At the blog “Feminist Critics,” Hugh — whose view, if I’ve understood it correctly, is that both women and men are oppressed by the gender system, but women are oppressed more — writes:
This post shows that some of the objections to the notion of the oppression of men also serve as objections to various examples of what feminists consider to be oppression of women. My Double Standard Detector is going off. Either feminists should admit that men are oppressed, or they should relinquish some of their claims of the oppression of women. What feminists can’t do (rationally at least) is employ a broad conceptualization of oppression in characterizing harms towards women, while simultaneously constricting that conceptualization of oppression to exclude harms towards men.
Are women actually oppressed? Are men? I don’t know, and the answer depends on how we conceptualize “oppression.” Yet however we conceptualize it, we need to use the same standard for both sexes, rather than switching standards whenever it is politically convenient.
I agree that inappropriate double-standards should be avoided. However, I think that Hugh’s argument is based on his misunderstanding of how feminist theorists talk about “oppression.” (Hugh is by no means alone in this; feminists often discuss concepts like “oppression” in sloppy and imprecise ways, too. I certainly have. Most of us aren’t academic theorists, after all.)1
Hugh writes:
I only bring up the term “oppression” because feminists use it to characterize harms to women, but not harms to men.
Note that Hugh consistently talks about “oppression” as if it’s another word for “harm.” But I don’t think that’s how feminist theorists use the word. Marilyn Frye, in her essay “Oppression,” writes:
When the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing, the word “oppression” is being stretched to meaninglessness; it is treated as though its scope includes any and all human experience of limitation or suffering, no matter the cause, degree or consequence. Once such usage has been put over on us, then if ever we deny that any person or group is oppressed, we seem to imply that we think they never suffer and have no feelings. […] But this is nonsense. Human beings can be miserable without being oppressed, and it is perfectly consistent to deny that a person or group is oppressed without denying that they have feelings or that they suffer.
Frye could not have more clearly stated that suffering (which, as Frye uses it, is quite similar to how Hugh uses “harms”) in and of itself is not oppression. Similarly, in his book The Gender Knot (pdf link), Allan Johnson writes:
…If we say a group can oppress or persecute itself we turn the concept of social oppression into a mere synonym for socially caused suffering, which it isn’t.
My point isn’t that I agree with every aspect of Johnson or Frye’s discussion, but that they clearly argue that oppression is something significantly different from suffering (and also, I think it’s reasonable to infer, different from harms). If I’m correct about that, then Hugh’s argument seems inapplicable to what these feminist theorists are really arguing.
If I say “both this glass eye and this hammer are hard surfaces, but the ocean is not,” it doesn’t make sense to respond that I’m using a double-standard, merely because the marble, the hammer, and the ocean are all blue. Yes, they are all blue; but since “color” isn’t the metric I’m using to make distinctions, the accusation of a double-standard merely shows that my critic has failed to comprehend my argument.
I think the best way of thinking about “oppression” is that the word refers to systems of determining who gets to comprise the dominant or controlling class, not to specific instances of harm.2 Specific harms are not oppression in and of themselves; they are part of systems of oppression. (Since the same harms can be simultaneously part of the system, and results of the system, the system of oppression is a vicious cycle).
In this view, someone who says “X is an example of the oppression of cartoonists” is mistaken. X might be a result of the oppression of cartoonists, but X is not oppression.
Hugh writes:
One example is the argument that men cannot be oppressed by themselves. Yet there are many examples of women harming women (e.g. female genital mutilation) that are considered by feminists to be oppression. If women can oppress women on the dimension of gender, then men can oppress men.
The gender system is perpetuated by both women and men, and both women and men suffer under it. However, that doesn’t mean that the relationship of women oppressing women within the system is identical to that of men oppressing men within the system.3
When women perpetuate the system of oppressing women, such as in FGM, the conflict (if there is any conflict at all) is not over which woman gets to dominate the society. Neither woman will get to dominate the society; the gender system guarantees that virtually all members of the dominating class will be men.
In contrast, most examples of men contributing to the oppression of other men are instances of men attempting to become dominant, or to ensure that other men don’t become dominant. To quote from Adam Jones’ essay “Gendercide and Genocide”:
…In gendercides against men… the wider collectivity is “culled” and “sifted” to isolate a minority considered threatening, according to the blanket application of diverse variables (usually gender and age). Furthermore, the “challenge” and “threat” to “the dominant group” captures something of the competitive and belligerent character of intra-male politics, the principal challenge of which has always been to suppress perceived male rivals or competitors.
What makes the gender system one of oppression of women is that, even though both women and men act in ways that perpetuate the system, the system’s effect is that the dominating class will be nearly all male.4
Note as well that viewing oppression as a system of dominance does not make any claim about who is hurt more, or who suffers more. Suffering and harm are among the results of oppression, but they are not the metrics by which oppression is measured.
What’s unsatisfying about my own analysis, so far, is that a definition of oppression must refer not only to dominance, but also to injustice. Otherwise, we’d have to conclude that even holding an election — which is, after all, a means of determining who will be in a controlling class — is perpetuating a system of oppression.
