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.
Due to my own limitations, this list is unavoidably U.S. centric. I hope that writers from other cultures will create new lists, or modify this one, to reflect their own experiences.
Since I first compiled it, the list has been posted many 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.
Obviously, there are individual exceptions to most problems discussed on the list. The existence of individual exceptions does not mean that general problems are not a concern.
Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases – from a boy being bullied in school, to soldiers selecting male civilians to be executed, to male workers dying of exposure to unsafe chemicals – the sexist society that maintains male privilege also immeasurably harms boys and men.
However, although I don’t deny that men suffer, this post is focused on advantages men experience.
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 acknowledgment 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. (More).
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. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).
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 relatively low. (More).
8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.
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. (More).
12. If I have children and 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. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are 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. (More).
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 protagonists were (and are) the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).
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.
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. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).
25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability. (More).
26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).
27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).
28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).
29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
31. 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.)
32. 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.
33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.
37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
38. 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. (More).
39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.
40. If I have children with my 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.
41. Assuming I am heterosexual, 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 rarer.
42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).
43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).
44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.” (More: 1 2).
45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)
45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men. (More.)
46. 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, I’d appreciate it if folks who use it would tell me how they used it; my email is barry.deutsch@gmail.com.)
(This is an occasionally updated document; the most current version of The Male Privilege Checklist can always be found at https://amptoons.com/blog/?page_id=2402 . The views expressed here, which I started writing in 2001, unavoidably fail to precisely express my current views; that’s life, isn’t it? To see posts discussing the Male Privilege Checklist and various items on it, please visit this archive page).
Related links
For another feminist list with a different thematic approach, see Andrea Rubenstein’s “Think We’ve Already Achieved Equality? Think Again.”
I can’t really read through 600 comments so perhaps it was already explained, but how does one benefit in any material way from number 14?
I did read the last page or so of comments – and there was some talk about informed opinion on feminist views on such and such. My informed (by loads of reading on the Net) opinion is that feminism is an incredibly broad term and there is no single feminist view on most everything, except some basics like “women are persons and have no less worth than men”. Some representatives of a subset called “radical feminism” try to appropriate feminism as a whole, and there are quite real statements from them about all men being bad. Like, here: http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/golden-girls-marathon-i-have-my-period/
“there is something very wrong with men — we know this. feminism is not about fixing men, or curing them of their repulsiveness — it would be a better use of our time to try to cure tangerines of their tangerine-ness.” The rest of the post is just as nice.
However, factcheckme and her like (who also tend to be very aggressive towards transgender people) represents a minority within a minority (and even that has infighting in it). She acknowledges this fact in the very same post by attacking other feminists: “i am BEYOND sick of feminists (and feminism) which denies reality and the reality of womens lives and what men do to us AND WHY THEY DO IT, AND WHETHER THEY ARE LIKELY TO EVER STOP. they arent.”
Of perosonalities known not just online. Mary Daly apparently expressed views like rejection of sexual equality and the need for women to govern men (though I only have Wikipedia to back it – it refers to her paper book Gyn/Ecology, which I do not have, so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly#Views_on_men ).
So, yes, “straw feminists” are apparently real. No, they are not to be used as an excuse to blame every single person out there identifying as a feminist. (I don’t).
Here are my thoughts on the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKHStTWlv9A
I welcome any response.
Pingback: Scheinbar banal, nie egal: Versteckter Sexismus | Leena Simon
Pingback: We Need 10 CCs of Feminism – STAT « 5cities6women
Pingback: an open letter to allies of carol todd
Pingback: Sexism and the Left | There Is No Alternative
Pingback: Our Privileged Society « Bre's African American Feminism
Tatsuya Ishida has been doing some excellent cartooning along these lines. Here are some recent samples.
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4556
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4557
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4551
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4558
The sarcasm! It is delicious.
It’s kinda surprising, given what you find in the early archives. It appears that his thinking has evolved.
Grace
Pingback: A Lesson or Two | Fierce, Freethinking Fatties
Pingback: A Gay Guy’s Guide To Feminism – A Brief Introduction | eGrollman
Pingback: On band-aids and new jobs | Jesseract Writes
Pingback: Soraya Chemaly: Violence Against Women Is a Choice Men Make: 4 Ways to Make the Right One : freedomluchador.com
Pingback: Soraya Chemaly: Violence Against Women Is a Choice Men Make: 4 Ways to Make the Right One | Political Ration
Pingback: intl women’s day: a letter to men (and women) | josericardoortiz
Pingback: Internationale Vrouwendag – wie heeft feminism nodig | Allochtona
Pingback: What No One is Saying About the Steubenville and Torrington Rape Cases. | Everblog
John Scalzi commented awhile back about privilege more generally, and his excellent readership added more in the comment thread:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/10/18/things-i-dont-have-to-think-about-today/
Grace
Pingback: ML-Class + Pope Benedict XVI | part 2 | Teenage Dirtbag Sustainability Academy
Pingback: Message for the bigoted hatemongers of UT | A Voice for Men
Pingback: What we’re reading 4/6/13 | Disrupting Dinner Parties
Pingback: How to Develop Confident Activist Leadership - These 5 Sustainable Ways - Organizing Change
Pingback: Recap of Monday 29th April – Class on Gender | EF-International-Relations2013
Pingback: From Prison to Playground: Healing the Gender Wound | Journey to Manhood -- Men's Eagle Council 2.0
Pingback: Feminism 101 – everything you need to know about Privilege & Entitlement! | The Rambling Girl
Pingback: You Are Privileged | The Art of Cultural Vivisection
Pingback: Privilege and Parenting | Meredith Miller
Pingback: about male privilege | feminism nowadays
Pingback: Agency as Privilege | The Right Stuff
@mikhail
Re: #14 example:
– Elected officials are not putting your reproductive rights to a vote.
