[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.]
After 411 comments, you can pretty much stop worrying about going off-topic. ;)
Fair enough, Robert.
(Of course, “After 411 comments” technically didn’t start til your comment, but I’ll let that slide.)
Defenestrated,
I use sie (he/she) and hir (him/her).
I also use they, even though it seems ungrammatical, cuz, eh. Screw the grammar nazis who don’t know what they’re talking about. (Informed grammar nazis on the other hand? Purr.)
How about 46) If I enter the emergency room with chest pains, I am much more likely to be provided with tests and treatment, instead of being told “it’s probably just anxiety” and sent home without these things.
Great list, btw.
Don’t forget, men aren’t required to do “female work”, and if they’re asked to, they know they can do a purposefully inferior job, so that they’ll never be asked to again. >.> I can’t recall where I read that, but it definitely has a huge role in the fact that women usually work two full-time jobs, at home and at work.
I agree with most everything on this list but:
“I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch. ”
I don’t find aggressiveness or loudness attractive qualities in either gender and I associate neither attribute with strength. I’m unhappy about the efforts of misguided feminists to “reclaim” “bitch,” along with the “a ‘bitch’ is just a strong woman” argument. That bad behavior is acceptable for memebers of one sex does not mean it should be for both.
It’s not about what Rose personally finds attractive, it’s about society’s overall view of loud women vs loud men.
Men are allowed to be loud. People may not like it, but they dont get sex oriented insults or labels meant to shame them into being quiet.
Men are also not called ball busters (for example) when they’re agrressive, and it IS considered a strength that men are admired for.
Donald Trump is an aggressive business man. Martha Stewart isnt MORE aggressive than Donald Trump, but her aggression is labeled as bitchy.
Being loud for a woman doesn’t always mean being LOUD. Usually it means the woman is merely louder than other women.
Not quite the same thing as being obnoxious.
“Don’t forget, men aren’t required to do “female work”, and if they’re asked to, they know they can do a purposefully inferior job, so that they’ll never be asked to again.”
Yes… my father does this, and he’s been a stay at home dad for decades. I think it’s his way of coping with the role reversal, being able to say “At least I don’t ____. Only women _____.” I told him last week that I want to split household chores equally with my (theoretical) husband, and he pretty much said “good luck finding a guy who’ll put up with that, gay men don’t even like cleaning.”
Cheers for new perspective on things – I hadn’t seen the ‘females don’t have’ focus switched to ‘males do have’ before. It makes the societal side of sexism more obvious. (This is what we have to fight against vs you are personally responsible for the entire wage gap/other inequality)
There was one point I hoped someone could clarify for me. In the white privilege list the following privilege is listed:
“20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.”
My understanding of the above is that the praise is bad because it simply means people expected you to fail.
In light of this, I am unsure of item 11 on this list:
“11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.”
Isn’t this just the same deal – abeit even worse since you just have to be “marginally competent” to out do peoples expectations of you.
If so, why is this a privilege here when considered a negative on the other list?
It’s not the same deal. The male privilege applies only in areas such as childcare, which are presumed to be women’s competency. The white privilege applies to all areas. Also the marginally-competent male child-carer is less likely to be called a credit to his sex, because his sex is not regarded as needing credit.
I like the one about, “strangers don’t walk up to me on the street and ask me to smile” It’s like, “Oh sorry I forgot, being a woman I’m not allowed to express any other form of emotion other than sheer happiness. Cause God forbid, someone should be troubled by a girl not being in a good, and completely receptive mood.”
I think this should be of concern to men, because it works against them. That if a woman is sad, the world stops. If a guy is sad, he has to “take it like a man” and just “get over it”. Demanding someone always have a pleasently carefree outlook is unrealistic. People have problems, and sometimes people are upset. It’s like, the only expression you can show to people is being mindlessly happy.
No wonder it’s so hard to find friendship, when everyone is playing beat around the bush about their true thoughts about things.
24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won’t make me an object of contempt or derision.
—Only if your family doesn’t find out.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
—-A sweeping generalization. In all cases i know, this is not true.
21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
—Sex has nothing to do with it. If you fuck up your financial situation, it’s your fault. It’ll be attributed to your intelligance.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
—Once again, nothing to do with sex. It’ll be attributed to your intelligance.
28. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
—-Try telling it to a small man with glasses.