We can, however, incorporate the concept of injustice into a conception of oppression as a system of dominance. For instance, swiping aspects of Caroline New’s definition of oppression (pdf link) (which I quoted in an earlier post) and combining it with the view that oppression is about systems of dominance and control, I came up with this definition of oppression:
Oppression is a system whereby a group “X” is systematically mistreated in comparison to non-Xs in a given social context, and in which members of group “X” are effectively prevented from joining the dominating or controlling class of society in significant numbers.
As I think I’ve demonstrated, it is possible to create a feminist definition of “oppression” which does not rely either on double-standards or on denying that men experience harm and suffering as a result of the gender system.
(This post is a cleaned-up version of a comment I left on Hugh’s post; Hugh has since replied to me there. There’s also a related post by Hugh here, which I responded to in Hugh’s comments here.)
(I’ve decided not to make the comments for this post “Feminist only.” However, I will be moderating closely whenever I’m online. Rudeness will not be tolerated, personal attacks will not be tolerated, and snide implications that feminists are man-hating bigots — even when delivered in “civil” language — will not be tolerated.)
- I want to add this disclaimer: My thoughts on “oppression” are actively in development. Therefore, my views stated today may well be inconsistent with views I’ve stated in the past, or the views I state an hour from now. [↩]
- Although I didn’t reread any works by Catharine MacKinnon while writing this post, I want to point out that this post — and, indeed, any feminist discussion of oppression and dominance — doubtless owes a great debt to MacKinnon’s work. [↩]
- I don’t think Hugh disagrees with me on this specific point. [↩]
- To be clear, I am claiming that the members of the dominating or controlling class will be nearly all male; I am not claiming that all or most men get to be members of that class. [↩]
Here, have some batteries for your sarcasm meter. No offense or insult intended toward sex-workers!
because even while fucking someone who might as well be NHGOTS, Paris Hilton knows the important thing is not that she’s having fun, but that she’s looking good.
Overall, she has more power than HG, no question about that. But no matter how much money and power she has, Paris Hilton knows that in the end it’s not her pleasure that’s important – it’s how much pleasure she can give.
I think robin had it spot on with
The issue, as Ampersand pointed out in the original post, is not about who suffers more. Homeless guy is undeniably suffering more than Paris Hilton. The issue is that even he has power that even Paris Hilton does not have access to.
The Happy Feminist recently wrote a post about how feminism’s goal is not to make every woman happy. The purpose is to give women more viable choices. Arguing about whether or not she has it better than NHGOTS completely misses the point. Feminism looks at such issues through a gender lens not because it cares more about PH than HG, but because society looks at everything through a gender lens – and at the same time often pretends to do otherwise – so if we want to be able to help people, such as the homeless, we need to understand what they are up against. That includes gender oppression.
(warning – slightly off-topic rambling follows)
Asking men to check their privilege at the door isn’t just an exasperated demand from feminists annoyed with hearing the same false assumptions over and over again. It’s also an important step in helping men become better men. Just as women need to learn first that saying no is ok before they move onto doing so when they want to, many men (and other privileged people) homeless guy included, need to develop realistic and fair expectations about what society owes them in order to be able to demand the rights they are owed without stepping on the rights of others.
While I’m sure the request has been abused upon occasion, most often I see feminists asking men to check their privilege when they barge into discussions and express outrage and/or shock that everyone doesn’t immediately focus on what they want to talk about.
Personally, I think this pisses so many of us off not only because it’s such an obvious example of the privilege they refuse to acknowledge, but because so completely illogical from most women’s perspectives. While individuals are individuals, play among girls more often focuses on relationships while play among boys most often focuses on rules. In girl world, if you want people to agree with you, you listen first and then argue, often using empathy and sympathy to sway. In boy world, you argue rules down to the tiniest detail and you start off by picking apart your opponents declarations. In girl world, the goal is to make as many people as happy as possible. In boy world, the goal is consensus through clearly defined rules.
So, its not just that so many men demonstrate their privilege by expecting to be the focus rather than part of the group, but that they also bring false assumptions about the purpose of debate. In feminist circles, it’s usually a blending of the traditionally female and male perspectives on group decision making. Rules and rights are important, but so are emotions and relationships. The guy barging in by arguing the details of a theory in progress or the legal consequences of what was mostly an emotional reaction isn’t just wanting everyone to focus on him or expecting everyone to debate him on his terms, he’s also often immediately breaking the girl code by disregarding the feelings of others and assuming that clearly defined rules and rights is the main goal of the debate.
Feminists become frustrated when rape threads veer off into debates about legal details not because they most often do so when when non-feminist enter into the discussion, but because non-feminists usually assume the rules and rights perspective and ignore the parts that many feminists consider to be the real meat of the discussion. So it becomes a double slap of not only derailing the topic of the thread, but also the intent.
When we argue over, for example, where the line is between persuasion and rape, we aren’t doing so only in order to come up with better laws, although that is one of the end goals. We are also doing so because the act of doing so helps us understand people better; what they want and need, the extent to which they care and empathize for others. In turn, that informs how we act and what we argue. Wether or not emotional blackmail is ever legally defined as a crime, it’s connection to rape is important to explore because the law can only do so much. And yet most non-“feminist-only” discussions of that topic on this very site tends to end with words like “jerk” as if that’s all we need to know. That by itself – the assumption and insistence that the discussion is over once it’s concluded that the action is mean but not illegal – is an example of privilege, of not only valuing the “boy” perspective over the “girl” perspective, but also being completely ignorant that the latter exists at all even as one assumes that everyone believes in the former.
