[Note: This version of the list is not the current version. The most up-to-date version of the list can always be found at this link.]
No time for blogging today – gotta draw, gotta go to work, blah blah blah. So instead, here’s a piece I compiled five or six years ago, originally as an exercise for a women’s studies class. It’s probably my most widely-read piece; as well as floating around on the internet, it’s been used in dozens of high school and college courses.
An Unabashed Imitation of an article by Peggy McIntosh
In 1990, Wellesley College professor Peggy McIntosh wrote an essay called “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. McIntosh observes that whites in the U.S. are “taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.” To illustrate these invisible systems, McIntosh wrote a list of 26 invisible privileges whites benefit from.
As McIntosh points out, men also tend to be unaware of their own privileges as men. In the spirit of McIntosh’s essay, I thought I’d compile a list similar to McIntosh’s, focusing on the invisible privileges benefiting men.
Since I first compiled it, the list has been posted several times on internet discussion groups. Very helpfully, many people have suggested additions to the checklist. More commonly, of course, critics (usually, but not exclusively, male) have pointed out men have disadvantages too – being drafted into the army, being expected to suppress emotions, and so on. These are indeed bad things – but I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes. Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that sometimes bad things happen to men.
In the end, however, it is men and not women who make the most money; men and not women who dominate the government and the corporate boards; men and not women who dominate virtually all of the most powerful positions of society. And it is women and not men who suffer the most from intimate violence and rape; who are the most likely to be poor; who are, on the whole, given the short end of patriarchy’s stick. As Marilyn Frye has argued, while men are harmed by patriarchy, women are oppressed by it.
Several critics have also argued that the list somehow victimizes women. I disagree; pointing out problems is not the same as perpetuating them. It is not a “victimizing” position to acknowledge that injustice exists; on the contrary, without that acknowledgement it isn’t possible to fight injustice.
An internet acquaintance of mine once wrote, “The first big privilege which whites, males, people in upper economic classes, the able bodied, the straight (I think one or two of those will cover most of us) can work to alleviate is the privilege to be oblivious to privilege.” This checklist is, I hope, a step towards helping men to give up the “first big privilege.”
The Male Privilege Checklist
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true.
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
5. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.
8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.
12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.
15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see “the person in charge,” I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male heroes were the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.
21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won’t make me an object of contempt or derision.
25. There are value-neutral clothing choices available to me; it is possible for me to choose clothing that doesn’t send any particular message to the world.
26. My wardrobe and grooming are relatively cheap and consume little time.
27. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.
28. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
29. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
30. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
31. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
32. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
33. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
34. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
35. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is usually pictured as being male.
36. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
37. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
38. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
40. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.
41. I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight.
42. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.
43. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.”
44. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
45. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
(Compiled by Barry Deutsch, aka “Ampersand.” Permission is granted to reproduce this list in any way, for any purpose, so long as the acknowledgment of Peggy McIntosh’s work is not removed. If possible, however, I’d appreciate it if folks who use it could tell me about how they used it; my email is barry-at-amptoons-dot-com.)
(Updated since the original posting to add some new items to the list.)
[Note: This version of the list is not the current version. The most up-to-date version of the list can always be found at this link.]
Let me be the first to say “right on”, and to let you know I’ll be using this (with all credits given) in my men and masculinity class…
Oh, and #26 doesn’t apply to most of my male friends. The other ones… ;-)
It’s a great list- thorough yet almost everyone can add to it with a little effort.
I’ll overcome my “natural” female hesistancies. ;)
A big one that I notice constantly is that men can expect not to be interrupted or challenged by the opposite sex, though they are usually free to interrupt or challenge women. If they are interrupted or challenged by a woman, they can expect to have plenty of people rush to their defense.
My boyfriend and I struggle with this constantly, as he gets *deeply* offended when I interrupt him, but he never, ever sees that he interrupts me more than I interrupt him. Naturally, our friends defend him. Pointing out invisible male privilege results in whining that I think about sexism too much.
What to do, eh? Well, in part I resorted to pointing it out each and every time he interrupted me, which in and of itself is difficult because I’m trained to just accept having my words trotted all over by men.
Your list includes many perks bestowed on males having nothing to do with the construct of society. A man that shirks on household chores is a cad by his own choosing, and his housemate should just put her foot down and insist on a 50-50 split. If that doesn’t work she’s chosen the wrong man. As to the “time of the month issue” how in the hell does anyone but the woman, and possibly her mate, know it’s her time of the month? Many people have various stresses affecting their behavior, demeanor, judgment and energy. Most strive to cope with those issues and perform to their best anyway. Often this includes hiding the problem or seeing to it others don’t perceive they’re using it as an excuse of some sort. If a woman I work with, or for, is in the midst of her period I expect she’ll still perform mostly to standard. If she doesn’t I certainly won’t know it’s related to menstruation unless she tells me. If women don’t want to be viewed as limited during menstruation they merely need to keep the matter private. A great many of the items you list here would go away for many women if when confronted by them they assert themselves and make their preferences known early on. More men than get credit for it will respect and honor a woman’s wishes, whether in work or a personal relationship, if they’re simply told upfront how it’s going to be conducted.
That’s odd, Steve. Ya see, when we do make our wishes, desires, and expectations known, they are either ignored, or we are pilloried for doing it.
And when we make our displeasure with something known, or if we are assertive (or agressive, as anytime we make a peep we are agressive, and that’s very, very bad), we are bitches. See #29.
As for #32–the menstrual question–that has been used to keep us down, dismiss us, and excuse discrimination. It doesn’t matter if people know we have our periods or not. It’s a general excuse–We can’t have women be (insert occupation here) because they get all crazy during their monthlies. What’s the matter, bitch, you got your period or something? Stop being such a goddam emotional shrew!
For heaven’s sake, read the actual post, willya? Geez.
“A man that shirks on household chores is a cad by his own choosing, and his housemate should just put her foot down and insist on a 50-50 split. If that doesn’t work she’s chosen the wrong man.”
Does that become #44: My misbehavior results from insufficient socialization by the women around me.
;)
Ah, I see the esteemed Sheelzebub has beaten me to the punch.
Women have made many strides in the last century. Admittedly they’ve secured rights they should have had all along. Contraceptive rights and the vote weren’t gained by whining on some blog about the unfairness of being born a woman. They were gained through hard fought battles and legislative victories and/or favorable court rulings. These were likely male dominated courts or legislatures, but let’s not get carried away giving any credit to men for those efforts. Speaking of the legislature, if women as a class are so concerned about proper representation why do they vote for men at all? The majority of registered voters in the U.S. are women. Women outnumber men in the general population. All women have to do is only vote for women, regardless of the office. Soon every single officeholder in the country would be a woman. It’s difficult to sympathize with the plight women are in when it’s entirely within their power to remedy it. Men may present you with problems, but you’re your own worst enemy. Quit voting for men, for anything. In a single generation you’d control every elective office in the nation, by sheer virtue of simple math. You want a woman President? Recruit a candidate and get every woman in the country to vote for her. Men would be powerless to win that election. There are less of us than you. Vote an entire series of women into the Presidency and you’ll soon have 9 women on the Supreme Court.
Re: steve duncan and “women whining on blogs”.
Before women got the vote, they organised. Hundreds made significant commitments, essentially unpaid careers, to organising and EDUCATING. Susan B. Anthony led the life of a travelling salesman back when women didn’t travel alone and men who travelled had lousy conditions and accomodations. She lectured about women’s suffrage to any audience that would sit still. Elizabeth Stanton stayed home most of the time and raised her children, but also wrote many or most of Anthony’s speeches (Stanton didn’t like public speaking and did like writing), and wrote newspaper pieces and the history of the movement. Everywhere that Anthony spoke, a local organiser was either already present or was recruited as a result of the speech. We don’t know the names of all of the local organisers, but these people educated their communities.
And how is this different from blogging?
Yes, at some point the legislative work gained momentum and the education work could recede somewhat.
You need two types to make social movements work: the thinkers and the doers. They are synergistic – the thinker Stanton, the doer Anthony.
amp, #22 might be wrong if qualified by age. An under 25 years male driver will be blamed, by insurers and by society, as a likely bad driver relative to under 25 female drivers.
It’s different than it used to be, NancyP, because it’s *now* and it threatens the male privilege of Steve, not of nameless men 100 years ago.
Let’s see, if I only vote for women for the Senate in IL, I can . . . not vote. If I only vote for women for President, I can . . . not vote. Steve, you can’t vote for women if they’re not on the ballot, and if you refuse to vote unless women are on the ballot, then you are effectively letting men decide who will rule. Not sure that’s such a good idea.
Incidentally, I disagree a little on a few of these. I think that many more men are sexually assaulted, outside of prison, than we know; because men cannot reveal that information in this society without even more repercussions, it festers. Do women still have a much greater chance of sexual assault? Absolutely. I also am not sure about #25. I think that all clothing sends a message, and that relatively value-neutral choices are available to women–even though many other “choices” are available, and expectations may differ. I think the point is more that men can dress relatively neutrally without incurring questions about their sexuality, their attractiveness, etc.
One thing this list does bring home to me, though, is that, while it is absolutely not my job to educate men about these issues, it is also absolutely my responsibility to think about these issues–and not get involved with men who haven’t.
Hmmmm, my male privilege is being threatened? Good! I hope women manage to take it away altogether. I didn’t ask for it, don’t want it, and will be glad to be rid of it. More power to women I say. Oh, I make sure everything I do in my personal relationship is a 50-50 split, hope my partner is as successful as she wants to be, open doors, send flowers, and make breakfast. I’m still waiting for a response regarding the power of women to control elective offices, and by eventual extension the court and executive branch, merely by choosing to do so and voting accordingly.