Pingback: A Big, Small Ask | Stemmings
Pingback: A Message to Every Man Curious About Feminism
Pingback: Important | oh! she lives
A similar, gender-mirrored list compiled by a woman.
Pingback: Are ‘straight white Christian men’ the new oppressed minority? | Death and Taxes
Pingback: Are ‘straight white Christian men’ the new oppressed minority? | Brav's Bookmarks
o you want to know what ‘male privilege’ entails?
Accounting for 80% of the homeless.
The majority of suicides.
93% of work related deaths.
Having less money spent on our gender related health issues.
Marginilisation in schools.
Longer prison sentences for the same crime.
Discrimination in the family courts.
Being harassed over child payments while women who deny good men who pay it the right to see their children aren’t dealt with.
Gosh I feel so privileged.
I was raped.
Twice.
Sexually assaulted more times than I can count. Objectified. Told to enjoy it. Called a slut. All by women.
It hurt, because I’d been raised that my sexual innocence was my only key to Heaven, and without it, I might as well kill myself. That was by a man. My father, in fact.
I was 5.
When I flinch from a touch, as if burned, I’m called broken and weak. If I hold my ground, if I force myself to accept warm touch, if I allow that sex can be a wonderful gift…
I’m called a liar.
Is this privilege?
It feels like being desperate to not be alone. And being treated like a predator unless I desex myself. And told to be silent, because we are nothing more than our genitals, in the eyes of people like you.
I don’t know who hurt you. I pray you’re not hurting now. But we live in a kyriarchy. Those who have power will use it to destroy those who don’t. And no, there’s no comfort or representation in knowing we share a Y chromosome.
Pingback: 101 Everyday Ways for Men to Be Allies to Women
Why would any thinking person NOT identify as feminist?
B – define feminism.
Realistically most people agree with the dictionary definition of feminism however a lot of the real world implementations of it are not so fair and equal. Given feminisms historical focus on white middle class women why aren’t you a womanist? Given the gender focus of large parts of feminism why aren’t you a humanist?
People have their reasons and from my personal experience most aren’t due to sexism but things like misleading stats (wage gap, male rape etc.). Most people are happier with equality but not everyone sees it through the one lens.
@ Mikhail…#14 is in fact the wild card. I don’t see how you don’t see its benefit. The vast majority of the people who make the laws, interpret them and enforce them are male. That means that male interests are the ones represented, and female interests and issues are marginalised. This is the centre of the issue, the cause really. Until countries are governed just as much by women as by men, the quest for equality will continue to fail.
Re: Why would any thinking person NOT identify as feminist?
Is that a rhetorical question or a serious one?
If a serious one, then I’d say the answer is that some of us have considered the principles and teachings of feminism, and decided that they don’t make sense. Hence, I self-identify as an antifeminist.
Maybe they might reject a political view which is so insular, cultish, and self-absorbed that its proponents literally cannot imagine an intelligent reason for choosing anything else, even though such reasons obviously exist?
Hell, if all feminists asked that question I wouldn’t be one. Fortunately, I don’t think you’re representative. But I bet if you think a bit, you can probably answer your own question.
Pingback: 101 Everyday Ways for Men to Be Allies to Women | Him Her Hem?
Pingback: bl | emmaehrenberg
“41. Assuming I am heterosexual, 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 rarer.”
That’s not privilege. That’s marketing based on association, that assumes men are neanderthals who’ll buy anything with a girl in a bikini on it. The assumption is that women are smarter and desire sex less than men do so that’s why there’s less images of scantily-clad men.
I appreciate most of this list…however, some of these points are completely off base. I also think this should be clarified to be “The /heterosexual/ male privilege checklist”, as many of these points apply to heterosexual men, but not to homosexual men.
E.g.
“22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.”
– I think this one is just the opposite…insurance companies are notorious for raising rates for ALL male drivers simply for being male. And police are more likely to pull over male drivers than female drivers for the same traffic offenses. I’m 24 now, and have never in my life been pulled over (i.e. no tickets, no accidents, no nothing), yet I still pay higher rates on my insurance than my sister who has received numerous speeding tickets and has been in three accidents. We have the same policy from the same company, but I’m a male, so I’m profiled as a much more aggressive and dangerous driver, and I thus pay higher rates.
“42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.”
– Yeah? But as a gay man I am under much /more/ pressure to be fit and muscular than my female counterparts are. Try being a fat gay man. Or a scrawny/skinny gay man. Or anything that isn’t shredded or buff. The male homosexual community faces just as many (if not more) social pressures to fit within a certain body mold than heterosexual women do.
“44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.””
– Maybe this one is just me….but I actually get this a lot. Funnily enough, it’s typically women that say it to me.
Re: Maybe they might reject a political view which is so insular, cultish, and self-absorbed that its proponents literally cannot imagine an intelligent reason for choosing anything else, even though such reasons obviously exist?