It may very well be that whatever legal flaw being pointed out is quite correct and important, but by not “checking their privilege at the door” many men close themselves off to important discussions that are vital to everyone’s rights and happiness.
Mickle said:
And what power is that?
Important to whom?
Guys, post #88.
Seriously.
sorry Myca (and Amp)
my bad – I was just sort of thinking out loud and was using the PH thing as a springboard and I should have nixed that part and rewrote the beginning. If you think this post should be deleted even though PH is only tangental to what I’m about to say, I respect that and sorry for putting you in that position.
Brandon and Hugh – kudos on bolstering the whole “miss the forest for the trees” aspect of the “masculine” discussion style.
If what I said didn’t make sense to you then just flipping say so. If it made sense but you disagree, wtf is up with the “to whom?” and “what power?” How could my argument make even the least bit of sense if you really had no idea as to what I think the answers to those questions are? If you think I’m wrong, tell me how and why. Pretending to be a ditz and nitpicking via rhetorical-like questions may be great for scoring debate points, but it often does jack shit for useful in depth discussions.
I think the biggest problem in this particular thread has been the definitions of words like “oppression” and not nitpicking rules, like “what is rape?”
I’m all for discussing how under class workers have their lives endangered by upper class business owners, whether it’s men working construction, or women working in sweat shops. But I’d much rather discuss those as economic class / power issues than some kind of “men oppressing men as men” situation.
The other thing, and I found this double-plus-extra offensive, was women forced into sex work for survival was trotted out as a privilege. I’ve encountered this before, including from men who weren’t on the street and thought it was really unfair they couldn’t earn money as sex workers from women. Oh, and to rebut the “female privilege” assertion, there are male prostitutes out there — they just happen to have sex with men for money, and not with women. So I’m thinking this isn’t so much a gendered privilege as who knows what. I mean, “gay privilege — the right to be a gay male prostitute.” WTF?
Julie – I was referencing other threads. I should have provided links (and should do so now, but don’t have the time).
It’s the same thing, though.
Clarification and trying to understand each other is good; getting bogged down in insisting that everyone use language the same way at the expense of the larger issue is bad.
As you point out, it leads to really idiotic stuff such as convoluted proofs that prostitution is a female privilege.
Irregardless of whether or not you think that prostitution is an honorable job that should be open to all, it takes a lot of selective thinking and arguing to come to the conclusion that being less likely to be the consumer or the boss, and more likely to be the employee on the bottom, grants one – or is a result of – any amount of privilege.
While there are all kinds of shitty jobs that the patriarchy considers to be men’s work only, I can’t think of any where the consumers and the bosses tend to be overwhelmingly women.
I can’t think of any where the consumers and the bosses tend to be overwhelmingly women.
Child care.
Robert,
You really, honestly think that child care is commonly considered to be men’s work only? Or did you not actually read Mickle’s comment in which was written:
While there are all kinds of shitty jobs that the patriarchy considers to be men’s work only, I can’t think of any where the consumers and the bosses tend to be overwhelmingly women.
(my bolds)
Mickle,
I really enjoyed reading the second half of your comment #201 (the off-topic ramble). Excellent analysis and something that I have been observing for some time (which is not to say that I have not been guilty of the same).
Mickle said:
Ok, it didn’t make sense to me. I find it highly implausible that the homeless guy has power that Paris Hilton doesn’t have access to. It seemed kind of dishonest for you to make such a bold claim with stating what your evidence was. BUT, I am aware that I could be wrong, so I asked you what you thought that power was. Perhaps I’m missing something, or perhaps you have a different conceptualization of power than I do.
Oh, and if Amp doesn’t want this thread of discussion to continue, then he is welcome to delete my previous post and this one.
Hugh
A ghostly voice from way upthread can be heard in answer:
“Yes, male privilege. That’s the entire point. All things being equal, a homeless man and a millionairess walk into various sorts of stores, and the homeless man is treated better…”
Oh God no! Just when you thought the nightmare was over it all starts happening again! It’s worse than Dead of Night.
Mickle:
You’re right—your argument doesn’t make the least bit of sense without clarification on the answer to my question. That’s why I asked it. You can’t be vague in laying out the foundations of your argument and then accuse someone of nit-picking when he asks you to clarify.
Clarity is a prerequisite for useful, in-depth discussions.
Myca, Amp et al:
Sorry about that. I came into the thread late and never saw the original cease-and-desist notice.
You really, honestly think that child care is commonly considered to be men’s work only? Or did you not actually read Mickle’s comment…
I think you’ve mis-parsed Mickle’s comment, Jake. Mickle was saying that there are men-dominated jobs, where men are both the bosses of the industry and the primary consumers, but not women-dominated jobs, where women are both the bosses of the industry and the primary consumers. Or so I believe; Mickle?
Tom Nolan writes:
And next we’ll be hearing about secret shadow governments of women forcing men to do our evil bidding.