Gee carla, let me see here. No woman is on the Illinois U.S. Senate ballot. So, women get together, recruit a write-in, buy some newspaper ads, TV ads, radio ads, and make it public there’s a woman running for the U.S. Illinois Senate seat as a write in. The massive unhappiness women experience as a class of voters causes the candidacy to catch fire. Since women as a class are so suppressed, oppressed, and depressed as to their lack of proportional representation in the Congress they follow through on my “women vote only for a woman” strategy and vote the woman write-in candidate into the Senate. Again, women as a class have total control of the country, by sheer virtue of population numbers. What is so difficult to understand about the fact THERE ARE MORE WOMEN THAN THERE ARE MEN????
Steve, a little over an hour and a half passed by between when you asked about “the power of women to control elective office,” and the time when you complained that you were “still waiting for a response” to your point.
(Actually, Carla had already answered you by that point, but presumably you cross-posted so hadn’t seen Carla’s response yet when you complained.)
Two things.
One, I’ve answered your question in a new post.
Two, please try being more considerate before you get impatient. An hour and a half is no time at all. Although you don’t seem to have considered this, I have a life; I have a job; I have other things to do that sit around answering your posts within 90 minutes! I don’t owe you answers – and I certainly don’t owe you them in under an hour and a half!
Sheesh.
Steve, if all we are only a bunch of women, whining on a blog, then, um, what are you doing here?
Steve, the tone of your response to Carla was rude, condesending, and generally uncivil. If you can be polite about it, you’re welcome to stay on my blog posting all the comments you want. If you won’t choose to be polite, then I’ll have to ask you to not post on my website. Your choice.
Ampersand, I assume you have many readers. I enjoy your blog immensley. My plea wasn’t specifically directed at you. I didn’t even have you in mind. Don’t personalize this, a tendency I’ve noticed in the past you’re prone to do. Also, I’ve addressed the “not on the ballet/can’t get on the ballot” issue above. The write-in candidacy, while far more problematic, is still viable if women organize and vote as a class. And screw 50/50 representation, go for 100%. Think big!!!
oops, IMMENSELY–I can spell ;-)
Naughty Steve Duncan! I hope you feel told off!
I think you need one more Amp
#44 As a man, when I argue about any of the above items and a women points out that said argument in and of itself is a form of privilege, I can make a witty remark or use a condesending tone to dismiss her instead of listening to her point.
BTW, I’ll be putting this up at Empower if you don’t mind :D
It is a little startling how he smacked down Carla and then kissed your ass. But I’m trying to give the benefit of the doubt, here.
and that relatively value-neutral choices are available to women
“Relative” to what? Men’s clothing choices?
That’s an excellent list. I’d like to add one more item, though, that I think is very important: I will not be told that I have to make myself appear less capable in order to attract a partner.
When I was in high school, and even at the beginning of undergrad, I was told often by my mother and other womyn in my life that the reason I didn’t have a boyfriend was that I was “scaring boys off.” If I wanted to be in a relationship, I needed to stop acting so smart, stop being opionated, etc. I was often strongly encouraged to play to my weaknesses. (I suck at sports.) What was so very surprising about that to me is that I came from a fairly progressive family.
I’ve talked to my friends about this, and they have had similar experiences, whereas my male friends have never been told that they needed to act less capable in order to attract a woman. And the fact is that while this might be changing, it’s still often thought that a “smart” woman isn’t as sexually appealling, or that physical and intellectual attractiveness are somehow incongrous in a woman, even more so than in society in general.
The article was very accurate, I think. I was thinking of “Traditionally, media outlets geared towards my demographic don’t try to sabotage our self esteem” could be an addition. Granted, the tides are shifting slightly on this issue with the “metrosexual” trend. The magazines geared to women, especially, are heinously laced with a demeanor of pop-feminism. In one issue we can be told that we need to lose weight, painfully remove almost all body hair, get new clothing, alter our personality for a man, and learn how to really please him. And women pay for this.
Acalli, that’s an interesting point and I would take it a step further and say that not only are men not expected to “play dumb” in order to increase their attractiveness, but are expected to highlight personal and professional accomplishments to potential partners, since accomplishment makes a man more, not less attractive.
I do see that changing in some arenas, but only by willful action. A number of men you’ll meet are making a conscious effort to pay attention to, be proud of, and brag on the accomplishments of women in their lives.
I’d like to back up Amanda and acallidryas… as a woman in the field of software design (not Q&A, not marketing of software, not push-button programming, but actual hard-core programming of software and firmware), I’ve run into this one many times.
I am hopefully going to be giving a talk to a Women in Technology group at the end of the month, and it’s sort of depressing… what is the core of my advice to these young ladies going to be? “Grow a thick skin, you’re going to need it.”
Every step I take, I am behind the 8 ball (it seems, sometimes). If there is a 70 hour week to be worked (and there are many), I am a bad mother for not being there more often for my little girl. If I refuse to work the unpaid overtime, I’m a bad team player.
If I were male, putting in the overtime would be “the right thing to do”, especially if I had a supportive spouse (or no spouse at all, a lot of programmers are young, male and single). But as a woman (well, more as a mother), no matter which way I play it, I loose.
Even my progressive, supportive and awsome small company, who values me and would hate to see me go, told me last year “Don’t get pregnant again. There’s too much work to do.”
Oops, I got a little side-tracked from my original message.
1) An intelligent woman is threatening. I have had many, MANY clients who, on their first meeting are red-faced and occasionally spitting mad that “the company sent a WOMAN” on site for the job. I usually manage to win them over after a few hours (all but the most obtuse and least intelligent) but that is business.
In the personal world, I have long learned just to shut my mouth. Talk about sports, ask why the NHL is going on strike, or ask a history buff to talk about who Stalin was and what McCarthyism was… it works on women too. Getting people to talk about themselves and their opinions etc. makes them feel great, no one wants to hear about you ;-)
2) It goes both ways. An intelligent woman is threatening to men in most settings, she is also offensive to “other women” (I somehow don’t think it’s just my neighbourhood), especially in the parenthood jungle.
Admitting that you are smart or have reasoned opinions is a big no-no socially. I’m going to spend the next 12-15 years of my kids lives warming benches at soccer, hockey etc. and reading a dippy magazine to avoid socially isolating my kids… who would let their little girl play with mine, who thinks boys and girls should be allowed to play hockey together, and that professional gymnastics is a disgusting, mysoginistic and cruel excuse for a sport?
Thanks for the support, folks. Steve, I take it that your answer was sarcasm rather than a genuine suggestion, so I’ll take the followup post by Amp about how people get on ballots as an adequate response.
re: to what ” relatively value-neutral choices” are relative: That was a poorly phrased way of saying that not all clothing choices for women are completely fraught–we don’t only have to choose between, say, shapeless clothing and streetwalker (not that there’s inherently anything wrong with either of those choices, for that matter). I think there are female equivalents to men’s cotton twill slacks and a button-down shirt or polo shirt. Don’t misunderstand–I generally hate the choices available for women, and, in part because of my build, I often buy men’s shirts (I’d buy men’s dresses, too, if there were such a thing . . . :-)). I’m just quibbling, a little, probably because I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about clothing.
carla, sarcasm? If you’re referring to my follow up suggestion of running a woman as a write-in candidate, what about participating in democracy is sarcastic? It only goes to show how far women are willing to succumb to feelings of powerlessness that such a suggestion is labeled sarcasm. As to the near impossibility of getting on a ballot absent membership in a “major” political party, Bernie Sanders of Vermont would beg to differ. The entire tenor of this little list Amp has posted infers women as a class suffer from all the inequities, inconvieniences and injustices listed. Suggesting that women as a class take charge and vote in women willing to affect change is met with derision, skepticism and pessimism as to the means to do it and the possibility for success if tried. Go ahead girls, have a good cry about the evils of testosterone. If I were in your shoes I might choose to run and vote in people wanting to change it all.
Dear Steve,
If you were in our shoes, you wouldn’t be able to run.
Love,
funnie
Holy shit, that was you?? I’m doing research into language attitudes and found this article somewhere on the web a year or so back. Together with McIntosh’s original, and someone else’s “Heterosexual Privilege” checklist, I’ve found it useful in developing my ideas on linguistic privilege in minority language contexts.
I’ve always enjoyed that checklist, Barry. I remember it from our Usenet days. Glad you posted it here again. Good job.
Amanda: “A big one that I notice constantly is that men can expect not to be interrupted or challenged by the opposite sex, though they are usually free to interrupt or challenge women. If they are interrupted or challenged by a woman, they can expect to have plenty of people rush to their defense.”
You only have to look to the blogosphere to see that in action. ;)
“Hmmmm, my male privilege is being threatened? Good! I hope women manage to take it away altogether. I didn’t ask for it, don’t want it, and will be glad to be rid of it.”
Steve, are you saying that you don’t feel a need to work on taking away your own male privilege, that you prefer to wait for a woman to do it for you? If men continue to take advantage of male privilege that it’s women’s fault for not doing something to stop it? ;)
Question: Knowing about these advantages, what are we meant to do about it, other than feeling bad (as I do, as a man)?
Pointing out these advantages is likely to provoke defensiveness and defensive responses, as shown by Steve’s posts above. I think, in part, this is because men feel attacked by such lists, even if they are people of good conscience, since they don’t know what they are expected to do about it. Something that makes you feel bad and offers no solution can often feel like an attack.
So, what do we, as men and women of good conscience, to do about this? I think presenting some ideas about how to rectify the situation along with the list could make it seem less like an attack to many men. Assuming that somehow rectifying the situation is the point of the list.
I could, as always, be wrong. Just my opinion.
#4whatever: I can expect those who challenge my privilege to feel obliged to phrase it in a way that puts my easy-to-hurt feelings above their own right to challenge male privilege.
Sorry, mooglar. As a practical advantage, feminists do try to make sure not to make men feel personally attacked, but it’s pretty much impossible when some men are going to feel attacked by anything that threatens their privilege, no matter how nicely it’s put.
