for clothing and a bit of gruel and give 60% of your income to Oxfam.
If you believe in the supererogatory/obligatory distinction, you say, “well, 30%’s pretty good. I probably meet my obligations, and need go no further.”
If you think like I do, you say, “I could be a better person than I am. There’s room for improvement, and I should try to improve on myself, but I shouldn’t beat myself up for not being a perfect saint. If people say I’m not perfect, and could be better, I have to admit they have a point.”
If you’re really moralistic, you say “I’m a terrible, terrible person for not being the best I could be.”
In short, I think we should distinguish between being a “bad guy” overall (which I don’t think Pseudo-Adrienne, Media Girl, or Lorraine are accusing most of us of being) with having flaws that we ought to work on, which everyone here has.
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 2:41 am
Josh: if I call out women–even feminist women–on their sexism, there’s no way I’m going to let it slide when a man, no matter how pro-feminist he is, displays sexism.
I understand what you’re saying about the feelings of being betrayed when you get smacked down by feminists, but if a man is truly pro-woman he needs to cultivate humility and the willingness to learn and take things on board.
It’s like when white anti-racists get called out on their own racism. The only proper response, if you’re *truly* anti-racist, is to listen to what you’re being told and try to understand what it is you’ve done that’s offended. Getting resentful and defensive really just looks like, well, a crypto-racist response. As if you’re expecting POC to be “grateful” that you’ve condescended to take their side…..and as if you secretly think that while they have the right to criticise those who are openly racist, with you they ought to “know their place” and accept whatever you choose to hand out. Can you understand why that can be even more enraging than explicit racism?
And also, I admit I don’t know much about Kos–don’t really read him because his focus on the Democratic party is frankly not very interesting for those of us who live in other countries, and also he’s way too much to the right for my own personal taste–but on the rare occasions I have stopped by, I’ve not got the impression that he’s done *anything* for women. In fact, even before this, the impression I’ve had is that he is the typical “lefty” (in US terms, maybe) crypto-sexist. Or maybe not so crypto…..I’ve always had the impression that he considers women’s concerns to be pretty trivial. Which is why none of this has particularly surprised me.
What I find ironic is that a person who openly admits that he considers issues that are literally potentially life-and-death ones for over half of all humans–or even half of all humans in the US if you’re going to take the blinkered view–to be ludicrously trivial still has the cojones to brag that he focuses on “the important shit”. Especially when most of that shit doesn’t mean a rat’s arse to most of us living outside of US borders. He reminds me of that question Eddie Izzard once asked of his American audience, “You do know there are other countries?”
No Kos, you focus on the silly, game-playing, Boy’s Own shit, while the rest of us have to deal with Real Life.
And also, if those men who posted to Kos’s thread in order spew nastiness about women and gleefully scream “Tittties!” (wow, *that* put us all in our place….never had anything like *that* screamed at me before…guess that means I’ll have to crawl off in a corner to curl up and die, now, won’t I?) think they’re doing “what feminists wanted of them”, they have a pretty warped view of what feminism is. No, sorry: those guys were revelling in the opportunity to humiliate women and show us just how much they really hate us. End of freaking story. And hey, hating women is just good fun, isn’t it?
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Josh: I hear ya, and I think you put it a lot better than some of the guys I’ve been arguing with at dKos, but I also think that there is a lot of knee jerk reaction to words like patriarchy, sexism, and entitlement.
From my side of the fence, it’s like you can’t even say the words without guys assuming you are not only talking about them specifically, but also assuming that they are that way all the time, and are that way on purpose. Oftentimes, I’m trying to point out prevailing attitudes (of which the people I’m arguing with may or may not actively contribute to, but most likely condone with silence), or specific acts and statements. I know very few people online well enough to go around saying that they are sexist on purpose (obvious trolls on feminists blogs excluded, of course), but I see a lot of sexist behavior and a lot of people who, not surprisingly, aren’t really willing to examine their own actions and attitides.
I think that you are right that guys don’t see us feminists as being aware that we are part of the system as well, but I’m not sure what to do about that. Again, even when I try to talk about this and acknowledge that have sexist (and racist, and classist) attitudes myself, I get the distinct impression that the guys think that I’m only talking about how I see them, not also how I see me and other women.
During my first year in college I was roped into participating in one of my friends psych class assignments. As an intro classes, all that the experiment required was that I listen to some passage and then answer some questions. I was told that they were testing my memory or something non-controversial like that, but of course I knew it was something else, and I kept wondering what it was.
The passage I listened to was a story about a bunch of high school students and their English teacher getting into some minor disagreement over homework or a test or something else along those lines. After I was done with the story my friend asked me questions about how the teacher and students reacted. And then I waited to see if we remembered everything correctly…..and if I would be told what the real point of the experiment.
Well, I remembered everything correctly, but apparently I “remembered”? more than I was actually told. You see, neither the story nor the questions ever referred to the teacher’s gender, but I, and almost every other student, kept referring to the teacher as a “she”? in my answers.
Just about every feminist I know has talked about some type of experience like this, where something happened to make them realize how much they had internalized sexist ideas about themselves (although that something was usually not quite so deliberately engineered). So, I’m not quite sure where guys are coming from in assuming that we don’t see ourselves as part of the system.
And idiotic comments about Women’s Studies, especially those that talk aout blaming men for everything, just really pisses me off because in my experience it’s so very much the opposite of what really happens in those areas of study.
That “social experiement” happened to me while I was at an all women’s college, so the professors who deliberately picked that experiement knew that it would be female students, not male students, who would be forced to deal with their own sexist assumptions. Much our discussions in class regarding gender (both inside and outside of actual women’s studies classes) was as much about coming to terms with our own assumptions and prejudices as it was learning about how culture helps people develop these ideas and the history of the ideas and attitudes themselves.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 9:59 am
Crys wrote:
“…And also, I admit I don’t know much about Kos”“don’t really read him because his focus on the Democratic party is frankly not very interesting for those of us who live in other countries…”
It’s not terribly interesting for some Americans, either. ;) Depressing, maybe. But not interesting. :/
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 16th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Admitting that you have male privilege is really not that hard. It’s just an aknowledgment of reality, it doesn’t mean you are a bad person or have done something bad.
For example, I am a white person. I can totally admit that I have white privilege. I don’t have to worry about being pulled over for driving through an upscale neighborhood at night. I don’t even think about it. Don’t have to. Black men DO have to think about it.
That doesn’t mean I’m a bad person who had done something wrong. It just means that I need to remember that other people have other experiences than I do and it would be good for me to have an empathy for the fact that those experiences can have a profound effect on their life.
This comment was written by truthgood.Report this comment to the moderators