41. I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight.
—True, but you’re not expected to be tall, handsome, or an athleate. I tell you, better where the times when it was intellect that was valued.
I found this list generally ofensive and one sided. Label me as a supresser if you will, but you’ve never been a man, and I’ve never been a woman, so I’d please ask you to stop acting like you know how it is.
The problem I see too is that the younger guys really feel they deserve to be privileged in the world. Their misogyny is getting worse.
The author of the list is male.
Your list is an eye-opener, even for an old feminist like me. You missed the entire age thing. You caught some of it peripherally, like how much grooming time is needed, even perfunctorily, to look credible in public. The gap increases dramatically as the sexes age.
It amuses me how an aging man can be fat, wrinkled and bald and still considered distinguished; yet a woman who works at looking ‘credible’ for, say, a publically elected job, is scrutinized to pieces…and usually seen as obsessed with her appearance and stilted.
How many face jobs does it take for an aging woman to keep her credibility?
Here’s another one:
As a male, I can rest in the assurance that if I write my opinion to persuade a foreign head of state, it will not end up in the garbage because of my sex.
(a good reason to use an alternative male spelling for your name; lol)
I’d like to add some entries to the sadly long list:
Men’s faults are generally blamed on women.
Example, response #8 by Steven Duncan stating that if a man shirks his household responsibilities, the woman should “put her foot down” or has “chosen the wrong man.” He is correct, and I believe every person is responsible for themselves. But let’s take it a step further – how long will it be the woman’s responsibility to put her foot down, demand things, train a husband? Not a good theory. Because when she married him, she didn’t sign up for a grown male child. This is old and tired. Do men really want to be seen as the child in the relationship? I doubt it.
I’ve seen every excuse for men’s behavior ranging from testosterone, (which, surprise, we all have) to the synapse in their brains. Why we can call simple disrespect and laziness by any other name is beyond me, because that is what it is. If a woman repetitively “chooses” a man who is violent or lazy, then it is blamed on her as well. Is it me, or is this perverse? No one chooses to be mistreated, and maybe the truth is that there are so few decent men that it’s easy to end up with a bad one without even trying.
If a female driver has an accident, it’s because she’s a bad driver (statistics show that most accident are caused by men) but if a man has an accident, it’s because he’s more aggressive and more likely to take risks. If a man has a barroom fight, it’s because he’s macho and cool. If a woman shows the slightest aggression, she’s a hysterical *****.
Men risk their lives in battle and are awarded, as they should be, but the risks women take, and the war zones they live in right here in-country, or in their own homes, earn them no recognition. A woman who is beaten for years on end and escapes with her children gets no medal. A woman who survives rape gets no medal. A woman risks her life to walk down the street for a carton of milk.
Which brings me to the perfect example that was stated on this post about women “whining about being born female” – funny, I saw it as place where women can thank God they’re female, because it takes a lot more strength to do the dirty work, a lot more strength to follow, and a lot more strength to swallow unfounded stereotypes than it does to sit around and call the shots like a toddler in a height chair. Doesn’t God have something to say about giving more responsibility to those who can handle it, and less to the weak? I can pretty much say that women are glad to be women, and the fact that a man can read these comments and see it as merely our complaining and not see it as being a really sad statement about half our population, pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?
I know if I were neither male nor female, but had the choice by reading this forum, I’d check off female in a second. I want to be the stronger, the one with the ability to reign in her emotions, the one with the quiet strength, and not the one who has to be taken by force to understand the idea of equality.
By the way, can everyone pretty much agree that most of the crimes are committed by men? Has any woman here ever thought for a second when they were alone at night that if men didn’t exist for just one night, they wouldn’t have to worry about being assaulted? No one would admit that, would they. I personally wouldn’t choose for them not to exist, as I like them aside from their faults, but come on…would be a nice place to visit, wouldn’t it?
And my big question to God would be, if I had only one, is how can a man watch just one hour of the news and still think he’s superior in any way? Do they already secretly believe they’re lower than us, and hence, all this one-upmanship? If it were the other way around, I’d be pretty ticked at my gender.
I don’t see little girls telling each other, “you throw like a boy, walk like a boy, cry like a boy….” This woman-hating nonsense starts very young. Girls just live and let live. Boys are born competing with them, while the girls just go along on their way. Could it be they’re be seeing something deeper? Why do they compete with us if they’re not threatened in some way, or if they’re not seeing that maybe we have some edge on them? Anyone wonder? We want to keep down those who threaten us, no?