Okay, Steve, since it wasn’t sarcasm, let’s take it seriously. First of all, male privilege notwithstanding, I don’t believe in voting for someone because of the genitalia they happen to possess; plenty of women (e.g., those standing outside of Planned Parenthood clinics) would disagree pretty strongly with any candidate I’d support, no matter the genitalia. Or, another way to look at it, just because someone has the same genitalia as I do does not mean they would propose or support the same policies I support–that is, even if i could become that write-in candidate, for example, there is no reason to believe that all women would support me–and, in fact, there is no reason to believe that all women would support any given woman–nor should they. Suppose a woman espousing Alan Keyes’ views were the write-in candidate–would I be better off voting for her, simply because of her genitalia, than I would be voting for Obama? If you think so–and the logic of your argument, such as it is, suggests that you do–then it’s not clear what you could possibly mean by “better off.” This may be news to you, Steve, but women are not all the same, and proposing solutions that can only be accomplished if women were all the same is not particularly helpful or serious. Women also have “class”-type interests other than those dictated by their genitalia. We could certainly argue that sex affects any notion of class, and vice versa, but to suggest that the class of sex is the only one that is relevant is ridiculous. you also make it clear, by the tone of your posts, that you don’t have the foggiest clue what being in any woman’s shoes could possibly mean. I’m sorry that you can’t see these points, but it’s often the case that the people who would benefit most by such understanding remain immune to it.
acalli and wookie, hear hear about the #44 boys don’t make passes at girls who get As. I was feminine-looking and casual (but modest) dressing in professional school, but not deferential in manner, and as soon as class rankings were released, I was labelled as the class lesbian by some of the frat boy gentleman B+ legacy types that wouldn’t have gotten any female classmate’s interest (though the frat boys undoubtedly snared some gold-digging nursing students).
Mooglar, first, I don’t require that you feel bad; it’s my opinion that guilt isn’t a particularly useful response to most things, particularly in situations like the one you describe. Some things you can do:
When you are in conversation with someone, or some group, pay attention to the flow. Make sure that you don’t interrupt women–or, at least, don’t interrupt them any more than you interrupt men, though not interrupting anyone is probably a good idea. Try to adopt methods that are inclusive–go around the room, solicit everyone’s opinion, in ways that give people time to think. Examine your own assumptions about how people do/should talk, think, act, and find the places where you have a double standard. If you have kids or spend time with kids, encourage them to do the things they find fun, and help them discover new fun things; if you have particular interests, share them with kids who are interested. Recognize that kids (and adults) go about learning in different ways, and some of those differences are shaped by gender expectations. if you’re feeling really ambitious or powerful, do what you can to make your workplace equitable–do men feel free to take time off to raise their kids? do women get paid the same as men in the same positions? are women as likely as men to get promoted? and challenge your notions of what “competent” means: can it only mean Glengarry Glen Ross competence, or are there other kinds of competence? facilitation, for example, often works best when it’s invisible, but that means good facilitators don’t get credit for their work.
none of this may be helpful to you, but I hope some of it is.
Mooglar, you can also go to any bookstore, find some books, and start reading. Call your local college and ask about a syllabus from a women’s studies course (or take the course) that can give you some historical perspective.
The point of the list is to open eyes to generally invisible assumptions. Men who complain that they feel blamed because they don’t get explicit instructions, well, use your imagination and your brain. Asking women what is needed in general terms is respectful and helpful. So is using your God-given brain instead of expecting to be given detailed instructions before acting at all. A woman might want her mate to cook dinner once in a while. She shouldn’t have to answer multiple questions about I need a detailed meal plan, how do you cook this, where’s that, did you buy X, every blasted time he makes a meal, year after year after year. She shouldn’t have to teach him how to sort laundry year after year. Inability to do simple chores without constant checking in is either a form of passive-aggressive resistance to being asked to lift a finger, or a sign of infantilism or clinical major depression or onset of dementia.
eg, #35, 36 on religion. Don’t denounce recent more accurate non-gendered translations of the Bible (eg NRSV) in favor of the Word of God (KJV) dictated by God “himself” in Jacobean English.
You mean “implies.” The speaker implies; the listener infers.
(Sorry if that seemed pointless, but I couldn’t resist the Cerebus reference.)
Mooglar: your feeling bad doesn’t help my situation at all, so it’s really not part of my agenda in pointing out your privilege.
The reason these things are done are simply because privilege tends to be invisible–at least some aspects of it. For example, on the original white privilege checklist by McIntosh, she mentioned things such as ” I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race,” and “I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.” I think that very few white people are unaware that racism exists, but they don’t think of it existing in those types of contexts. Even though they know they have privilege, they are really not aware of the wide variety of situations they have it in. So, given that such privilege is invisible, if people don’t point it out to you, how will you ever learn that it exists?
What to do is, I’m sorry to say, up to you. I’m not a man, I don’t have the same amount of power as you do in this society, so expecting me to come up with the solution to a problem that was created by and mostly perpetuated by men is sort of unfair. However, like previous posters, I’d suggest that you do some reading first. Also, you might monitor yourself a bit more and when you catch yourself out making sexist judgements–for example, making a comment that implies your female co-workers are obliged to be attractive for you–stop yourself. You could also call out other men on their sexist attitudes when you hear/see them being that way.
Amanda wrote:
>>some men are going to feel attacked by anything that threatens their privilege, no matter how nicely it’s put.>What to do is, I’m sorry to say, up to you. I’m not a man, I don’t have the same amount of power as you do in this society, so expecting me to come up with the solution to a problem that was created by and mostly perpetuated by men is sort of unfair.
Mooglar, remember that the personal is political . . . so, yes, in my opinion, changing assumptions about who does the housework by actually DOING the housework is a radical act. I lived alone for a very long time precisely because I had no desire to take care of (read: clean up after) someone else. Does it address many of the things on the checklist? Probably not, but, hey, you gotta start somewhere, and doing and teaching (by example, if by no other way) that things can be different things become different. I realize that’s a little more starry-eyed-sounding than I am in reality, but I think the everyday stuff matters, a lot, because it shapes our everyday thought patterns, experiences, assumptions, etc.–and that, in fact, is what the checklist is about.
also, though, don’t conflate power and privilege; one can be relatively powerless and still benefit from privilege, in the sense of the assumptions on the checklist.
Wow. As a woman and a feminist, I find myself much more sympathetic to Steve than I do to the original list. I don’t even know where to start. Job-wise, I think in many situations a female candidate has a better chance. I don’t think women put their entire gender on trial when they speak, express aggression, or get behind the wheel. Men also have major issues with rearing children, and men are judged for not having children. I have friends whose newborns cry when the father picks them up, because they are so bonded to the mother. You think that’s easy for men? Men deal with much higher expectations with regards to career. I think men are much more aware of violence than women. We may have to deal with harrassment, but most of us have never felt that we might get forced into a fistfight at a bar. Men are much more frequently the victims of violent crimes than women.
Now, I would like to see many things change. But sometimes life is just difficult, and sometimes it’s unfair, and it’s not always society’s fault.
m:
Job-wise, the empirical evidence is pretty clear that women do not, in fact, have an advatage in the job market compared to men (but men do have an advantage compared to women). There are a few jobs which favor women over men – they tend to be low-paying, low-status jobs.
If it’s not your experience that when a women gets into a minor car accident or cuts someone off or something, there are many (although not all) people who will complain about “women drivers,” then you’ve been luckier than me.
As I said in the introduction to the list – which you either didn’t read or didn’t pay attention to – nothing in the list says that men have it easy or nothing bad ever happens to men. If you think that’s what I’ve said, then I really think you didn’t read what I said very carefully.
However, I disagree that men are more frequently the victimcs of violent crime than women (outside of prison). The statistics that show that severely undercount intimate violence and rape.
A fine list. (And sorry to come into the discussion late but, damn!, Amp just posted it yesterday!)
Catherine MacKinnon remarked on how our dominant social norm is so prevalent and unchallenged that its force is exercised as consent, its authority as participation, its supremacy as the paradigm of order, its control as the definition of legitimacy. I appreciate learning how different my (male) experiences are to other people’s experiences, especially in the unstated ways.
This post complements another post regarding the prevalence of rape, in which Amp discusses the social pressures imposed on men to achieve a “masculine” image, how fragile this image is and how much effort men put into maintaining it. These posts illustrate how gender roles constrain both women and men to the detriment of both (and, ok, especially to the detriment of women).
That said, let me quibble with a few entries:
Consider #2: A man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. This seems true of men working in traditionally male jobs, in contrast to women in those same jobs. But what of men and women in traditionally female jobs? When a female nurse is hired or promoted, does everyone whisper, “Well, she only got the job ‘cuz she’s a woman….” And when a male nurse is promoted to supervisor, you don’t think people question whether he got the promotion based on his qualifications rather than his gender? In short, does Statement #2 reflect an unstated assumption about which jobs are real jobs?
# 6. If a man does the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think the man did a better job. Really? If dad cooks dinner for his kids, everyone will assume his cooking is better than mom’s cooking? When two kids get hurt during the field trip, and a mom comforts one kid while a dad comforts the other, all the observers think to themselves, “Too bad there isn’t a dad here to comfort that first kid?” Again, does #6 reflect an unstated assumption about what which tasks are real tasks?
# 17. Kid’s media features non-stereotyped male heroes. Really? Effeminate male heros? Gay male heros? Don’t get me wrong; female heros stretch the range from A to B, but the range of male heros in kid’s lit. didn’t quite get all the way to Z during my childhood. (My “Sleeping Beauty” video includes a segment on “the making of Sleeping Beauty,” in which one of the illustrators stated that, unlike prior Disney movies, they were trying to give all the characters a “less realistic, more stylized” look. I understood what he meant, but I had to laugh just the same.)
#30. Men can seek legal protections without being seen as representing a selfish special interest, because harm to the interests of men is understood as harm to society at large. Really? So when men complain that judges are biased against them in awarding child custody, people don’t regard them as a bunch of whiners seeking to promote their own interests against the good of society?