I’m hardly particularly sympathetic to feminism, but this isn’t a *feminist* issue, it’s a general human reaction. Lots and lots of us think that our chosen creed- feminism, democracy, capitalism, communism, Christianity, Islam, whatever else- is just *obviously* true, and we have a very difficult time seeing why any intelligent and moral person would think otherwise. I don’t this is particularly limited to self-professed feminists.
I can not deny that some “privileges” are empirically verified.
Nevertheless, the word privilege is masking the difference between inequality and difference. In fact, I’m asking myself what sort of solution you propose : the abolition of these “privileges” give us the same statute than women, canceling only the advantage of the heterosexual white man. So, it means that the male’s disadvantages are stronger than female disadvantages. And I conclude that the male’s privilege abolition is only changing the sense of domination.
On the contrary, I suggest that the advantages / disadvantages of men and women have to be gathered to give us a global vision.
More, the goal of equality as 50%/50% participation of men and women is based on a constructivist approach : indeed, desires of men and women are understood like a result of socialisation. If it is, the 50%/50% and the policies useful to get it (scolarship, family, and so on) are the good way to give everyone the same chance in life (even if the social class struggle is always there).
But, this view is itself based of an andiscussed idea of equality : is the equality the destruction of all difference ? Is a houseworker woman always dominated ? Is it always a privilege to destroy yourself every day at work ?
Worse, it’s not solving a very old problem : is it possible to neutralize every power relations ?
“The male homosexual community faces just as many (if not more) social pressures to fit within a certain body mold than heterosexual women do. ”
I don’t think this is true. Most gay men do not live in an exclusively gay male communities, they don’t have gay male managers and bosses, they don’t have clients who are almost all also gay men, they don’t have doctors who misdiagnose all of their medical problems as coming from not fitting a gay male body ideal, etc. So the social and economic pressure to fit a body mold or not get promoted/hired/that client/accurately diagnosed by your doctor/etc. just isn’t there for gay men.
Look I agree with a lot of the principles of Feminism, I agree that there are clear things that need to be addressed to equivicate the sexes but this Male Privilage nonsense has to stop. Yes, males have some aspect of privilage, but so do women funnily enough.
Female Privilage Checklist:
1. When dealing with pain that you find at times to be intolerable, do you have to deal with the stigma of being “soft” or a “wimp”.
2. When growing up are you made to feel less of a person because you are not active and do not conform to the ideals of “enjoying sports”.
3. When asked to do a task, such as heavy lifting that you cannot physically deal with, are you expected to push yourself through the pain, simply because of your sex?
4. When being beaten by a woman and faced with a court appeal for domestic violence, is your standing trivialised? Are you taken seriously?
5. If you have been raped, are there a large number of support services available?
6. When social housing is provided, do you have a priority because of your sex?
7. When picking up your child from school after a certain age, are your motives questioned?
8. When you go for a night out, is it possible for you to carry no money and still have a great night of getting drunk?
9. When going to court for your parental rights over a child, are you given a better chance at custody simply because of your sex?
10. When faced with bullying, did you recieve more support services at school?
11. Does your social standing with people of the same gender depend on your physical strength or fighting capability?
12. Are you in general, if called upon, expected by the government to partcipate in wars?
13. Should you ever commit a crime, are you expected to get the same sentencing available as someone of the opposite sex, or do you frequently find that you are more likely to be given a lower sentence.
14. Are you more likely to be saved when being in a building which is on fire, or in any emergency situation where rescue is required?
15. Should you choose to, would you be able to go out in clothing typically worn by the opposite sex and not get ridiculed by the majority of people?
… I could go on, but I’m sure you see the point here. A lot of these issues CAN be addressed by feminism, as can a lot of the male privilages. The issue here is that most feminists seem to have this idea that only males can be privilaged. It is nonsense, there are inequalities on both sides that need to be addressed if we are to have an inclusive society. If you fail to see that, then you are not for sexual equality.
People need to learn that BOTH sexes need to recognise their privilages, so that both sexes can work on societies problems together. Instead of creating this whole womens club where only men can be allies.
As a final note, although men cannot experience the oppression of women, they can empathise with it. Just as women should be empathising with some of the issues men are dealing with, some of them more severe than others.
J. H.,
I don’t see much evidence that female interests are marginalized, at least in civilized countries (Asia and Africa) are a separate issue. I also don’t see how politics would much change if we had more women politicians, other than maybe more attention to environmental issues, a bit more of a welfare state, etc.
Also, the idea of a world governed ‘as much by women as by men’ seems like a fool’s errand. leadership ability, social dominance, competitiveness, risk taking, desire for high status etc. are pretty obviously linked to androgen exposure, and possibly to other sex linked traits, so one would expect in a fair world leadership positions would mostly be dominated by men.
Pingback: http://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2013/jun/20/why-i-started-a-feminist-society | Barbies Vs. Robots
“Also, the idea of a world governed ‘as much by women as by men’ seems like a fool’s errand. leadership ability, social dominance, competitiveness, risk taking, desire for high status etc. are pretty obviously linked to androgen exposure, and possibly to other sex linked traits, so one would expect in a fair world leadership positions would mostly be dominated by men.”
———–
Everything I’ve read seems to indicate that men have a much greater variance in intelligence. Men tend to have a “flatter” distribution; women are bunched more towards the middle statistically. So you would find far more men at the extreme tails of a distribution graph.
What that means: You are always going to have a lot more men (unless you force the issue with heavy affirmative action, equal outcome etc.) as professors of physics and Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences and … maybe … as CEOs of big companies and major politicians. I say maybe because I’m not sure that the latter positions are as heavily linked with intelligence.