And here’s another biggy – men are regarded as having the higher sex drive. If a woman sleeps around, she’s a slut, but if a man does, he has a high libido. A man does not have a higher sex drive and in fact, just as many women complain about not getting enough in their relationships as as men do. I, my sisters, and my girlfriends are personally tired of their indifference to sex. But because men dominate the media industry, most of what we are fed from TV is from their point of view, and it’s not just reality, but it’s THEIR reality. Not what really is, but what they wish to be true.
How many of us see daily, a love scene where the woman stops the man from committing the act and the camera pans to poor rejected man’s face who didn’t get any, as the woman pulls away? Her needs are basically never shown, don’t exist, period. Why would we do that, when it will only make the man look less virile? It’s a self-contained cell that feeds on itself.
In response to the comment that women should start voting for women if they want to earn more power? Huh? So like, would you vote for someone according to the fact that you both have an Italian grandmother, or brown eyes, or simply because of their color, as some African Americans do, in spite of their character and beliefs? I don’t think women are that shortsighted. If they were, then this would be a Female Privilege checklist instead, and I’d be telling all you men to stop whining and get back to the business of training your woman how to behave.
And one little tip to any man reading this about what women want, since it seems to be such a mystery – Compassion. Protectiveness. Generosity. Honesty. Self accountability. Performing simple tasks without being asked or begged or promised your favorite meal.
I do believe that women cannot and should not try to change men, as it’s not our place, will make you gray, and years have a way of passing quickly. But women do need to begin within themselves to act with the class and dignity they were born with and not sell out to what some men might want in order to please them, because we are shorting ourselves and doing the rest of woman-kind an injustice. Show your anger. Show your sex drive in a classy and cautious manner. Don’t act like an idiot for money on TV, just because the male director feels more comfortable with it. Singers, do like the men do, and sing about real life, gut-wrenching issues with feeling and not just about petty, silly nonsense because we’re afraid of being classified as angry. And lastly, don’t ever call a man a pig, because he interprets it to mean, “You men have a higher sex drive” and he always will.
As for the guy who whined about women whining – Why don’t you stop whining about women on posts like this and prove us wrong? If you did, then you’d be high above the average man and worth everyone’s respect.
you left one off the list, the fact that in fictional stories and comic books men have laser vision, super strength, time travelling machines and fire breath and women have to make do with just going invisible, shapeshifting, gymnastics and other totally non-awesome superpowers. did you know wonder woman was the originally the secretary of the justice league? DID YOU?!?!?!? when i wake up in the morning to a breakfast of shredded adrenal glands and whiskey puffs, it brings a tear to my eye to know that women are misrepresented even in stories. well, it would, had i not cauterized my tear ducts with a red-hot knife in order to clarify my vision when aiming my longbow at majestic predators during the hunt that i crave in the forest in the shadow of my ancient volcano fortress. when will men realize demeaning women will never make you a man, only defeating your blood rival in mortal combat with your bare hands.