#37. Women in couples do most household chores, including “the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.” I’m not so sure about this one, either, although my objection is no credit to men. The guys I know arrange to do the household chores that ARE the most repetitive, and leave to their wives the task of taking initiative. So we guys put away groceries, do laundry, load and unload dishwashers, vacuum, etc. (as well as yard and car stuff) – you know, stuff that’s not very time-sensitive that you can do while listening to the game on the radio. Our wives do the stuff that requires attention and responsibility: plan menus, shop, cook, schedule Dr. appointments, meet with teachers, buy presents, schedule kid activities and vacations, addressing the kid’s emotional needs of whatever description, etc.
So when get distracted from my household chores, I end up shrinking my wife’s pants. Not good. But when she gets distracted from her household chores, Junior doesn’t take his medication and ends up in the hospital. REALLY not good. I’m much happier doing the routine stuff, believe me.
Mooglar:
I think that simply being aware of the list is actually a big step in the right direction. And I think that that goes towards women as well as men. These are societal problems, not ones that lay solely with male perceptions.
The problem with so many of these socialized sexist structures is that there is no real legal action that can be taken to combat them. It’s been my experience that most people don’t actually want to be patriarchal or sexist, or thought of as such, anyway. The way to attack these privileges is to make people aware of them.
Yes, #6 is absolutely accurate and so invisible that it is hard to see. True, there are instances where male privilege asserts itself by the assumption that men just *can’t* do filthy, thankless tasks like feeding children or laundry. But that’s usually when said tasks are pretty much thankless.
Cooking a great example, though, because if you expand beyond making macaroni and cheese, there is a history of women’s contributions being systematically devalued. The great home-type recipes of the world that women have developed feeding families are “comfort food”. Slap men behind the stove and you get “cuisine”. Part of this, of course, is men have traditionally only cooked professionally and women at home, but that alone creates the belief that men’s cooking is better enough that it deserves to be paid for.
Recently, I threw a big party at my house, which I made a lot of food for. It was repeatedly suggested to me that I lean on a specific friend for help, because he’s a great cook. He is; I won’t deny it. But I was great on my own. Would anyone have suggested I help him cater his own party? I doubt it–though I do help him all the time, without credit. I don’t want it. All I do is chop and mix. But if he helped me make my recipes, he would definitely get praised. Invisible privilege in action.
On the role of guilt –
I think it is not completely a bad thing!! If I *don’t* feel guilty after reading a white privilege checklist, that’s a problem. Am I really without guilt??
If I let my feelings of guilt for the unearned privileges I’ve enjoyed and the racism that I perpetuate (not purposefully!) turn into anger at the people who are suffering, well that’s a huge problem. And not one that somebody else can solve for me with ingratiating disclaimers.
Can you imagine if women dealt with guilt in this way!?! Think of the millions of really great moms who feel guilty because they don’t measure up to some yardstick of motherhood, and that might be every single mom, Do they start to take it out on kids??
I have friends whose newborns cry when the father picks them up, because they are so bonded to the mother
Um, and how did those newborns get so bonded, exactly?
Don’t tell me “breastfeeding.” Newborns breastfeed a lot, but it’s not 24/7. There’s nothing preventing a new daddy from rocking, cuddling, changing and soothing a newborn.
I have friends whose newborns cry when the father picks them up, because they are so bonded to the mother
Hmmm….seems to me I rarely had problems when I baby sat babies. They must bond quick!
Knowing about these advantages, what are we meant to do about it, other than feeling bad (as I do, as a man)?
Good question. What do you, as a man, think would be a useful approach to end this kind of privilege?
I’m serious. There’s nothing about being male that affects your problem-solving ability. Why should women have to come up with all the solutions? Expecting women to be the managers and solution-providers is, after all, another problem of privilege.
Amanda said: “True, there are instances where male privilege asserts itself by the assumption that men just *can’t* do filthy, thankless tasks like feeding children or laundry.” I’ve already talked about this with my daughter. She reported that a friend of hers was fond of pointing out that we wouldn’t have civilization if it wasn’t for women keeping men fed and clothed (’cause men are too stupid to do that for themselves, y’know). I said that men are perfectly capable of learning the skills needed to take care of themselves and it’s just giving them an excuse to be lazy when you say they aren’t.
re: Men’s cooking. My husband is a stay at home dad, so he does most of the cooking. I occasionally take his homemade cookies into work, and I’ve had to explain just about every time that, no, my husband baked them. I’ve noticed this usually gets an incredulous response from my co-workers, especially the younger ones. It’s like I said my cat baked them — they’re amazed that the cookies are edible, much less tasty. Some folks also seem surprised that our daughter is in good mental and physical health — why, a man can’t be a good as a mom, can he?
But I think that’s straying away from male privilege. (Sorry. I’ve been at work for 14 hours and I’m trying to maintain consciousness while a database process runs. I should probably be off reading comics.)
“I would like to point out that men, as a group, have more power in this society than women, as a group, but that doesn’t mean that every individual man has more power than every individual woman, or that I have more power than you. For instance, Condoleeza Rice and Sandra Day O’Connor have more power than I do. So, some women have more power than some men, even in our lopsided society.”
I have to disagree. The women you named have only the power that men are willing to grant them, and that power can be stripped from them at any given moment in a way that would not be true for men in their position.
Also, if you are a white man and you met them on a social level, would they really have more power than you? I don’t think so, unless it was some official function, where, again, they would have to rely on the support of other men. If it were an unofficial situation and they were without male protection, you would definitely have the upper hand. You would be free to insult them and most people overhearing would likely support you in that. Hell, most people would probably cheer you on for taking those uppity bitches down a notch or two.
Even in their official capacity, they have to be very careful in making any decisions that might upset the status quo, and therefore, get men riled up. To my mind, that’s not really power.
“#30. Men can seek legal protections without being seen as representing a selfish special interest, because harm to the interests of men is understood as harm to society at large. Really? So when men complain that judges are biased against them in awarding child custody, people don’t regard them as a bunch of whiners seeking to promote their own interests against the good of society?”
Oh come on. Anyone who’s been paying attention to these guys knows that for most of them, children are the least of their concerns. For the most part, they’re interested in punishing women. How often do they even mention their children, or discuss practical issues of child rearing, or indeed anything other than how poor men are being shafted by the Feminazis who now (apparently) run the world? Give me a break.
“#2: A man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. This seems true of men working in traditionally male jobs, in contrast to women in those same jobs. But what of men and women in traditionally female jobs? When a female nurse is hired or promoted, does everyone whisper, “Well, she only got the job ‘cuz she’s a woman….” And when a male nurse is promoted to supervisor, you don’t think people question whether he got the promotion based on his qualifications rather than his gender?”
Oh boo hoo. Considering that traditionally female-dominated jobs are low-status and low-paying, how much of an issue is that, really? And yes, it is different, but there are a whole load of other sexist/misogynist assumptions that go with those professions, so trying to make out that men are somehow being mistreated here is silly.
“# 6. If a man does the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think the man did a better job. Really? If dad cooks dinner for his kids, everyone will assume his cooking is better than mom’s cooking?”
Home cooking is not seen as a “job” but rather a relatively unimportant, unskilled task that women are “naturally” programmed to perform, and therefore not worthy of the same analysis given to “important” skills. Also, FYI, the common response made when women point out that they do most cooking is, “Yeah, well all the great chefs are men.”
“#37. Women in couples do most household chores, including “the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.” I’m not so sure about this one, either,”
Well, there have been studies upon studies upon studies done over several decades in many different countries that attest to this, so IMO the weight of all available evidence says that it’s true.
“# 17. Kid’s media features non-stereotyped male heroes. Really?”
Actually, this one I agree with you on. There are a wider range of male characters (including a tendency to use male as default for characters who don’t necessarily have to have gender–like talking trees in a cartoon) than for female characters, but that range is still ridiculously narrow. However, as little girls still have it much, much worse than little boys, I know where most of my concern goes.
Mooglar, I quoted from an article about male privilege from XY Online on my blog. The article was written by a man. It included things already mentioned like being aware of interrupting in meetings and stopping yourself. It’s a good place to start if you’re looking for how to stop male privilege once you’re aware of it.
M, while fathers sometimes experience their babies cry when they pick them up, attachment theory holds that secondary attachments (like that to a father) are very important. Yes, a child’s primary attachment is most often to the mother. That’s because she takes on the primary caregiving role much more often than do fathers, regardless of her employment status. However, fathers are important, too. Bowlby is a good source for information about attachment theory. He has his critics but his theories are quite sound.
Regarding violence, it’s true that men are more frequently the victims of violent crimes than women. Most men are victimized by other men. However, women, not men, are most often victims of intimate violence, and that violence is most often committed by men. That’s a difference that is important to point out.
“#30. Men can seek legal protections without being seen as representing a selfish special interest, because harm to the interests of men is understood as harm to society at large. Really? So when men complain that judges are biased against them in awarding child custody, people don’t regard them as a bunch of whiners seeking to promote their own interests against the good of society?”
“Oh come on. Anyone who’s been paying attention to these guys knows that for most of them, children are the least of their concerns. For the most part, they’re interested in punishing women. How often do they even mention their children, or discuss practical issues of child rearing, or indeed anything other than how poor men are being shafted by the Feminazis who now (apparently) run the world? Give me a break.”
***Raising hand*** Me, me, me. I know those guys well. ;-D By the way, since most parents settle out of court and decide on their own that mom should have custody, the fathers’ rights battle cry that courts are biased against men is false. Actually, when men make an issue of custody in court, they get some form of it (most often joint legal custody) more than half the time.
One of the risks we’re now running in this thread, I think, is moving from a general list that provides useful fodder for thinking about our own lives to other kinds of generalizations that sound more like attacks on all people of a particular sex. I’m sitting here thinking of a bunch of counterexamples to many of the things people are saying–specific people’s specific lives; people who have changed or challenged some of these assumptions, even as they and we recognize that we need to keep fighting the good fight. We–and I include men and women in this–don’t win any arguments, or change any thinking, or change any social structures unless we recognize when something is working, when we realize that we have made progress. We have to know progress when we see it.