I think that’s the reality. I noticed that Larry Summers got intense feedback at Harvard for trying to say something like that, and I have been instantly banned from some feminist websites for saying even a much milder version of that, but reality and facts are really stubborn things.
“Facts” and “reality” are very strong claims. What is your specific evidence to back up these very strong claims?
—Myca
One approach that would solve gender imbalance issues in representative government would be to appoint representatives via lottery. That approach was used in ancient Greece(though all voting citizens were males with property that could be easily adjusted in the modern era). In the more modern era, this approach was used in BC to explore alternatives to election by districts. They appointed a citizens assembly chosen at random from the voter rolls to the BC citizens assembly. I think they made some minor adjustment to assure some groups got representation in proportion to their numbers.
Personally, I’d like to see every law and major judicial decision subject to review by a citizens’s assemblies. That basic approach could be used to determine campaign funding allocation for political candidates also.
I think a serious case can be made that the present auction/beauty contest used now systematically selects for individuals with negative personality traits.
I personally dislike hard quotas because they have a tendency to still given some groups more representation than others.
Re: I say maybe because I’m not sure that the latter positions are as heavily linked with intelligence.
I don’t think CEOs and politicians are that highly linked with intelligence. They are linked with *social dominance*, though (and with risk-taking, competitiveness, etc.) which are all linked to male hormones (either current levels or prenatal exposure).
The issue with Nobel Prize-winning physicists is a separate one, and the link between intelligence distributions and sex isn’t quite as well established, but there’s certainly some evidence for it, and I think it’s probably correct. It would explain both why we could expect to see fewer women at the top ranks of physicists and mathematicians, and also fewer women represented among very low-achieving students.
Nomoreh1b,
If some groups are better equipped and more interested in political leadership than others, what good would be served by having political leadership be strictly random and representative?
As long as women are able to run for office without impediment if they so choose, I’m not sure why we would necessarily want a 50:50 male/female mix in government.
“If some groups are better equipped and more interested in political leadership than others, what good would be served by having political leadership be strictly random and representative?”
Rand corporation did a lot of research on the quality of predictions made by different voting approaches. They found that it was pretty hard to select _any_ panel of “experts” that could make predictions more accurately than a group chosen a random, voting secretly and repeatedly until folks stopped changing their minds.
I know of _zero_ research that suggests choosing representatives based on fund raising capacity or charisma makes better decisions by any criteria except making donors richer compared to the general public.
George Gallup made the point that again and again, the polls tended to make better decisions than anyone else. Good scientific polling is expensive, but we can use smaller groups of voters to make sure the lawyers in congress don’t do anything too stupid or self-serving. If 2/3 of 12 voters chosen at random think a law is a bad idea-it probably really is.
I have yet to meet a single politician in a mainstream leadership position I consider a decent person. Frankly too many are mentally ill or just nasty people. If you sat down with them you wouldn’t trust them with anything-let alone stuff like a nuclear arsenal.
This kind of pathology is what beauty contest augmented by intense fundraising select for.
Also, if you look at the Federalist paper, the purpose of the US house of Representatives
was the reflect the US population “in miniature”. The fact that representation by districts can’t do that wasn’t well understood at the time. Most democracies that have emerged since then use some variant of proportional representation to approximate that end. Such mechanisms still have bias-which election by lottery simply does not. Proportional representation systems often over-represent the most highly organized groups of voters for example.
I have first hand, personal experience seeing just how corrupt US state legislatures can be(I worked on an illegal campaign donations investigation years ago). I think that the US educational level is high enough at this point that work can really get done by citizens chosen at random. Many of the worse voters will simply excuse themselves. Also groups of citizens assemble for a specific purpose will not be prone to corruption-if the BC citizens assembly is any indication, they’ll do a credible job and then go home.
Pingback: On Logical Falacies, Slave Morality, and Bullshit. | Gently Into the night
#30 doesn’t seem to go far enough. Anger and dissent seem more likely to be accepted as rational and justified in men, versus taken as a sign that a woman is irrational and overly emotional. A woman isn’t just penalized for being angry when she should be polite, she’s dismissed as someone who is angry without valid cause. Speaking out (or getting irked) about a man exercising privilege that he doesn’t notice is taken as yet another indication of the woman’s inferior ability to think and perceive.
Cast-of-Thousands fan, that’s a good point.
But I’m mainly replying to let you know what a HUGE kick I got out of the name you used! THAT’S going back a lot of years! :-p
One week after graduating with the highest grades in her Health Care Assistant (HCA) program, my daughter got a job in a residential care facility for seniors who have dementia-related challenges. She understood the position was on-call casual until she proved herself and she looked forward to doing so. She’s been called to work every day. One month after she started, a fellow grad was offered a full time, permanent position for which my daughter had planned to apply when the position was posted (union environment). There was no posting. Guess the usurper’s gender? Guess why the (female) supervisor deemed him so highly qualified for the position? That’s right. My daughter has been informed that the residents manage themselves better when a male HCA is present on any given shift. He doesn’t really have to flex his muscles; his mere presence satisfies male and female elders on some sub- or unconscious level that they ought to toe the line. Did y’all get that? We can’t allow an empowered woman to act empowered because folks don’t see her as empowered so we’ll empower this guy ’cause, well, everyone knows he’s powerful. And that’s how the patriarchy f**ks women to reproduce itself.