Y knw, thr’s qstn ‘v bn mnng t sk fr lng, lng tm bt fmnsm. Wh shld w nt pprss wmn? Y’r ll jst bb-prdcng cttl ftr ll. Y r ll wk, y r ll slss xcpt fr yr wmbs. Y r s wk n fct y nd t crt nthr knd f ntllgnc (mtnl ntllgnc) jst s y cn fl gd bt yr thrws mnnglss, trvl lvs. nd y dnt vn xcl t yr wn rggd vrsn f ntllgnc. Hw pthtc. Y d nt pssss mpth, y d nt pssss mtn, dspt wht th md wld lk s t blv, nd y thn hv th gll t ccs mn f ll ths thngs. ll yr scl ntrctn wth thrs s bsd n dcptn nd mnts t lttl mr thn pssng cntst btwn y nd th rst f yr gndr, whthr y r cnscs f ths fct r nt. Wht r th cmptng fr? Wh cn tll. Yr strgn s nfrr t th ml tststrn, nd y thrfr d nt pssss th wll t pwr, ssntl fr gnn hmn lf. Y nl rg fr th sk f wnnng n rgmnt. Jst lk t ths thrd s n xmpl. Nt n wmn, n ths ntr blg, hs vr cncdd tht th mn mght ctll hv pnt. h sr, sh’ll grnt hm sm trvl thngs n rdr t mk t lk lk sh’s bng cvl. Bt rll, sh jst ds t s s t scp bng rprmndd fr hr bstnnc, nt bcs sh ctll thnks tht hr ppnnt mght hv pnt. N, th wmn s fr t gnrnt fr tht. Hw d y thnk mn gt whr th r td? spps ntr mst hv bn bsd gnst th pr wmn. Ntrl slctn ws clrl skng t vctmz nd hrss th blmlss btchs. t’s nt tht mn r ctll th sprr sx. t’s prl sclztn, nd th lst yrs f std n psychlg nd vltn nvr hppnd. Th wmn s lk splt, nrcssstc chld. ftr hvng bn trtd wth nl th bst cr frm th mn (prt frm fw css f hstrcl rvsnsm prpgtd b fmnsts), sh trns rnd nd spts n hs fc, scrms tht sh dsn’t nd hm, nvr ndd hm, tht ll hr prblms r hs flt, nd thn trs t rn ff. f crs, lk n splt, nrcssstc chld, sh wll rtrn. Nt bcs sh wntd t, bt bcs sh s frcd t. Pk l s th thng tht wll frc th wmn nt rtrnng. Pk l s th tm whn mn wll b vndctd f th sns wmn-knd hs ld pn hm. Whn th vr-twrs cnstrctd b th lbrls nd fmnsts r trn dwn b th nm th rfs t ccpt vn xsts: Rlt. nd wh knws, myb wll tk y bck. Y crtnl mk fr sm gd ntrtnmnt. fr n, wll crtnl b hpp t s th myth f th ‘strng wmn’ s ftn pt frwrd b th md nd fmnsts dcnstrctd nc nd fr ll. Dn’t vn tr t ccs m f trllng. Yr s-thrgh ttmpts t blttl nd dsmss m pstn wll nt wrk n m s th wrk n s mn thr brn-wshd, mscltd mn wh dr tr t rsst th rl f ths srpnts w cll wmn. nd wll b vr ntrstd t s f th fmnsts hr wll b bl t rft n f m pnts wtht dvlvng nt smntcs, s th nd ll wmn tnd t d. s th r nt cpbl f ctll nggng n rsnd dscssn.
[Troll disemvoweled by Amp.]
1. Teachers. Nurses. Just 2 things that prove that one wrong.
2. I can be confident because it’s true.
3. You mean if I “ever” get promoted.
4. Who’s that fucking ignorant?
5. Yeah, normally women enjoy that.
6. Umm… what?
7. Your odds are at absolute zero.
8. That scares me a lot.
9. Yes it would.
10. I’m not a woman. I don’t have maternal instincts.
11. I’d do a bad job, I’d admit.
12. Yeah, I’d be making money so women can do that.
13. I didn’t see anything about Hillary Clinton’s children.
14. Hillary Clinton.
15. He got there because he was a good worker, not because of sex.
16. I only had a little brother until I was 8, and I would want to be a lot more active than a baby. And today I’m not extremely outgoing.
17. Wonder Woman, Hawkgirl, Samus Aran. There’s 3 off the top of my head.
18. I get more attention because I’m smarter. And don’t think I say that because of sex, I have a 130+ IQ.
19. Yep, and neither do you.
20. I see women and men in the media quite equally.
21. It wouldn’t be attributed to your sex, either.
22. Of course not. (it’s the asians that can’t drive. jk :P)
23. Anonymous, we find you male and therefore inferior to women.
24. Yeah, it’ll make you an object that men would want to do.
25. True for you too.
26. Because I don’t put much effort into it.
27. No. Just no.
28. No.
29. If I were loud, I’d be called a jackass. If I were aggressive, I’d be called a dick.
30. Of course, anyone can. It’s a right.
31. I can not care about those things, since it is the english language.
32. Because I don’t have periods.
33. If she wanted me to, I would do it.
34. hehe. No.
35. There is no God.
36. If women lead the household, MY sexuality would be brought into question.
37. Hehe. Yeah, right. I’d be doing all the work to get money to help her do that stuff.
38. If I do the childrearing, I’d be called gay.
39. Because she has maternal instincts and I don’t.
40. You’ve never seen a perfume ad. And why exactly would I want gay porn?
41. I am, however, expected to be physically fit and active.
42. No arguements here.
43. No one ever does that.
44. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Usually I only say things to keep the woman talking.