“One of the risks we’re now running in this thread, I think, is moving from a general list that provides useful fodder for thinking about our own lives to other kinds of generalizations that sound more like attacks on all people of a particular sex…We–and I include men and women in this–don’t win any arguments, or change any thinking, or change any social structures unless we recognize when something is working, when we realize that we have made progress. We have to know progress when we see it.”
Well, no permanent, meaningful change is going to take place until a) men recognise they have privilege and b) men accept they have privilege. This is not a problem about women, and it’s not something women are in the position to do much about, other than pointing out that it exists. And I don’t accept that pointing out privilege is tantamount to “attacking” men–though of course we’re not short of men who will claim that it is.
I think it’s also important to recognise that although, yes, small positive changes are being made in some small areas, a lot of that change is cosmetic, and is limited to certain parts of the world, or even certain segments of certain social classes. They are hardly wide-sweeping and all-inclusive.
“#2: A man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. This seems true of men working in traditionally male jobs, in contrast to women in those same jobs. But what of men and women in traditionally female jobs? When a female nurse is hired or promoted, does everyone whisper, “Well, she only got the job ‘cuz she’s a woman….” And when a male nurse is promoted to supervisor, you don’t think people question whether he got the promotion based on his qualifications rather than his gender?”
Can you define “traditionally female jobs” for those of us reading along? Do you mean those jobs that women have “traditionally” held for only the last 60-odd years?
The jobs that women have “traditionally” held were once men’s jobs, traditionally. Women got those jobs b/c of the disposable status that their gender affords them. That and child labor was outlawed.
The truly traditional jobs that women have held (midwifery comes to mind) are generally illegal in this day and age.
carla said:
>>also, though, don’t conflate power and privilege>Why should women have to come up with all the solutions? Expecting women to be the managers and solution-providers is, after all, another problem of privilege. >The women you named have only the power that men are willing to grant them>a) men recognise they have privilege and b) men accept they have privilege. This is not a problem about women, and it’s not something women are in the position to do much about, other than pointing out that it exists.
When I was a kid, I knew that I didn’t want my mother’s life (even though she was quite happy with it, my parents have a great marriage, etc. etc.)–but I really didn’t know how to formulate an alternative. I grew up in a small, working-class town, and there weren’t any lawyers, doctors, dentists, etc. who were women. I knew, on some level (especially once I discovered Ms. magazine at the library), that women COULD do those things, but I’ve had to invent the “how” for myself, as have many women of my age and class background. My point, then, is that the small bits of progress we’ve made aren’t just a boon for the immediate beneficiaries–they serve as instruction, as object lesson, as living example of the possibility of change. The fact that, despite pretty traditional division of labor in my parents’ house, my dad spent a lot of time with us as kids means that my brother now has a model for spending time with his kids–even though, once again, the division of labor in their household is pretty traditional in many (but not all) ways. Do I think this changes the whole wide world? Of course not. Does my brother, for example, recognize male privilege? Nope; not even a little bit. But I look at the number of men I know who have taken much more active roles in their kids lives, I think about the number of men who count themselves as feminists, etc., and I have to feel that something good is happening–otherwise it’s too depressing. there are many paths to permanent, meaningful change, and male recognition of privilege is only one of the paths. (That is, if you want my brother to agree to the checklist, well, good luck to you; if you want him to incorporate changes that could, but wouldn’t necessarily, come from agreeing to the checklist, you’ll do much better.) I would love (and I advocate and work toward) meaningful structural change, but I also recognize there are other levels that have to operate.
“This is pretty scary thinking. By this theory, women are utterly powerless to do anything about their own fate and are weak playthings whose freedom from bondage is entirely dependent upon the whim of men. This is actually the sort of thinking that led to patriarchy and male privilege in the first place. I believe that women have the intelligence, courage, and power to alter their own destinies and will someday succeed despite the efforts of men to stop them. But maybe that’s just me.”
I think that (esp for those of us in the US) after 9/11, everyone can agree that terrorism has far reaching effects and implications. I believe that women are intelligent, courageous, and powerful. I also know that we live in a rape culture. Your convenient absence of this fact in your “reasoning” is telling, and in fact is the true “blame the victim” scenario.
I do not believe that women are “utterly powerless” to affect change; I do however, understand quite perfectly, that men are more than willing to use violence to keep women from enforcing their power. It is naive to subtract men’s violence against women from women’s political desires and attempts at social change. Just last night I watched an episode of CSI where one female character was raped twice and then murdered — AND THAT WAS ENTERTAINMENT! So if our notions of entertainment rest on the violation of women, what does this imply for our (women’s) more serious efforts at politics? *This* is what Crys T means by men (not women) recognizing their privilege.
“Scary thinking” is not women saying that they are incapable of forcing men to recognize their privilege. “Scary thinking” is using the rape and murder of women to entertain a society. Nice try at a reversal though!
I’m sorry for being unclear. I agree with you: I don’t think women can force men to recognize privilege. I guess should have included more of Crys T’s statement:
>>Well, no permanent, meaningful change is going to take place until a) men recognise they have privilege and b) men accept they have privilege.
“For instance, S. Ellett, you can take some small measure of power into your own hands: don’t watch shows that glorify violence against women.”
Better yet! I can ask you to talk to all your male friends about how violence against women shapes and influences women’s decision-making capacities and how it influences men’s ideas of women’s “utility.”
I get what you’re saying. I just think it is skirting the issue of women’s societal/political power. You are assuming that power means the same thing in men’s hands as it does in women’s hands. Level playing field and all that.
>>#30. Men can seek legal protections without being seen as representing a selfish special interest, because harm to the interests of men is understood as harm to society at large. Really? So when men complain that judges are biased against them in awarding child custody, people don’t regard them as a bunch of whiners seeking to promote their own interests against the good of society?
>Oh come on. Anyone who’s been paying attention to these guys knows that for most of them, children are the least of their concerns. For the most part, they’re interested in punishing women. How often do they even mention their children, or discuss practical issues of child rearing, or indeed anything other than how poor men are being shafted by the Feminazis who now (apparently) run the world? Give me a break.
Thank you for the testimonial.
>>”#2: A man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. This seems true of men working in traditionally male jobs, in contrast to women in those same jobs. But what of men and women in traditionally female jobs?
>Oh boo hoo. Considering that traditionally female-dominated jobs are low-status and low-paying, how much of an issue is that, really? And yes, it is different, but there are a whole load of other sexist/misogynist assumptions that go with those professions, so trying to make out that men are somehow being mistreated here is silly.
Quite right. After all, for men to complain is to demonstrate weakness. It’s worse than silly. It’s downright UNMASCULINE! Ridicule is certainly in order. It’s reassuring to see that gender roles are being thoroughly maintained on this site….
….ok, let me try to be a little constructive here….
Amp stated that a man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. I note how that’s not entirely accurate. And, I’m pleased to receive acknowledgment that the circumstance for men in traditionally female jobs is different. Thank you.
In our effort to disclose unstated privilege that arises through traditional gender roles, however, I hope we can avoid reinforcing those gender roles. In particular, I ask that we not marginalize men in non-traditional circumstances.
[For the uninitiated, “marginalization” is a traditional rhetorical technique used against minority groups over the years: Establish a category (say, couples), characterize an archetype (married, middle-class, middle-aged, able-bodied, educated, employed white heterosexual Protestant couples), acknowledge that not all elements of the category conform to the archetype, but then dismiss those non-conforming elements as of marginal concern, and design policies to address the needs of the archetype. “Deconstruction” involves disclosing the unstated archetypical assumptions and the non-conforming elements of the category.
Commentors such as Katherine MacKinnon and Robin West argue that contemporary norms were designed for men and note how they fail to reflect women’s experiences. Commentors such as Patricia Cain and Angela Harris share this view generally, but argued that the offered accounts of women’s experiences themselves marginalize non-conforming women’s experiences – in particular, the experiences of lesbians and black women, respectively.]
Yes, if a job is archetypically performed by a woman, then by definition a man performing that job will not conform to the archetype. Yes, such men are minorities, just as women in the workplace are minorities. I am not persuaded of the wisdom or fairness of dismissing minority experience generally.
I observe that Amp’s list does not reflect the variety of men’s circumstances, but rather appears to address the circumstances of some archetypical male. I don’t mean to criticize, exactly, because I don’t know if any list of “male privileges” could actually account for the variety of men’s circumstances; perhaps Amp’s list may be as good as it gets.
Yet my observation stands. Whether you choose to attach significance to the concerns of people with non-conforming experiences or to ridicule those concerns, well … that’s your privilege, isn’t it?
NR, from what authority do you speak?
;)
Can you address my question: which jobs are “traditionally” women’s? Or as you say, “archetypical”? How do you measure “traditionally” or “archetypically”?
If we see men in what we consider by today’s standards a “woman’s” job, I think we can scrape the thin veneer of history to see that that job is in fact traditionally a man’s job that a woman has struggled to gain. Woman’s labor (note the difference between labor and jobs) has traditionally not been paid or recognized as such. Therefore, there really aren’t any men in traditionally women’s jobs, now are there? By the very definition of male privilege, labor doesn’t become a “job” until a man does it.
>[W]hich jobs are “traditionally” women’s? Or as you say, “archetypical”?
I dunno. Nurses came to mind. Primary school teachers? Secretaries? Realtors? Flight attendants? Lingerie sales staff?
>How do you measure “traditionally” or “archetypically”?
Well, the list of male privilege suggests that a man needn’t worry that co-workers will think he got his job because of his gender. I sensed that men differed from women in this matter largely because there are typically fewer women than men in most job categories. So I flipped this (unstated) assumption and asked about jobs in which the hiring and promotion of a woman would be the norm, and the hiring and promotion of a man would be the exception.