Really Euphemia? Because my daughter experienced exactly the opposite of [Fill in the Blank]. Her story is that [fill in a description of something that you want to support your political theory]. And she also [provide some supporting details].
I’d also like to add that a lot of men I know also feel dissatisfied with gender relations in big companies. But they … ahem … have a sit-at-home wife to pay for, so they can’t whine, they get out and form their own companies and try to survive.
Women, despite government set-asides for women-owned companies and the like, can’t do the same because the Patriarchy would immediately destroy everything and give everything to men. And stuff like that.
I take your argument here to be that anecdotes don’t really prove anything, and everyone has anecdotes to support their views. That seems like a fair argument to me.
This, on the other hand, is nothing at all but beating up a strawfeminist, unless you can quote someone on this thread actually making that argument. Please try responding to the actual arguments made by actual people here on this site, rather than arguing with what you imagine feminists say.
Euphemia,
Isn’t it possible that residents are more responsive to a male supervisor because males naturally tend towards more social dominance than females? Isn’t it possible, in other words, that this phenomenon you dislike isn’t a result of the ‘Patriarchy’, but rather the fault of, um, nature? At least in part?
It’s ridiculous to think that being male means being socially dominant. Those loud mouthed Americans hurling forth their monologues are only going to attract the other empty heads of American culture. Both those so-called dominant ones and the idiots that allow themselves to be led by them deserve each other.
Pingback: Lásd a láthatatlant, avagy bevallatlan férfi-előjogok | Eszmetár
I take [Varusz’s] argument here to be that anecdotes don’t really prove anything, and everyone has anecdotes to support their views. That seems like a fair argument to me.
Unless you immediately follow it up with, “I’d also like to add that a lot of men I know also feel dissatisfied with gender relations in big companies. But they … ahem … have a sit-at-home wife to pay for, so they can’t whine, they get out and form their own companies and try to survive.” And claim that women never start their own businesses because patriarchy. (What about stereotypical “Mom and Pop” businesses? Are they “really” just “Pop” businesses? If both “Mom” and “Pop” spend 60+ hours a week on the business, but “Pop” does more management-and-financial parts of the work, does “Mom” suddenly not count?)
Also, it seems to me that, if you have a single source of income instead of two sources of income, starting one’s own business would be MORE risky than if you’re a two-income family.
FWIW, I know a few people with stay-at-home wives, as well as a few with stay-at-home husbands, and none of them seem to be “sit-at-home” spouses. I don’t live with them, of course, but it sounds like neither do you, Varusz.
I have never seen a definition of “male privilege” I could apply, hence I can’t say that I know what male privilege means. So I will try asking here hoping that some feminist might enlighten me:
Let us say I discover an island with a civilisation on it, which hasn’t had contact with the rest of the world. On this island I meet a man, let’s call him Mr. X. I want to find out whether Mr X has male privilege or not. How do I do this?
For this task let us assume that I can somehow speak the language of the island and the people there let me collect data. Further let us assume that I have the resources (time, people, money, ..) so that I can collect a huge amount of data if necessary; but I don’t have super powers (for example I can’t read minds or know what would happen in a hypothetical scenario). Assuming that I know maths and plain English (so no feminism or other social justice stuff; if I havbe to assume something, you have to tell me, if you use social justice vocabulary I have to look it up.), how do I determine whether Mr. X has male privilege or not? I understand that there might be a grey area where we are not certain about the answer, but I am interested in:
1.What are minimal requirements so I can confidantly say Mr. X doesn’t have male privilege?
2.What are minimal requirements so I can confidantly say Mr. X has male privilege?
Jupp is requesting an operational definition suitable for an academic study. I don’t find that helpful, because he hasn’t explained why he thinks any ambiguity exists. I don’t happen to agree with the theory that there are no female privileges, but the underlying concept seems clear enough. If it really isn’t clear, then Jupp needs to give a concrete example of a situation in which:
1. men get treated differently from women on average
2. men appear to benefit from this differential treatment
3. when examined more closely, it is not clear than men benefit
4. defining the notion of “benefit” is part of the decision problem. It is not merely a problem of establishing the facts of the case.
David Burress
—–Original Message—–
Author: Jupp
I have never seen a definition of “male privilege” I could apply, hence I can’t say that I know what male privilege means. (Snip)
Jennifer,
You cannot seriously be unaware that social dominance and leadership ability are associated both with current androgen levels and with prenatal androgen exposure?
“Jennifer,
You cannot seriously be unaware that social dominance and leadership ability are associated both with current androgen levels and with prenatal androgen exposure?
”
My mistake, then Hector. Carry on as normal, soldier.
david burress,
could you give me a definition of “male privilege”?
There are situations where being male is an advantage and there are situations where being female is an advantage, and anybody (whether they are male or female) who has lived at least a couple of years, has sometimes benefitted from their gender. From what I have seen, most feminists agree that men have “male privilege” and disagree with women having “female privilege, so there must be more to “male privilege”.
You are also asking for an example where men are treated differently on average, but I thought that “having male privilege” was a property of individual men, not of the set of all men or all male humans.
Pingback: Kindness and Regrets | Patrick F. Clarkin, Ph.D.
Jupp:
I wonder both why you say this and precisely what you mean.