Oh — for the meeting next Monday — it’ll still be Passover, so watch what you bring to eat. The secret Jewish women’s shadow government members can’t eat chametz until Wednesday.
And next we’ll be hearing about secret shadow governments of women forcing men to do our evil bidding.
You know, I always suspected as much. It’s when you go to the bathroom together, isn’t it? That’s when you’re having the secret meetings. Nobody pees that much.
I dunno, Robert. Surely Mickle (as well as the rest of us) can think of jobs where women are both the bosses and primary consumers. You’ll notice that what you quoted was merely the second part of a (compound? I was never good at grammar terminology) sentence. Nail salons, hair dressing establishments come to mind immediately. No, I think the first part of the sentence is extremely relevant to the second part. If I’m wrong about this, I will be very surprised.
On a side note… I think that it’s dishonest to quote part of a sentence and not include an ellipsis (??? my badiness at grammar terminology rears its ugly head for the second time in one comment – you know, one of those “… ” thingies) to indicate that one is doing so.
Er, didn’t I use an ellipsis? I meant to. And I see one up there. Where should there have been another ellipsis?
“Ok, it didn’t make sense to me. I find it highly implausible that the homeless guy has power that Paris Hilton doesn’t have access to. It seemed kind of dishonest for you to make such a bold claim with stating what your evidence was. BUT, I am aware that I could be wrong, so I asked you what you thought that power was. Perhaps I’m missing something, or perhaps you have a different conceptualization of power than I do. ”
If she accuses him of rape, he has a higher chance of being believed if he says she just regrets having had sex with a homeless guy and was ashamed of “slumming”.
Why? Because he’s a male. And “everyone” knows what a slut she is, she even recorded herself having sex and hangs out with Britney Spears, and that slut doesnt even wear panties, omg oh noez!!
I’d call that power she doesnt have access to.
Robert,
I believe Jake was referring to the lack of ellipses in comment #208.
You’ve misinterpreted “any” as meaning “any job,” a misunderstanding compounded by your quoting a sentence fragment rather than the entire sentence in comment #208. It seems clear that “any” means not “any job,” but “any shitty job that the patriarchy considers to be men’s work only.”
I.e.: “I can’t think of a shitty job that the patriarchy considers men’s work only, in which the consumers and bosses tend to be overwhelmingly women.”
Child care is certainly not an example of such a job.
Pheeno:
Maybe, but maybe not. Sure, people believe that P.H. is a slut, and that sluts lie about being raped; but they also believe that homeless men are dangerous psychotics who are eager to rape pretty young white women. So perhaps the bigotries would balance out in that case, or work in Paris’ favor.
Responding to Mickle, in comment #201, Hugh wrote:
(For context, I’ll remind readers-in-general that in the same post, Mickle also said “Overall, [PH] has more power than HG, no question about that.” And I agree with that.)
I think that homeless Bob might have the ability to go back to under the bridge or in the park or where-ever he hangs out with his homeless friends and (consciously or not consciously) expect some degree of deference to him because he is male. Insofar as all the usual sexisms aren’t rendered irrelevant by Bob’s homelessness or other aspects of his individual situation, they can still benefit Bob. (When homeless Bob’s homeless baby is wailing, who is in charge of it: Bob, or bob’s homeless partner Kate?) That’s a kind of power.
In contrast, Paris can go home to her mansion and, while she might expect her friends to defer to her because she is rich or famous or just because she has a powerful personality, she won’t expect any degree of deference to her because she is female.
* * *
I think it’s weird that all of you folks are so fascinated with the “homeless man versus Paris Hilton” comparison — so much so that you all REFUSE TO LET IT DROP.
Personally, I think it’s about as uninteresting a comparison as can be imagined. For feminists, I can’t imagine why it’s considered a productive discussion to have, since it inevitably forces us to try and imagine situations which somehow divorce Paris of her race, her wealth, her fame, etc.., in order to deal purely with her womanhood; similarly, we try and imagine situations which somehow divorce nameless homeless dude from everything but his maleness. It’s as if the last twenty years of discussions about intersectionality never even happened.
You can’t divorce nameless homeless guy from his homelessness, any more than we can divorce Paris Hilton from her whiteness. These traits interact and intersect; they are not modular. To treat them as if they are modular is, in my view, a conceptual mistake.
* * *
I’m in Florida visiting my folks, and I don’t have frequent access to the computer. I won’t be monitoring this discussion closely, therefore. But as a general request, if you MUST discuss the Paris vs Homeless Dude question any further, please try to say something interesting.
OK. Paris Hilton vs. Homeless Dude, bare knuckles, no weapons, no other rules. Who walks out of the ring?
Paris Hilton, her bodyguards beat the living snot out of NHG, male privelage ftw (or perhaps this should in fact be female privelage since men in general are more willing to wade into a fight for a woman than vice versa or male/male female/female – speaking as a former bouner?).
Out of curiosity when you walk into a store what kind of “preference” / “privelage” / “bigotry” do you want / get, while I know the plural of anecdote isn’t data, when I walk into the store as a white male aged 18-35 I barely get noticed by staff, and from experience working in stores most people don’t get any noticed paid to them unless attractive / rich / something odd about them. In most stores I have worked in women tend to get more notice from both the female and male workers (though perhaps for different reasons).