Anyway, I guess my measure is a functional one: By “traditional female jobs” I meant any jobs in which co-workers would regard the hiring and promotion of a woman to be the norm rather than the exception.
>If we see men in what we consider by today’s standards a “woman’s” job, I think we can scrape the thin veneer of history to see that that job is in fact traditionally a man’s job that a woman has struggled to gain. Woman’s labor (note the difference between labor and jobs) has traditionally not been paid or recognized as such. Therefore, there really aren’t any men in traditionally women’s jobs, now are there? By the very definition of male privilege, labor doesn’t become a “job” until a man does it.
A thoughtful observation!
>The truly traditional jobs that women have held (midwifery comes to mind) are generally illegal in this day and age.
For what it’s worth, a midwife friend assures me that midwifery is legal to various extent throughout the US. See http://www.cfmidwifery.org/states/ to check on the status in your state.
Amp, I’m pretty sure I read everything carefully. It’s just that I don’t agree with it. Is that okay, or is disagreement just another tool of the patriarchy?
Okay, okay, cheap and uproductive shot. It’s just a little frustrating to post something fairly innocuous and receive a barrage of sarcastic and skeptical comments.
Way back when, I would read lists like the one above and agree with them completely. I’d feel angry and hopeless, and I’d usually take it out on my hapless, clueless boyfriend. I think two things changed for me: I see the world as a friendlier place, and I don’t see myself as a victim. All of my beliefs about women and equality are still there, but I recognize now how much baggage we bring to our own “objective” observations.
As for the newborn stuff, I’m not sure what to make of the comments I received. Yes, the newborns I mentioned were breastfed – in fact, I know several new mothers who decided NOT to breastfeed because they saw how strongly it pushed Dad out of the picture. Of course this situation doesn’t last forever, and I totally agree that fathers should bond with their children, etc. I was however trying to point out a different perspective; many new fathers feel sad and lonely after their babies are born. Many mothers say quite explicitly that they love their babies much more than they love their husbands. If mother and baby love each other exclusively, where does that leave Daddy?
I do agree that women have a ways to go in achieving equality, though I think now our attention should be focused more on developing nations. However, all my friends seem to be living and struggling with problems regardless of gender. Both my male and female friends dislike their bosses, work on their fitness, go on dates, fight with their families. At some point, the problem stops being about faceless oppression and becomes improving and accepting our individual paths. Our lives and society will never be perfect. Are men really better off in the vast soup of the world? I’m not sure. They die an average of seven years earlier, and no one knows why. Can you imagine the outrage if that situation were reversed?
“This [the opinion that women are mostly powerless to come up with a solution to patriarchy] is actually the sort of thinking that led to patriarchy and male privilege in the first place.”
Okay, WOW. I suspect, given everything else you’ve written, sir, that this is not actually what you meant, but please realize that this sentence implies that it is the fault of women for being expected to do thankless unpaid labor and beung denied even basic human and civil rights is the fault of WOMEN for ALLOWING it.
If someone punches me, it’s assault, whether I begged them to or tried to duck. If someone rapes me, it’s rape, and my lying still doesn’t make it any less so. Giving someone permission, tacit or otherwise, to be an asshole does not diminish in any way their full and total responsiblity for being an asshole.
That said, your first question was, What can we do about this problem?
Firstly, let me address some other members on the comments list: take a chill pill, people. Isn’t men not asking what would be best for women as well as themselves precisely what we’ve been complaining about? You’ve backed this well-intentioned individual into a corner from which he has no escape: if he doesn’t ask what can be done, then women are not being given the power (held by men such as himself) to effect change in their favor the way they want it done; if he does ask, then he’s putting all the responsibility for women’s social and political empowerment on women.
The most important that has to happen for ANY relation between people to improve, ever, is to communicate. Mooglar opened the lines of communication. Please don’t shut them down by berating him for doing just that. I get the distinct impression he was asking for ideas that may not have occurred to him and asking if he could join what is and should be a collaborative effort–“So, what do we, as men and women of good conscience, to do about this?” Efforts are so much more effective and rewarding when one has the cooperation and support, and minds of others bolstering them, and Mooglar should get major points for recognizing this. Others on the list could do as well.
In that spirit, I would suggest the following to Mooglar:
The most powerful changes I’ve seen happen in people happen when they have a friend who challenges their thinking. If I were to ask you to do something, then, it would be to call your male friends on sexist behavior. Don’t let them refer to women as numbers on a 1 to 10 ranking system. Tell them they’re being assholes when they’ll only date women less intelligent than they are. Don’t let them refer to women as inanimate objects, e.g., “look at the ass on that!”. Remind your married or involved friends that their female partners have every bit as much of a right to a career as they themselves do, and that there should be an equal distribution of chores and childcare duties. Political change starts with social change, and social change starts with personal change.
If you’re straight and planning on hooking up on any sort of long-term basis with a woman, take on 50% of all the work it takes to keep two people alive and healthy. Make sacrifices in your career and in your pride so that women can have more of both. If you have children, expect them to treat all people with the same respect and civility. Teach them that “sissy” is not a good word and that there aren’t girl toys or girl colors.
If a woman is being a real asshole, assume that she’s either having a bad day or is just a nasty person, not that it has anything to do with hormones. Don’t let women get away with excusing bad behavior on their hormones. Don’t let men get away with excusing bad behavior on their alleged animal instincts.
Don’t let anybody ever call you a pussy for doing any of this.
And keep asking women what they want, even if your attempt here wasn’t as successful as it perhaps could have been; it’s a sign that you value their opinion and respect their humanity. Don’t expect them to come up with all the solutions, of course; but don’t think that any one person, including yourself, can.
I do want to add something to my post. One of my male friends just told me that his wife (whom I’ve never met) is pregnant. It occurs to me that I didn’t ask him at all about whether he would be taking a paternity leave or really, assume that his life would change in any major way, whereas I would definitely have asked a woman. So while I don’t agree with the list overall, it has made me think twice. :)
M, a lot of what you wrote that you seemed to think “disagreed” with me was examples of how men sometimes suffer, too. That’s isn’t disagreement with me, and in my opinion, implies that you didn’t account for the part of my post which said: “More commonly, of course, critics (usually, but not exclusively, male) have pointed out men have disadvantages too ? being drafted into the army, being expected to suppress emotions, and so on. These are indeed bad things ? but I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes. Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that sometimes bad things happen to men.”
I’m sorry if my post would have once made you feel like a victim. That’s certainly not my intent, nor do I think it’s an inevitable response to the list.
As for the rest of my response to you, I don’t think it was sarcastic at all, let alone “a barrage of sarcastic comments.” I just stated why my experiences, or research I’ve read, has led me to disagree with your take on the facts. For instance, you seem to believe that women are advantaged over men in today’s job market; I’ve read a lot of research on the subject, and I think you’re mistaken about that.
>[W]hich jobs are “traditionally” women’s? Or as you say, “archetypical”?
I dunno. Nurses came to mind. Primary school teachers? Secretaries? Realtors? Flight attendants? ”
All of those jobs are traditionally men’s jobs. Originally men’s jobs.
Wanna try again?
Amp, the “barrage” I referred to wasn’t really you, there were a number of comments after yours. And to be honest, yes, I’d say I disagree with a large majority of what you wrote (but we can still be friends!). I’d also say that at some point saying “well, men suffer too, but women have it worse” starts to get blurry. For instance, more men die in work-related accidents. Who cares? Well, I do, because the love of my life died in the WTC. He was a white, insular, wealthy, privileged male, and he had the privilege of dying at 28. Yeah, he’s one individual, but that’s what our lives are made up of, individual people and circumstances. We can look at larger trends and consider whether they have bearing on our lives, but I think it’s a huge mistake to assume that we are shaped more by these amorphous forces than our own choices.
M., I agree with you that overwhelmingly male victims of industrial accidents are an example of one of the ways that men are hurt by sexism – and I’ve said so on this blog in the past (although I’ve also pointed out that the scope of this is sometimes exaggerated by men’s rights activists).
I’m very sorry to hear about your love dying in the WTC – that’s a horrible tragedy. As you pint out, being white, wealthy, and male doens’t mean you don’t suffer tragedy. Although this is not as tragic as your loss, a close (male, wealthy, white) relative of mine has been going through unbelievable suffering in the past year due to painful and crippling medical problems. Being privileged is no guarantee against tragedy and suffering.
But I think too much focusing on “individuals” rather than classes can lead to ignoring very real systematic biases that hurt, not just random individual people, but certain classes of people in particular. Yes, anyone – male or female, rich or poor, black or white – can be tragically killed at work. But should we ignore the fact that in our current system, it’s much more likely to be a man who’s killed at work? Likewise, should we ignore the fact that although anyone can be stuck in a lousy no-benefits minimum wage job, in general it’s women and non-whites who actually ARE in those jobs? And if we’re not willing to admit that problems exist, I don’t see how we can even attempt to solve the problems.
And yes, of course we can be friends while disagreeing. :-)
S. Ellett wrote:
>>I just think it is skirting the issue of women’s societal/political power. You are assuming that power means the same thing in men’s hands as it does in women’s hands. Level playing field and all that.
Mooglar–
Yep. It makes sense. I would add, also, that while women are probably not the people who should be held accountable for cleaning up the mess, since they didn’t make it, if absolutely every person, responsible for it or no, who believes the mess is a problem doesn’t get involved in some way, the mess isn’t gonna go anywhere. Nobody ever accomplished anything waiting for those responsible for a problem or those in power to do something about it. It sucks, but, hey, it’s one more log on the fire of constructive rage.