A key cornerstone of privilege in the USA today is asset ownership. Literally the only group to really improve their financial position the last 33 years have been those Americans with over $5-8 Million in assets. Now only 10% of the top 40 wealth holders in the US are women. However,
http://www.wlp.givingto.vt.edu/wealth/
“Women control nearly 60 percent of the wealth in the United States.”
“The number of wealthy women in the U.S. is growing twice as fast as the number of wealthy men.”
What I haven’t found good figures on: what percentage of folks with zero or negative
net worth are women-i suspect that is also growing. I also suspect that when you look at
very wealthy women, a big share of them are childless(each child takes $250-300K to raise in a middle class lifestyle and some folks opt for the cash instead). According to prof. Elizabeth Warren, having children is a strong indicator of bankruptcy for stable couples. I suspect it is much stronger for single mothers.
Some of the wealthiest men I’ve personally encountered were the most incredibly abusive of neglectful men. Steve Jobs refused to pay child support until his business associates intervened because they were afraid of blowback to Apple. Larry Ellison has an incredibly high level of sexual harassment settlements.(I’ve actually known folks that knew both fairly well). Long ago, i worked on the criminal investigation of a kind of “corporate Charlie Manson”. This charming, sociopathic millionaire was doing things like getting women to risk serious prison time to help make him more wealthy by doing stuff like hinting marriage was a possibility.
Distribution of wealth(hard assets, not just income) is a key issue relating to families/reproduction/gender issues.
here is some reading on this.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents/dp/0465090907
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf
What I personally favor in the way of policy in this area:
eliminating payroll and income taxes for the lower 95% of Americans, strengthening programs like EITC, food stamps, medicaid/medicare and focusing taxes on the one group that has improved their financial condition the last 33 years; those holding more than $5-8 million in assets. The trickle up effects of the tax cuts and income support may actually mean than even with asset taxes in the 2-4% range, the net worth of the wealthiest Americans wouldn’t change much. There are $188 Trillion in assets in america. about 60% is held by either the upper 1%, foreign investors, or foundations that are basically controlled by the upper 1%. Federal revenue is about $2.5 Trillion-so even a 3% asset concentration tax could pay for all current federal programs and close the deficit(which would help lower interest rates). If we push it a bit more we can improve income support programs. For this to really work is needs to be paired with a much more careful trade and immigration policy.
A feminist on my facebook page posted a link to this list, so I was checking it out today. I agree with some of the privileges..others are a bit stretching. I was thinking about this one due to something that happened last night:
24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.
I was at a pool party last night – it was me, my girlfriend, the host, his girlfriend, my friend’s girlfriend’s newly divorced female friend and a single male friend of mine.
The newly divorced women got very drunk and started touching all the guys in the pool, rubbing up against us, touching our legs, etc. She also cornered my single friend and put her hand up his swimsuit, and asked “why he wasn’t being romantic?”.
My friend eventually left because she was being so aggressive.
What I thought was interesting about this was – had the gender roles been reversed, i.e. I was newly divorced and was rubbing my friend’s girlfriend’s leg, etc..I’m pretty sure I would have been kicked out of the party right away and asked never to return.
Afterwards, the general consensus was that she was drunk and newly divorced, so she was “just dealing with that”.
So, I don’t know – for every one of these male privileges, it seems there might be a counter female privilege – one being that you can pretty much be as sexual agressive or “rapey” as you want, and it’s considered “ok”. Such is the duality of things.
@Ignatius Reilly it may have seemed that way to you, but I think you are missing something in your understanding of this. There is a big difference between a woman rubbing herself up against a guy’s leg, and the same situation with the genders reversed – because – a woman cannot force a man to have sex with him. Your friend was able to simply leave and not fear being pursued and have violence done to him. Would a woman in the same position have that liberty? No, she would fear being followed from the party and assaulted, or if that didn’t occur she would probably fear being stalked later by the guy. Sure, this woman was being sexually aggressive, but not “rapey”. I doubt her behaviour could actually have created a fear of violence in anyone, maybe just revulsion.
Besides that, your anecdote has no relation to the point you quoted from the article. IS there an equivalent to “slut bashing” for males?
@nomoreh1b – I love the representation by lottery concept. It seems like a very sane solution!
I think most people would agree, that, regardless of gender, someone putting their hand up someone’s shorts/skirt when they didn’t want them to would be considered “rapey”. And you just proved my point about female privilege to be sexually aggressive – since men can’t rape women (which is a false assumption btw), then it’s “ok” for women to be as sexually aggressive as they want.
The opposite of “slut-bashing” is generally when men won’t sleep with someone. To be honest though, I don’t personally witness much bashing in either case.
I guess, also, based on your comments, that if, I , as a male, “rub against the leg” of a female, that I have the privilege of being assumed to be a rapist, and a violent one at that.
!
Sorry to break this to you, J.H, but women can, and do, rape men … and at rates far higher than most people imagine.
Great article, but I’m unsure of your use of ‘sex’ in many of the points instead of gender. Sex is more limiting as it refers to what an individual (generally) was born as. There are plenty of articles on the internet that demonstrate sexism against queer/trans women (whose ‘sex’ would still be considered male) and this article’s use of that term leaves those individuals out, even though they experience many of the same things. Thanks!
Answer to comment 641 from Richard Jeffrey Newman:
In my experience “male privilege” usually get attributed to individual men or boys, like in: “He is blinded by his male privilege”.