Relating this to PH and NHGOTS PH is semi-attractive, rich, something odd (bodguards), so would get noticed, NHGOTS is likely something odd (poorly dressed) and possibly a few others (we didn’t get many homeless people in our store so I can’t really add comments). So both are very understandable.
Tom, did you read the comment you just quoted, or did you stop reading at that part?
hf
Yes is the answer to that question. Given that I debated these matters back and forth with Julie over the course of many, many comments, and given that you claim to have read those comments, I’m surprised that you needed to ask it.
If you come up with substantive complaints and questions – supported by quotations of something I’ve actually written – for me to answer, then please don’t hesitate to bring them to my attention. Until then, perhaps you should turn your mind to other things. That’s what I shall be doing.
Tom,
We’ve refered back to where you’ve made your claims. What you don’t seem to much care for is a discussion of male privilege that stands on it’s own without all the other issues you’re trying to drag along for the ride.
I don’t think anyone here would claim that male privilege is the only thing out there, only that male privilege exists and provides significant advantages to males that are denied to females.
bad marriages?
heh.
Sorry to make a joke. But I can’t help but laugh at the fact that we are STILL debating PH in light of Amp’s “no PH!” comment.
Julie
I don’t want to debate this proposition for a very good reason: I agree with it.
And if you’d limited yourself to saying as much I would never have taken issue with you.
Do you really want to get back on the merry-go-round? Do you really want me to point out where our disagreements lay, to summarize the arguments you used to bolster your position and my arguments in rebuttal? Given that anybody the least bit interested (ie no-one) can actually head back up thread and read our debate, I think that you and I can move on. What do you say?
Tom Nolan writes:
Sorry, I don’t believe you. And I don’t believe you because you introduce irrelevancies every chance you get. Not only did you do that here, but you also created a traceback thingy where you picked apart what I said — that all other things being equal, men are privileged over women.
I did limit myself to it. That’s what “all other things being equal, men are privileged over women” means. I’m sorry — there’s just not other way to interpret it. Obviously there are clearly other things out there. Those would be the “all other things being equal …” things that are being held equal. You want to introduce “intersectionalities” so you claim that male privilege doesn’t exist, as you and others do on Feminist Critics.
Well, if you expect me to accept your absurd assertion that male privilege doesn’t exist, I’d be more than happy to get on the merry-go-round all over again with you.
You’re happy to agree with what I write as long as you then get to go back and claim it doesn’t mean anything. This statement —
really does mean something. PH v. HG is a distraction you and others want to keep bashing us over the head with so you can chop away at what
means. If you disagree with it, have the spine to say so.
Me (referring to the proposition that there is something such as male privilege)
Julie
Fascinating. You are explicitly thrusting an argument on me which I have never made and have never believed. Pure ventriloquism.
You mean a trackback? No, I didn’t. Julie, what on earth are you talking about? I’ve done nothing more technically challenging on this thread than quote your actual words.
Since I’ve never made such an assertion, why would I expect you to accept it?
Honestly Julie, you’re just arguing with a figment of your imagination. Which is fine on a blog, if that’s what you want to do. Just as long as you don’t do it while travelling on public transport.
Julie said:
I see the confusion: that post was by me, not by Tom.
Nobody on Feminist Critics has claimed that male privilege doesn’t exist. Your claim that Tom or other people on Feminist Critics don’t think male privilege exists is merely you substituting our arguments for those of some generic antifeminist. What I have argued is that all else being equal, males are not always privileged over females. That doesn’t mean that male privilege doesn’t exist; it just means that male privilege isn’t as universal as feminists often make it out to be, and that female privileges exist also. Maybe you are confusing “male aren’t always privileged” (which is what I’m arguing) with “males always aren’t privileged” (which is absurd, as you say).
In fact, I explicitly say: “When all else is held equal, sometimes men are advantaged over women, and other times, women are advantaged over men.” Just because females are privileged over males in some situations that feminists don’t typically acknowledge, it doesn’t mean that males don’t have unjust advantages over females in other situations. In a previous post What Feminist Got Right, I argued that “Males have some systematic advantages over females that they do not have a right to.” I see no reason that feminists can’t agree with this position, while believing that male privileges simply dwarf female privileges.
Note: in my last sentence,
the position I mean is that men are privileged in some contexts, and women are privileged in others.
Tom, Hugh (typhonblue, NYMOM, e-i-e-i-o …),
Most every “female privilege” you’ve identified isn’t a “female privilege”. It’s an example of how women are excluded from engaging in the acts that men use to assert their dominance over each other, a byproduct of men exercising male privilege, or the result of the intersection between class and gender.
It’s not a “female privilege” that women are systematically excluded from blue collar work by men — it’s male privilege that allows men to exclude women. That more men than women then die in male-dominated fields is a result of male privilege.
It’s not a “female privilege” that men kill men in pursuit of a dominant position. It’s a byproduct of women not being permitted to occupy positions men occupy and there being no need to murder the maid when killing the local drug dealer is more lucrative.