45. And you have the privilege to be ungrateful to the benefits of being female.
Ampersand, I don’t know if you still follow on this post. One thing that’s not on the list (and may be in the comments, forgive me for not reading 400+ comments), is the issue of family names for children. Not only are women expected to change their name upon marriage (#33), it is expected that their children will bear the name of the father.
Oh, that’s a really good suggestion. Thanks.
:/ Reading this has been scary…
I don’t understand why people think spitting, hissing, and throwing disagreement around is really going to solve anything. Do you really think that going “Hm….” at someone and then spending the next three paragraphs basically saying that they’re the type of stupid person that started these problems. Or maybe it’s a better idea to drop harshly divergent opinions into a rather acidic place and pretend you’re just there to ‘set the record straight’.
Either way, it’s not helping. Society has erected walls and stigmas for generations. It’s true, very few present-day people are responsible for a lot of these generalizations. They are responsible for the perpetuation. Everyone is. And as long as we keep fighting and “Hm…”-ing in our superior tones, we’re NEVER going to be able to stand together to take these things down.
The only role any person should have to fill is their own. They should not have to be afraid of filling this role. Don’t confuse filling your role with the evils some perform. Those acts are horrific retardations of a once simple trait. The issues hit all sides, and FOR that reason, we should unite and start solutions, not flinging accusations.
Snarky remarks are the start of bitterness. Bitterness is the start of resentment. Resentment is the start of hate… And hate hasn’t helped us yet…
Frankly, this list is insulting. I’m sure there’s some validity to a lot of the points; these are not the ones I plan on addressing. I’m not going to try for a point by point refutation, either – I’ll just focus on the two that infuriated me the most.
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.
A quiet man is a possible rapist or child molester. A shy, passive man is, interestingly enough, a bitch. Effeminate and weak. This one was bad; the next is much, much worse. It just shows off how fucking skewed your view of modern society is.
28. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
I feel it is almost impossible to reply to this properly. I’m so angry I’m not even going to try. Go fuck yourself. You’re blind.
@36 That is very well put
@421 having the same name is a bad thing why? This is a western invention, the Japanese for example, would and in some cases still do change their name to the more prestigious of the two families regardless of gender.
@425
The problem is not in the name changing. It is in the fact that *women* are expected to change their name, (usually the sole name-changer in the couple) whereas men are not demanded to do so (the overwhelming majority of men won’t be the sole name-changer in a couple).
Also, in the same vein, it is expected of mothers not to mind if their children only have their father’s last name. Some may really not mind, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of society turning up its collective nose on those who *do* mind (thinking of those who’d want double-barreled names and those who’d want only the mother’s name as a last name).
Zahra
I think there are two kinds of ‘expectation’ in play here. The word can be (1) simply predictive: ‘I expect the sun to rise tomorrow morning’. Or it can be (2) prescriptive: ‘I expect you to behave like an adult’.
All members of society expect (in sense 1) women to take their husband’s name when they get married: they see that it is generally the case that women do so, and are in no way surprised when it happens. But if they hear that a prospective wife does not wish to change her name on getting married, most members of society do not expect (in sense 2) her to do so. That is, they don’t think she positively ought to do so.
‘Expected’ in sense 1: it is apparent that most mothers do not mind this, or at least do not mind it enough to make their irritation generally known.
How does society turn up its collective nose? Most of us couldn’t give a damn whether other people’s children bear their father’s or mother’s last name, or a combination of the two.
Of course the people directly involved: husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, may well have strong opinions as to who gets what name, and heated negotiation can ensue. I just doubt that either party will be able to call in aid the prejudices of society at large. Most people, I think, would consider such things a private matter to be dealt with by the parties concerned.
Tom Nolan,
Expectations can be prescriptive or predictive, it doesn’t change the fact that research shows that 25% of women hyphenate and another 65% change their last name altogether. I don’t have men name changing stats, but still. That’s 90% of women changing their names.