Thanks for your condolences, Amp. I’m still sorting out where I stand on the individual vs. classes of people thing. I think it depends on what you do with it. For instance, if your husband never helps you clean, it may be helpful to learn that many other couples have the same problem. OTOH, it may be your husband does other things around the house, and you just look for things to be angry about. I’m reading a book about Henry VIII currently, and I’m repeatedly struck by how clear injustices towards women are. Henry was allowed to *execute* his wives on the pretext of adultery, while he openly fathered children with other women. *That’s* oppression. Girls getting less food than boys, not getting the same education, having their genitals mutiliated, THAT’S oppression. Social pressure to be skinny… not so sure.
If mother and baby love each other exclusively, where does that leave Daddy?
I guess if I were Daddy, I’d be wondering why my wife thought she had exclusive rights to the baby and treated my relationship to the baby as an afterthought.
I was merely suggesting that when you confront a man who is unaware of his privilege and has never thought about it before, it might be a good idea to provide him with some constructive ideas of how he can take action to help the situation.
Sure. But given that we’re talking about somebody who is just recognizing the whole concept of his privilege, falling right back into the “Here, I’m the woman, let me manage unpleasant details for you” role seems to me to reinforce that privilege, rather than undermine it. “Well, what do YOU think you can do about it?”, in my experience, provokes thoughtfulness and dialogue. Giving a list of changes is just one more honey-do list that gets conveniently put aside.
Regarding the “traditional/archetypal” jobs, pointing out that they were originally done by men may be a side issue: although it’s useful to know this, it doesn’t really answer the question, “what do people think of a man in a ‘woman’s’ job?” since most people looking at a male nurse (for instance) are going to think, “hm, that’s unusual/progressive/weird,” rather than, “hmm, that’s a return to tradition.” The average person’s “tradition” generally just goes back a couple of generations, in my experience.
(BTW, for what it’s worth, my husband spent 17 years working in children’s daycare.)
I can say that as a stay-at-home dad, my husband has gotten worshipful adoration (at worst) from women, and reactions ranging from sympathy (other at-home dads) to outright contempt from other men.
As someone who has been a nurse for over 30 years, and is female, I will tell you that statistics show that even in that 96% female profession, women tend to make only about 97% of what men make. And IMHO, men do get promoted more often in the profession because they are men, (especially to administrative posts) than women. Even though we can say “he got the job because he was a man”, it doesn’t lessen the smell of male privilege from my point of view. Also, many of the men in nurse executive posts are there because they are willing/able to work insane schedules like six twelve hour shifts a week, that a married mother would not/could not do. And sorry, women have always been the ones tending the sick, the Knights Templar being an abberation. Women have always done the nasty jobs of cleaning up after sick people, and bathing, dressing, changing sheets, etc. Although I will say when I was a child, I always hoped my Dad was home when I got sick, because my mother was hopeless with sick people.
By my count, 19 of these privileges consist of the bleatings of passive-voice non-entities. This is privilege?
I took particular note of #11. As a single father raising my kids on my own, I can assure you that you’re not the first to fathom the notion that fathers get too much praise for acting like fathers. I’ve wondered when I start getting all this praise I’m criticized for getting too much of.
Even if I get all this praise, does it follow that it’s privilege? Only if I value it. Do I? Of course not! What kind of parent would I be if I let my actions be determined by the want for praise instead of the best interests of my children?
So you presume my experience and you presume my values to determine my privilege. It’s arrogant and you don’t get extra credit for being wrong.
Even if I’m to assume that the checklist is accurate (1. I don’t. 2. I nonetheless think it was done in good faith. 3. I could add to it.), does it follow that if men have privileges then men are privileged relative to women? Do you really think that half a balance sheet is of greater value than a whole one?
Let’s put it this way. I’m a tax professional and I’ve sat across the desk from thousands of people becoming intimately familiar with a private part of their lives: their personal finances. This I know for sure – that people’s sense of financial well-being is only slightly correlated with how much they make or have. I’ve talked to countless people who make $50K/year who feel like they’re kings or queens and countless people who make $250K/year who feel like they’re barely getting by. Can it be said, then, that a $50K person is privileged? Well, let’s do the $50K privilege checklist:
1. $50K people don’t have to pay so much taxes.
2. $50K people don’t have to work such hideously long hours.
3. $50K people aren’t called capitalist pigs.
This is easy. Care to add to it?
Now, I’m sure you and I can agree to forego the $50K/$250K privilege balance sheet because we already know the result. But can the same be said about the male/female balance sheet when certain time-honored indices of quality of life clearly favor women (longevity, admissions to higher education)? How do you know that feminism isn’t all about $250K people complaining about the privileges of $50K people?
Even if you’re sure of the answer, you’ve put the Male Privilege Checklist out there for people to examine and learn from in good faith. Do you think that people wouldn’t respond in good faith to the complete picture or do you really think that half a balance sheet is of greater value than a whole one?
Your comment was interesting, Pasatiempo. Too bad you began it with a cludding, belligerant, insulting phrase like “the bleatings of passive-voice non-entities.” Naturally, that made me want to dismiss you rather than take you seriously. (Also, the fact that I’m pretty sure you’re someone I banned for insulting behavior, now writing under a new name, doesn’t lend you credibility in my eyes. But I may be mistaken about that, of course.)
Seriously, why would anyone intelligent open up a conversation with an insult? Do you want to not be listened to? Do you believe that opening with belligerance is a good way to get people to listen to you carefully, and with an open mind? Are you somehow unaware of the message of contempt a phrase like “bleatings of passive-voice non-entities” sends to readers?
“So you presume my experience and you presume my values to determine my privilege.”
No, I didn’t. You seem to be have misunderstood something essential about the list – the list is not about “Pasatiempo’s particular experience.” It’s about how men and women are treated in general. Of course, there are individual exceptions to every rule, especially when talking about very large classes such as women and men. If an individual item doesn’t apply to you, then it doesn’t apply to you – don’t make a big deal of it.
As for the rest, I think you’re right in some ways. I think the list is useful in some very limited environments; it gets used in a lot of college gender study classes when the professor wants to discuss privilege, for example. For people whose mind is open to the idea that male privilege exists, the list can help them conceptualize some of the ways male privilege is expressed in society.
I don’t think it’s useful as a persuasive or debating tool, since – no matter how explicitly and how often I point out that “I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes,” people ignore that and react by listing bad things that happen to men.
For me, I think our society’s sexism harms women and men both (and I’ve said so multiple times on this blog), so I have no interest in defending the position “men have everything easy.” That’s not my position, and never has been.
Perhaps it just shows that I’m too influenced by Marxism, but I do believe that it’s helpful to look at the material basis of society – that is, who has the money and who has the power – when asking where different classes of people stand. From that view, it’s clear that women – taken as a whole – are getting the short end of society’s stick. But that’s not something that can be totalled up on a balance sheet; if it’s important to you to consider men equal or greater victims, nothing I say can change your mind. After all, even before women had the vote or the right to own property, you still could have claimed that men had it worse off because they (on average) died a few years earlier.
In re-reading my post, Amp, I can certainly see that it might come across a bit pissy. My apologies. I’ve read you often on the web and your caliber of civility is rare as web civility goes. I would like to note, however, in my defense, that my phrase “the bleatings of passive-voice non-entities” was not meant as an insult to you; it was solely meant as an expression of my contempt for the passive voice which I regard as a source of much mischief.
By way of introduction, I’m from L.A. Without taking inventory I think I’ve visited about 35 states and without a doubt the runaway winner for most beautiful is Oregon. I’m especially fond of central Oregon where you can go from desert to rainforest and everything in between in about 10 minutes.
I’m so enthralled with the place, Amp, that I’ve pretty much decided to retire there and here’s the thing: there are lots of us. LOTS! LOTS! Are you ready for your Californication, Amp?
I grew up in the South Bay area of L.A. If you’re not familiar with that, my high school was just up the boulevard from Hawthorne High, home of the Beach Boys. I grew up where winter is a 3-week interlude in The Endless Summer, the cosmic surfer’s wave unfurls towards eternity and the best things in life truly are free. My parents were loving, hard-working ‘Bama folk with high school diplomas who made the family legacy requirement of exceeding one’s parent’s accomplishments far too easy. Life is easy. Life is good. I’ve never doubted for a second that I’m, indeed, very privileged.
I grew up in a classic baby boomer working class neighborhood back in the days when America had a working class; i.e., before we became collectively disdainful of work that reeks of productivity. The neighborhood parents played the “traditional” gender roles; the dads went off to work and the moms raised the kids. The major employers in our side of town were Bethlehem Steel, McDonnell Douglas, Garrett Corporation and Mobil Oil.
I’m not sure if this, my reference point of 50’s and 60’s working class suburbia, is more stereotypical than representative or more representative than stereotypical but I’m certain that it’s not solely one or the other; I’m certain that it’s not solely Pasatiempo’s, as you’ve dismissively suggested; I’m not sure if it’s more or less representative than Amp’s; I’m certain that it’s more representative than, say, Betty Frieden’s. There are 40 times as many lawyers today as there were in 1963 and 5 times as many people work in air conditioned environments.
The men came home from work looking dirty and broken. Dad sat at the dinner table, eyes bloodshot, where mom and sis and I had spent the day together sharing experiences and developing our own little inside jokes which we’d repeat while dad sat there looking dumb and distant. He was my role model. I wanted no part of it. I decided early on that I would never get married and have kids. Why would I entrap myself in a life of spending every day working at a back-breaking, soul-draining job only to come home to a family that I wasn’t wholly part of? This is privilege?
Mom’s life seemed to be slightly more intrinsically rewarding but I didn’t want her life, either. Her life was also limited and incomplete. It occurred to me at an early age that maybe all would be better off if we shared roles; if the women brought home some of the money and the men did some of the child rearing. But where was I going to find that? I certainly didn’t hear any girls my age say that what they really wanted was to be shipped off to Viet Nam and come home to a factory job.
Then, when I was in high school, we started hearing about what was then called “women’s lib.” The “libbers” seemed to be saying the same thing I’d been saying. I thought women’s lib was the best idea since buttered toast. But, somewhere along the way, and not that far along the way, there came the cultural mandate that, henceforth, the mandatory pretext for all gender issues shall be that men are privileged and women have suffered a long awful herstory of oppression. I don’t understand how this does anyone any good.