It’s not “female privilege” that in a smack-down between PH and HG, PH wins. In a similar smack-down between Bill Gates and Homeless Woman, Bill Gates wins. Notice a pattern?
Julie said:
I apologize for this tangent, but the idea of Christian privilege intrigues me. If we were to look only at outcomes, and not at the processes that produce them, we might come to the conclusion that it is Jews, not Christians, that are privileged. After all, they’re overrepresented in government, in prestigious occupations, and in higher education, and they have higher median incomes than gentile whites.
I don’t think that Jews are privileged over Christians in the US. But it seems to me that anyone who agrees with me on this point has to acknowledge that:
1. When one group is doing better than another on these indicators, this is not prima facie evidence of privilege working in their favor, and may even happen despite privilege working in favor of the other group.
2. When one group is doing worse than another on these indicators, this is not prima facie evidence of privilege working in favor of the other group, and may even happen despite privilege working in favor of the first group.
Am I wrong?
Julie
Hugh, typhonblue, NYMOM and myself all have differing philosophies and points of view. We are not “y’all”. Your comment is in reply to something Hugh wrote. It would be sensible to address it to him alone.
And may I repeat some advice which I have offered to you elsewhere? That it’s a good idea to debate the person who’s debating you, and to bear in mind the argument whch that person is actually making?
So, over to Hugh…
Brandon Berg writes:
Yes, but this isn’t how “privilege” is examined —
I’m a college graduate. I make a lot of money. If someone else is a high school dropout, it’s not “college graduate privilege”, like, some sort of undeserved perq I get just because I went to college, it’s something I earned. Some other form of privilege might have gotten me into college, and kept the high school dropout from going to college, but that just shows that it’s the PROCESS, not the OUTCOME that’s relevant.
Julie to Brandon
You appear to be mixing up mere wealth and privilege here. Sure, if you’ve worked hard for your college degree and somebody else dropped out of high school because he didn’t feel like making the effort, then who would dispute your extra spending power?
Privilege, however, is of its nature unjust. And wealth and education, though they do not imply privilege, often bring it in their train. A classy accent and a stuffed wallet might and frequently do mean undue influence and preferential treatment – over and above what can be legitimately purchased.
Tom,
“Privilege” is unjust, merit isn’t. “Privilege”, in a feminist discourse, is unearned. I have white privilege because I am white. Not because I’m particularly honest, law-abiding, educated, or the opposite of any other attribute ascribed to people of color, but simply because I have “white” skin.
When my half-sister(*) and I go out together, she gets treated worse that I do. Not because she’s a bad person, but because she has black skin. When we tell the stupid bigots that she’s my half-sister, they suddenly decide to either treat her better, or me worse.
—
(*) We’re not actually related, we just tell people that because it messes with their head and they deserve to have their heads explode.
No, Tom, you didn’t debate Julie as far as I could see. Quote a substantive statement by her that you disagree with, one that preceded my last comment. If you think she meant that part about the idiot comparison literally, then you need to read the whole comment like I just asked you to. Because she plainly meant something that you claim to agree with. (That, and she appears to call the HG/PH comparison idiotic.) This presumably explains her hostility — you keep attacking her and we still can’t figure out what you hoped to prove or why it matters to you. In particular, what did you hope to accomplish with this bit?
She doesn’t need a reason to fight a form of oppression. If she has to pick one form to focus on — or if a blogger has to choose a topic for one comment thread out of a billion — s/he can make an arbitrary choice and doesn’t need to justify it to anyone. (See Chris Clarke on the subject of “focusing on the important shit”.) That should go without saying. So if you didn’t intend to say that she shouldn’t spend any time on feminism, with all this criticism and harping on PH, please tell us briefly what you did mean to say and why. It kind of sounds like you started out venting largely unrelated anger from your personal history, or criticizing Heart and other people who may not actually be here.
Julie:
I don’t see why you said I’m wrong, or even where we disagree. What you said is consistent with the two numbered propositions I gave in my last comment.
Brandon,
I’m not clear that you believe the process by which things come into being that matters more than the outcome. I know that sometimes people argue counter positions to show they are wrong, so maybe that’s what’s happening here. Perhaps you could clarify which you think is more important — process or outcome — and if you think it’s unjust that a person who, through merit, graduates college justly deserves higher pay than someone who, through a free choice, drops out of high school.
hf – I can’t believe you want to put us all through this, and I suspect that once I’ve answered your questions you will simply disappear. But here goes.
Julie’s original statement
was not withdrawn or significantly modified in the post it was made in. Julie did concede
but she still insisted that a homeless man who was not physically repulsive (ie one not smelling of piss or dressed in rags) would receive better treatment than a millionairess. In fact she reiterated this point (comment 124):
Notice the contradiction here. Julie’s explicit position was that all things being equal male privilege prevails – and I never once disagreed with this. But at the same time she chose examples where male privilege can be seen to prevail against any amount of wealth disparity. She didn’t say (and it would have been easy enough to do so, wouldn’t it?) that two millionaires, one female and one male, go into a shop, and he gets served before her. She said that a well-presented but homeless man goes into a shop at the same time as a millionairess and he gets served before her. So that the explicit opinion and the examples (twice, so it couldn’t be a mere verbal mishap!) she gave were clearly at odds, and this is why I queried the latter.