Let Mr. X be a man. The statement: “Mr. X has male privilege.” is a statement about Mr. X. If it meant “Mr. X is male and in the society Mr. X lives in males on average have advantages a, b, c etc.”, it would tell us hardly anything about Mr. X specifically; the main conclusion would be that Mr. X is male.
So that’s why I am asking, what does having male privilege mean for Mr. X individually?
Pingback: You say you are a feminist and you love men. | Ending the War of the Sexes
Trigger warning for touching upon violent sexual assault.
J.H:
Presuming that by “force to have sex” you meant “sexually assault”, this is not true, for several reasons.
In no particular order:
Arousal is not consent. A man’s penis can be erect, and the man can still not consent to sex with that person, or sex under those circumstances, or sex at all.
Sexual assault does not require an erect penis, or a penis of any kind. Even narrowing the definition of sexual assault to require penetration, sexual assault can be done with a broom handle, or a stick, or a kitchen knife, or a finger.
J.H, this is a public forum. Some of the readers and some of the posters are male survivors of sexual assault by women. Do not assert that what happened to them can’t happen — that compounds the trauma. Thank you.
Grace
Pingback: Feminist contradictions. You say you are a feminist and you love men | the secular traditionalist
Too many cranky men trolling this blog to comment on them all, but just to respond to a few above, having people of your own sex voted into power makes a difference to what policies are made and what is included in them. That in turn effects the everyday life of your sex. Not really a hard one to figure out, but in case you need sociological evidence do a little research into parliamentary statistics against humanitarian issues such as poverty and peace. http://www.unwomen.org
Guys, we acknowledge that men also suffer from sexual abuse. But you cannot seriously deny that the majority of it is done by men and the majority of victims are women. Every corner of the world expresses this and that’s even while men are still predominantly in charge. Just accept what is being said here, we do and have always lived in a male dominated world and countless, extremely serious cyclical social problems continue to stem from that imbalance.
Also to whoever mentioned hormones as a determining factor in leadership capabilities, explain all of the terrible male leaders in the world’s history. If you come up with any other answer besides hormones, that is points #4, #6 and #33. Think about it!
Great article, thank you for posting this, it really means a lot. All we want is equality, why would men even try to stop that? Strange. Respect = friends = world functioning better. But I guess when the priority is power not function then loving women as you would love yourself or your male neighbours is not something to help make happen.
Pingback: Male White Privilege Checklist | The Musings of a Shop Girl
Because
1) there are many, many, different definitions of “equality,” and
2) any actions you take will inevitably involve deliberately creating some inequality in an effort to get towards your preferred definition of “equal;” and
3) since we’re all human, everyone generally chooses the definition of “equal” which gives them the most benefit value (whether they get the benefits directly, or indirectly,) and
4) since we’re all human, most folks are not better at defining “equality” than their opponents, generally speaking, and
5) there’s no “objective equality” anyway.
Lil:
See, that’s what I have a problem with: Just accepting what is being said because it’s self-evident. It sounds as if you are arguing that there is no need for research and statistics when the findings differs from “what is being said here”. When you treat the distribution of victims as a a priori fact rather than a a posteriori fact which needs to be derived from empirical evidence like for instance surveys. To really know this we need to ask – and this a priori attitude about who really are the victims have to a large degree precluded asking men and boys about their victimization. It implies that there is no need to consider at what it means that the NISVS 2010 report which found that in the last 12 months an equal number of men and women reported being raped*. No need to include the staggering number of prisons and jail inmates who are sexually abused and the fact that female prison officials are responsible for more that a quarter of that abuse** and no need to include child victims***.
I’ll however give you some credit for not writing “vast majority” as many other are prone to do.
* Assuming that being forced to have sex is in fact rape even if the victim is a man “being made to penetrate” another person – p. 18 and 19 in the NISVS 2010 Report.
** Bureau of Justice Statistics two reports covering prison/jails and youth facilities:
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12
Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012
*** One example is India where a national survey conducted by the Indian Ministry of Women and Child Development called Child Abuse: INDIA 2007 which found that underaged boys are slightly more frequently victims of child sexual abuse than girls (52.92% vs 47.06%) and even slightly more likely to be raped/sexual assault (54.4% vs 45.6%) – see table on page 89 (PDF) / page 75 (document’s numbering) and page 94 (PDF) / page 80 (document’s numbering).
One wouldn’t guess at these findings from the summary though as gender ratios for victimization were mentioned in the “major findings” section for physical abuse and emotional abuse, but not for sexual abuse (p 12-13 in the PDF, p vi-vii in the documents page numbering).
An excellent list of the opposite.
http://mensresistance.wordpress.com/female-privilege-checklist/
yes very clever, but the list is repetitive, several times a point appears more than once, to make the list appear longer. There are also a lot of instances of things that are not really rights that women have over men, but merely something that some woman got away with, that you want to chalk up to female privilege. You need to understand the difference between the institutionalised sexism that is brought about by a male dominated/controlled society (or male privilege), and people acting in a shitty manner to each other not necessarily sanctioned by society or built into the fabric of social convention. When you are calling out female privilege, try to remember that our society was not set up by women nor is it controlled by women. hell, there are even a lot of things in there that are brought about by a male dominated/controlled society. How can you call those female privilege?
This “male dominated/controlled society” thing is assuming that men (and for that matter woman) elected into political positions don’t represent women’s points of view at all. That’s just not a correct assumption. It’s also assuming that women have no influence or say in society, which is a strongly incorrect assumption. They also exercise power and influence in different ways than men to some extent.