I can certainly understand why women today in their 20’s and 30’s believe this but I have a hard time understanding why women my age believe it. My theory is that they never really knew their fathers; they never understood how hard their father’s lives were; they never knew their father’s pain. First, I think that men of that time talked differently to their sons and daughters. They sugar-coated things when talking to their daughters and did the opposite when talking to their sons. Second, they didn’t notice their fathers because their fathers weren’t around which is exactly what I noticed most about my father – he wasn’t around and this was going to be my life – a life of not being around.
So it perpetuates itself because the only women who could know the truth never really knew the truth. To those who think it’s the truth, I say show me the balance sheet and no one does. How much life experience does it take, Amp, in your estimation, before the experience becomes the knowledge becomes the intuition – that when somebody can readily document their side of an argument and declines to do so, that’s the classic sign of a bluff? I’m guessing about 8 years. I think an 8-year-old knows this. What do you think?
I don’t hold you personally responsible for the balance sheet and you’ve declined to do it. While you acknowledge that men’s lives are not all “ice cream sundaes” you nonetheless believe unequivocally that “it’s clear that women – taken as a whole – are getting the short end of society’s stick.” You decline to say why and this, again, is the source of much mischief.
A couple of years ago, my daughter (now 19) and I were talking and she said “Daddy, women weren’t even allowed to vote until 1920.”
“You know, Jessica, it’s always said that way… ‘weren’t allowed’. One of the few legitimate uses of the passive voice is to avoid the apparent assessment of blame and I suppose it’s the pseudo graciousness of its use in this particular regard that makes it especially grating. I won’t stand for it. I want active voice…subject…verb…object…spit it!”
She stammered.
“Okay. Fine. Weren’t allowed. So tell me…what have women accomplished in the 84 years since you were allowed to vote? By my reckoning you’ve lost 21 consecutive presidential elections. That’s quite a losing streak. Shall I conclude you’re all a bunch of losers? How have you managed this when you have 52% of the vote?”
Her jaw dropped. “We have 52% of the vote? How is that possible?”
My jaw dropped. “You mean to tell me that you’ve spent your entire life in that PC Idiot Factory that passes for a school system where they’ve fed you a non-stop passive-voice pabulum of self-righteous victimization and they never once told you the single, salient FACT that you have 52% of the vote? Welllll thennnnn, I guess it’s safe to assume that they never taught you what a precinct is and how to get precinct lists and use them; how to work or direct a phone bank or absentee ballot drive; what a candidate statement is and how to write one; or how to throw a fundraiser?”
She confirmed my assumption. You know, Amp, it takes a lot more effort to teach someone a lie than to teach them the truth. And so it goes that they would rather go to the considerably greater effort it takes to teach these girls that they’re victims than to simply teach them how not to be.
Recognizing depravity when I see it, I immediately informed my daughter that with election season coming, as it was, she would pick a woman candidate for local office, I would drive her to campaign headquarters and she would volunteer. After a suitable period of time to learn her candidate’s qualifications and stances on the issues, I would drag her little victim-mongering, passive-aggressive punk bitch ass off the pedestal and show her what it means to walk precincts. And I did. And she did.
Obviously, it was wrong to deny women the right to vote and this must not be forgotten. History matters. But history matters most in proper perspective and in 1920 fewer than 10% of Americans paid federal income taxes and 2/3s of federal employees were postal workers. With only a little dramatic license I can say, perfectly sarcastically, that the great cornerstone of womanly oppression in America is that until 1920 they were denied a voice in the price of a stamp.
The history books are indeed filled with the stories of men and it concerns me greatly that this conveys a message of marginalization to my daughter. But it’s also valid to note that the history books are only about the .01% elite. This, of course, does not invalidate the marginalization point. But I do so love irony, Amp, and it delights me that I, a CPA, a member of the great bottom-liner capitalist bedrock, would reference the teeming grey proletariat masses while you, a self-proclaimed Marxist, would reference the elite of the elite. Maybe we’re both nuts.
I will use this in my introduction to counseling class at South Dakota State University.
Thanks!
Er, Pasatiempo, the PC idiot school probably was busy trying to teach your kid to read, write and all that good stuff. If you want them to have unlimited time to explain precincts and take kids volunteering and so on, they’re gonna need a few more teachers. And a lot less money. Otherwise you’ll just have to go with the notion that parents still have to teach their kids SOME things.
Alternatively, they might teach kids to speak up when their parents treat them with nasty, patronizing contempt, but I’m not sure you’d be on board with that one.
That should be “a lot more money.” Geeziz.
Mythago: “Er, Pasatiempo, the PC idiot school probably was busy trying to teach your kid to read, write and all that good stuff. If you want them to have unlimited time to explain precincts and take kids volunteering and so on, they’re gonna need a few more teachers.”
Actually, they already have teachers to teach that stuff. They teach social studies. I can’t think of better subject matter for social studies than how our electoral system works and how to participate.
“Otherwise you’ll just have to go with the notion that parents still have to teach their kids SOME things”
As noted in my post, it’s more than a notion with me; it’s what I did. I took my daughter out and showed her how elections work.
“Alternatively, they might teach kids to speak up when their parents treat them with nasty, patronizing contempt, but I’m not sure you’d be on board with that one”
Oh I see. The fact that I taught my daughter how to empower herself is of minimal concern compared to the fact that I have the wrong ATTITUDE about it. This feels familiar.
Crap, I just got this irony detector fixed, and you go and screw up the gain by insisting you “taught your daughter to empower herself” without noting that teaching a kid to suck up gratuitous insults, contempt and rudeness is not exactly empowering.
I can’t think of better subject matter for social studies than how our electoral system works and how to participate.
Me either. You might want to pass that on to your school board and your state’s legislature, so they can stop wasting their time on teaching to standardized tests, and cutting out anything that might be ‘controversial’ or screw up certain students’ chances of getting into Harvard should they have work that risks getting them less than an A.
Mythago: “Crap, I just got this irony detector fixed, and you go and screw up the gain by insisting you “taught your daughter to empower herself” without noting that teaching a kid to suck up gratuitous insults, contempt and rudeness is not exactly empowering.”
What we learn from this comment is that this is just another BB where there are vastly different standards for insiders than outsiders. In the immediate instance we see that insiders are given far greater license in terms of language (i.e., what is considered insult). There is also plenty of evidence on this BB that anecdote that confirms the consensus is validated and anecdote that contradicts the consensus is dismissed or is the subject of condescension. In other words, this BB is typical.
Your irony detector truly can use some tweaking if you fail to see that thou doest project too much. At the very least, it’s up to my daughter, not you, to determine if my comments were “gratuitous insults” and that fact is not overcome by the sheer bounty of your arrogance. Even if my comments were “gratuitous insults,” they were directed at the school and not at her and that’s very clear in my post. You distorted that once and you were lying. You did it twice and you’re just an outright liar. Call that an insult if you want but it’s not gratuitious.
Let’s review “gratuitious”:
“Me either. You might want to pass that on to your school board and your state’s legislature, so they can stop wasting their time on teaching to standardized tests, and cutting out anything that might be ‘controversial’ or screw up certain students’ chances of getting into Harvard should they have work that risks getting them less than an A.”
There is so much in here that’s gratuitous (and snide and snippy). It’s gratuitous because you know perfectly well that the schools don’t spend all of their time teaching to tests. It’s gratuitous because you know perfectly well that there’s nothing controversial about teaching kids the electoral process. It’s gratuitous because it was meant to be.
I reacted angrily to the school’s indocrination because I found it, as I said, “depraved.” If you think I shouldn’t react angrily to having depravity thrust on my daughter, say so. If you don’t think their indocrination was depraved, say so.
I did not teach my daughter to empower herself by sucking up to “gratuitous insults.” I taught her to empower herself by becoming involved in the electoral process. You know that. You are a liar.
You should learn to speak simple truths, Mythago. Then, maybe, you can work your way up to irony.
For the record, Pasatiemp, I had exactly the same reaction to your anecdote that Mythago did. Your anecdote makes you sound like someone who’s proud of his ability to intellectually bully a daughter not half his age. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but that’s sure how you sounded.
Incidnently, your “women are the majority of the voters” argument is laughably bad; it assumes that women can and should be capable of acting as a single unified force in elections. Here’s a clue for you: Not all women agree on any issue, nor should they be expected to. That you think that women being 52% of voters is the “the single, salient FACT” about who holds office, suggests that you’re a total ignoramus. Or maybe someone whose misogyny has prevented you from being able to even pretend to think logically.
I don’t care which, frankly – in either case, you’re not someone I want to waste any more of my time on. Please post your final stipid, arrogant, condesending comment on this thread, then leave my blog and never come back.
Alternatively, you can apologize to Mythago for your rudeness and insults, in which case you can stay. But I know you won’t do that, since that would involve admitting that you’re responsible for your own words and actions, and clearly that’s not up your alley.
Go somewhere else. Maybe you can find a 14-year-old to bully, so you can convince yourself you’re a big, big man.
Amp: “Please post your final stipid, arrogant, condesending comment on this thread, then leave my blog and never come back. Alternatively, you can apologize to Mythago for your rudeness and insults, in which case you can stay.”
Amp, if you can’t see that it was Mythago being insulting to me then that just validates my comments about this board lacking integrity. Nonetheless, I do respect the fact that you asked me to leave rather than banning me and I will abide your request.
Gosh, go off to work for a few hours and look what happens.
Incidentially, while I know Pasatiempo is not around to read this, anyone who thinks schools have plenty of time to teach kids about precincts either a) has been living in a cave since No Child Left Behind got passed, or b) sends their kids to a private school (or lives in a wealthy school district that is the equivalent) so the schools needn’t worry about passing state-mandated tests.
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: feministe