Julie continually defended the notion that the well-dressed poor man has privilege over the millionairess. When I put the matter thus, in comment 133:
she contested it (comment 137)
Julie’s official position was unexceptionable: that all things being equal male privilege triumphs. But all the while she implied another one: that male privilege triumphs against any amount of wealth privilege (unless, that is, the man in question smells of piss and is dressed in rags). If she was really restricting herself to the “all else being equal” argument, why the devil didn’t she just agree with what I wrote in 133?
hf, if my explicit position were “all things being equal wealth privilege prevails” but then I furnished examples of wealth privilege prevailing against any amount of race, class or sex privilege, you’d suspect that my explicit belief and the belief I wanted to promulgate were not one and the same. If you queried me about it, asked me to concede a particular case where race privilege outweighed wealth privilege, and I steadfastly refused to do so, your suspicion would (rightly, I think) be confirmed.
I’m sorry, hf, but your suggestion that I had no real bone of contention with Julie is without merit.
Now to your other points:
No, of course she doesn’t. But I was under the impression that Julie was using the “all else being equal” argument as a justification for concentrating on male privilege above wealth privilege. At least that was how I interpreted what she said in comment 142:
I gave one good reason for concentrating on male privilege above other kinds: that one cannot fight all evils at once. And one can think of others just as valid. But the “all else being equal” argument is not one of them. As I pointed out: it can be used to prioritize the struggle against any given privilege.
Finally, hf
the only mention of Heart in this thread was as a counter-example to Julie’s contention in comment 142 that
whereupon I made the perfectly reasonable remark that it depends on what feminism one is talking about (comment 143)
It’s true I don’t think much of Heart. On the other hand I cannot, as Julie can, boast of having been engaged in a long-running feud with her. If I’d wanted to get at Heart through a proxy, Julie is the last person I would have chosen.
“Maybe, but maybe not. Sure, people believe that P.H. is a slut, and that sluts lie about being raped; but they also believe that homeless men are dangerous psychotics who are eager to rape pretty young white women. So perhaps the bigotries would balance out in that case, or work in Paris’ favor.”
The fact that her credibility would be in question because of her sex life, or clothing choice or the mere fact she’s female are the things that prevent her from having access to that power. His lack of wealth lowers his power, not his plumbing. His sex life wouldnt even come into question.The only thing that might work in her favor is his class status, not his gender. It would take the word of more than 1 woman against his to eliminate any doubt against her.
Tom:
Julie, in the quote that calls your* comparison an idiotic or pointless distraction:
*Technically ballgame started it and a lot of people were harping on it before you joined in.
Don’t know what happened with the bolding there. Anyway, I just answered your substantive (!) criticism: Julie used somewhat vague or confusing language once while mocking what she considers a pointless distraction — one that Amp’d told us to stop discussing — and apparently she thought you knew what she meant because it seems blindingly obvious if you try to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks to Amp or the Net Gods for removing that odd bolding.
Tom,
The “all other things being equal” doesn’t include a homeless man who is well dressed walking into a store and loudly proclaiming “I’m a poor homeless man who has no money. I live under at $10,000,000 bridge, not in a $10,000,000 house!”
That’s not “all other things being equal”. If PH is dressed well, so is HG. If PH smells nice, so does HG. If PH has a manicure, so does HG. That’s “all other things being equal”. Not secret mind-reading powers that only exist for the sake of pointless arguments designed to mock and ridicule feminists. Which I said upthread.
Over in that other sandbox you occupy, you make a much bigger deal out of the intersections between class and gender. Which is fine — I hold to some pretty socialist / leftist views and think “class” is a big problem. But right here, right now, the topic seems to be about the oppression of men and the oppression of women. That, to me, sounds like gender-based oppression, not class-based, race-based, religion-based, sexual-orientation-based, or whatever. Gender, as a class constructing characteristic of people. Are men oppressed on the basis of class? Yup. Race? Yup. Religion? Yup. Sexual orientation? Yup. But for all those things, so are women. Homeless Guy, who is oppressed on the basis of CLASS, is in the same boat as Homeless Woman. Both are oppressed on the basis of CLASS. And working to end class-based, race-based, religion-based, sexual-orientation-based, e-i-e-i-o-based oppression will benefit both.
In my opinion intersectionalities cloud the issue of “oppression” precisely because of the PH v. HG comparision — because no one ever seems to go back and do a BG v. HW comparision. Right? Bill Gates v. Homeless Woman smack-down, Bill Gates wins. Right? Therefore, no, men never are oppressed? Yeah, da feminists dey rulez! Except that’s not useful in “pity the poor menz” discussions, no?
If “class” is the commonality between who wins in PH v. HG and BG v. HW, “class”, not ‘gender’ is the cause. HG’s oppression has the same roots as HW’s. Why? Because holding “class” constant, and varying the other attributes, reveals the biases that people have based on “class” which are independent of those other things which are varied.
Urph.
Holding those OTHER things constant and varying CLASS.
I think.
Sorry — distracted by personal drama …
hf
I’ve laid out – with references and quotations – the nature of the dispute between Julie and myself. I have rebutted every one of the accusations you made in comment 240.