You’re really taking the victim view of women for some reason. Why?
No, it doesn’t assume that. It assumes that a political system run primarily by men will take men’s POV more than women’s POV, on average.
Again, i don’t see that assumption in what Xib actually wrote. A society can include some degree of influence from some women, and still be on the whole male controlled.
Finally, “the victim view” is a boring right-wing caricature of feminism. Acknowledging problems and attempting to fight them is not “the victim view”; it is the opposite.
As far as I know, women are the majority of voters. If male representatives were such a problem, more likely to take the view of men (whatever that view is), it seems that either female candidates or male candidates who were more sympathetic to “women’s views” (whatever they are, concretely) would be voted in.
Women’s views vs. men’s views is also a fuzzy topic for me. Lots of women are against legal abortion, lots of men favor legislation against discrimination. Lots of women think a woman’s place is in the home (like my aunt), lots of men favor affirmative action for women.
I just felt a real heavy pull from @xib towards a view that the Oppressive Patriarchy is the basis for any illusory privileges on the part of women. But women very definitely do have their own set of privileges, and they are not helpless in society.
Varusz, do you really think democracy works perfectly and is a perfect representation of the views of voters? I don’t. Otherwise, we wouldn’t see things like (say) legalization of pot – a proposition supported by about 50% of Americans – being opposed by close to 100% of Senators. There are many flaws in the system, so any argument based on the idea that
the system is flawless and thereforewhatever exists must represent what voters want, is mistaken.The issue of female representatives in a democracy is a complicated one – as you say, there is no such thing as a single “male” or “female” view, and we cannot predict any official’s policy views if we don’t know anything but their sex.
On the other hand, we do know that when a country’s leadership includes a critical mass of women (above 40%), issues like “health, …social policy spending, and… poverty” are more likely to be prioritized by the government.
day care are more likely to be seen as crucial and part of the government’s legitimate portfolio of interests.It’s not anything as simplistic as “women vote for A, men vote for B” – it’s more that the content of the conversation tends to change according to who is participating in the conversation.Finally, “I just felt a real heavy pull” is understandable – I’m sure we’ve all felt something like that at one time or another – but it’s nonetheless pretty weak reasoning, because sometimes our feelings turn out to be mistaken. If you suspect @xib of believing something she didn’t say, perhaps you could ask her? (Or him). But you really did seem to be making assumptions about @xib’s views that weren’t actually stated in @xib’s comment.
This implies an entirely unproven cause and effect relationship, Amp. There is in fact no way to disentangle whether more women in government led to more social spending … or if modernization and economic development in general led to a broad cultural liberalization which included more social spending and greater levels of female participation in public life. (My guess is that it’s a little of both, but more the latter.)
I think the tragic legacies of Maggie Thatcher and Barack Obama (among others) have demonstrated pretty clearly that a candidate’s demographic identity may have little to do with their actual political priorities.
Ballgame:
Actually, there are indeed ways to address this question. First of all, many studies of “critical mass” find that the effect exists in wealthy, industrialized countries. (Actually, most critical mass studies have focused on wealthy industrialized countries.)
Second of all, studies – for example, the one I linked to – include statistical controls for changing economic development (as well as other variables, such as which party is in power) so that the effects of women in legislatures can be measured apart from the effects of development.
Third, economic development and female representation generally align, but they don’t perfectly align. The US has had fairly low levels of female representation in Congress, but we are still a wealthy country, to pick one obvious example. In some countries, women joined parliament fairly rapidly in response to changing laws, rather than gradually in response to development – for instance, in Tanzania, a change of election law led to a doubling of female representatives in legislature in only a decade (from 1995 to 2005), which led to many positive policy outcomes. (For now. There’s a conservative movement to undo the 1995 change of election law, which reserved some seats in the legislature for female representatives).
Ballgame, I already said exactly this, in the comment you’re responding to: “…there is no such thing as a single “male” or “female” view, and we cannot predict any official’s policy views if we don’t know anything but their sex. ” “It’s not anything as simplistic as “women vote for A, men vote for B.”
You’re arguing with a strawman. I never claimed that a candidate’s demographic identity is the one and only factor determining their policy preferences (in fact, I explicitly denied that). That doesn’t mean that it’s irrelevant on average, however, nor does it prove anything at all about Critical Mass theory.
That Clarence Thomas opposes nearly all policies favored by the Black US mainstream, doesn’t mean that Black people are mistaken to want Blacks included in government in more than token numbers. Nor does it mean that there will be no significant policy differences between an all-white legislature and a legislature that’s 30% or 60% non-white. It’s just a completely irrelevant argument to make.
* * *
A couple of disclaimers:
1) I don’t want to make it sound like the only reason to want a representative government is policy outcomes. Policy outcomes are important, but we should also want a diverse legislature for its own sake. A ruling government that effectively excludes or marginalizes women, or Blacks, or Muslims, or lgbt folks, etc etc., from the legislature is in and of itself morally repulsive, in addition to whatever policy problems are caused by a nonrepresentative government.
2) Critical mass is an important factor in what laws are passed and enforced; but I’m not claiming it’s the only factor. Other factors that matter include economic development, government structure, critical actors, party politics, etc etc.
Edited to add: Wow! Comment number 700!
Edited to add: I also think a government that effectively excludes non-rich people, as our national government does in the US, is morally repulsive. Unfortunately, addressing this doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s radar screen at all.