Your only response is, apparently, to quote Julie’s affirmation that
which is besides the point: my argument was with Julie herself, not with the “scenario that feminists like to talk about”. I’ve shown that she – repeatedly – implied that male privilege outweighs any amount of wealth privilege. Please check the quotes in comment 243, there are enough of them, goodness knows. If the comparison of the privilege enjoyed by a homeless man and a very wealthy woman was such “an idiotic or pointless distraction” why on earth did she reiterate it, with the implication that the man’s male privilege (provided he doesn’t stink of piss etc) outweighs the millionairess’s wealth privilege?
I think that this is most unfair to Julie: she didn’t make the comparison once, she made it repeatedly and emphatically. If it had been a mere slip of the keyboard, then she could have corrected her position at any time and instantly shut me up.
That is a totally illogical statement. Julie knew full well that her repeated suggestion that a homeless man’s male privilege prevails over a millionairess’s wealth privilege was a stumbling block to our reaching an understanding. She knew it because I kept telling her it was the crux of our disagreement.
As it was, Ampersand – who was no doubt yearning for the quiet life – made the adjustment that she herself was unwilling to make. I was not altogether convinced that his interpretation of the matter was correct (Julie herself never authorized it), but, as you can see from comment 169, I effectively allowed him to put the matter to bed. It was as much a courtesy to him as anything else.
hf, is the irony of the situation altogether lost on you? You suggest that I am somehow culpable for bringing up a question Amp would prefer left undiscussed. But I wouldn’t now be discussing the episode at all if you hadn’t insisted – against my reservations – that I justify my behaviour in it.
Julie
And I said upthread
This is what I meant by a merry-go-round. Do we all really want to get back on?
Tom,
Yes, and at which point it would CEASE to be “all other things being equal”.
I said that in my most recent response to you (HG doesn’t get to yell “I live under a $10M bridge, not in a $10M house!”), and to various other responses.
Your example is based on people somehow (who knows how …) having knowledge that I’ve done my best to conceal. You keep wanting to drag PH’s wealth into the picture so that you can say “Ah-ha! PH’s wealth privileges her!” But how do people know PH (or RRW — Random Rich Woman) has that wealth?
What you doggedly persist in doing is forcing an intersection between wealth and gender. That’s something YOU want to do, and you appear to want to do it solely for the sake of disproving the existence of male privilege. In a comparision between BG and HW, does HW somehow “win” because in PH v. HG, PH “wins”? Yes? Right? So it simply isn’t a matter than HG is oppressed AS A MAN. He, and HW, are oppressed based on their CLASS. Meaning, that to me, the entire premise you persist in advancing is just plain irrelevant to a discussion about men being oppressed AS MEN. Is HW oppressed? Yes. Duh. But not AS A MAN, so dragging him through the gutter as “proof” that men are oppressed, is just plain wrong.
Tom,
The OTHER thing you want to do is claim that because “male privilege” isn’t completely, totally, and utterly overwhelmingly powerful, that it doesn’t exist, or that feminist claims are somehow invalid.
Someone else you’ve argued with (pick Heart — she seems to believe that) might have taken that stance, but not me. Take your issues up with them because I don’t give a flip.
Julie
This too has been covered.
me
I think your problem, Julie, is that (despite Amp’s and hf’s protestations) you are unwilliing to articulate your view of the matter in a way which would obviate all my objections. You could say:
but you are anxious not to present your case like that. Why? Is it – and this is my suspicion, by the way – because you want to hypothesize a man who is both poor and simultaneously enjoys a preponderance of privilege over a millionairess?
As for the this
No. I do it because the intersection of wealth and gender is a reality. I insist that both wealth and gender need to be taken into consideration when we discuss the balance of privilege between two individuals because both play a role.
I don’t believe that, I’ve never said that, nothing that I have written can be read as implying that; and I have corrected you in this regard on numerous occasions.
I think I’m going to bow out now. You’ve as good as called ma liar on no evidence at all. Some level of mutual respect is necessary to debate. It’s missing here.
I don’t know who’s winning this argument, but I do know that it’s boring the piss out of me.
I don’t agree, for reasons unrelated to gender.
If you gave a homeless woman as much money as the millionairess, the latter will still get served before the former, because the latter will act the part, while the former will still be a poor homeless women in terms of her behaviour.
The signs of poverty fade over time, but they are unlikely to be completely erased.
Robert,
Me too. Didn’t Amp ask that if people were going to argue about PH, they had to make it interesting?
[moderator hat on]
Tom and Julie, you have failed to make the discussion of PH and HM interesting. Stop discussing it here. No further mention of PH or HM is allowed in this thread.
Actually, cut the “No, you are” crap as well. It is really, really boring.
Actually, you know what, this thread is closed until Amp says otherwise.
[/moderator hat off]
Robert
Gee thanks, Robert. It’s appreciative interjections like this that make commenting worthwhile. Really cheered me up, you have.
Tom,
I assume we cross posted.
Closed until further notice. Take it elsewhere if you really want to continue this.
Kittens are cute.
Flamethorn writes:
Banned
just kidding…
Pingback: Creative Destruction
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » “Oppression” and “Privilege” Defined As Direct Opposites