As for
I can tell you for having navigated wedding forums for 2-3 years (from 2005 to 2008) that I have seen an untold number (a disturbing one) of men pulling shit like not talking to their fiancées, badgering her in order for her to change her name (literally, as in still not dropping the issue for months after the wedding, when the woman’s decisions was announced 6 months prior to the wedding) introducing her as HisLast (when she made it clear she didn’t want to be addressed as HisLast at all) and invoking the all-powerful “But that’s just how things are done!” and “Having the same last name makes us family!”. Such men, when being told that if family unity through last name unity could go through them changing their last name go back to “But it’s just the way things are done!”, “My guy friends would laugh at me!” (what are you, twelve?) and some form of “It’s unnatural!”. That’s not counting the additional number of family members (in-laws, or even their own family) that insist on calling non-changers by HisLast because it’s her real name, don’t ya know.
As long as men pull that shit because they’re expecting society to work their way and women to change their name without the men being confronted to the struggle between keeping your own name and changing it from, basically, the cradle, as long as we have an overwhelming number of women changing their name upon marriage and a negligible number of men doing the same, I’d say that the predictive expectation becomes prescriptive. (Also, note that a woman changing her name upon marriage can just present her marriage license everywhere to make the change whereas a man must go through court to change his (except in select states where the discrimination clause was invoked and procedures changed as a result). Not helping the issue at all and reinforcing the prescription that women change their name but men don’t.)
As for the children name issue, how many times have I heard that double-barreled names “too complicated”, or “why didn’t they just go with his last for a last name?”. Also, how many double-barreled named children just shorten it to HisLast when writing? If the children have the mother’s last name or, god forbid, some have HerLast and some have HisLast, the argument is “but won’t they get confused?” (used also for women not changing their last name, notwithstanding the fact that the children’s last name issue haven’t been tackled yet). As if you’d get confused about who your sister, brother or parent was. Just as the women’s last name issue goes from predictive to prescriptive by the sheer number of women changing their last name, the children’s last name issue is prescriptive.
P.S.: http://70.32.88.134/kvetch/index.php?t=msg&th=5349&prevloaded=1&S=c3c1d2d6058bd6fce3a3e23502d6cde0&start=1200
See the post by Forget Me Not (#986369). A baby having his/her father’s last name IS prescriptive.
@Zahra #428
Promote a law like that in Quebec province, where it is illegal for a woman to take her husband’s name (and vice-versa), since April 1981. My parents never took each other’s name – they simply couldn’t; they married in August 1981. The law wasn’t retroactive, but pre-1981 marriaged people will eventually die (my parents are 51 and married right after the law…so one can expect that in 40 years it will be unheard of except for immigrants).
That should close the debate about last names for spouses. Though children can have either (or both) names, and that’s still debatable. A child can change their last name to the other spouse’s if they can prove it (birth certificate), though it’s the same as changing a name at all (it’s probably the most common procedure, since name changes like mine from a male first name to a female first name are rare enough).
Actually, Schala, I’m from Quebec, so I never had to really explain why I didn’t want to change my name: everybody understood the hassle and money factors in wanting to change your name, nevermind the “serious reason” Quebec courts want (a wedding is not enough, since 50% end up in divorce). As for the name I go by socially, only one person made a comment about me being HisLast, and I promptly replied that I was as much HisLast as my husband is MyLast. They got the point.
I would be in favor of a law that made it equal for everybody : either your wedding certificate is enough, or anybody who wants to change their name has to go through court (I actually prefer the latter, as only the women who really want to change their name will do it, the others will find that the easiest way isn’t to change their name after all).
Of course, this pre-supposes that everybody has the money to go through the procedure, but I think that, even with a token fee (say, 60$), most people would forget about women changing their names. It wouldn’t be just about changing the name on all the documents and correspondence sent to you, the bank, work, DMV, etc. (which is a serious annoyance to start with, even when they all get it right the first time around), it would also be about the hassle of petitioning the court to change your last name, with the mandatory bureaucracy, delays and ridiculous hoop-jumping that comes with such a procedure.
Tom Nolan – I have no idea what age cohort you’re in, but when a lot of my peers were getting married in their late 20s/early 30s (I’m now in my late 3os), there was an unbelievable amount of badgering from both families of origin and from peers for the woman to take the man’s name. When one of my friends married, her husband took her name, and he was harassed by his own family, by colleagues, and by students of his. He was also gay-baited (don’t ask me to follow the logic of that one because I can’t.)
Serious reasons that they accept:
-Defamed name (like having Homolka as last name for example)
-Usage for 5 years (hard to justify for a last name, unless you’re an artist; Mitsou, Marie-Mai, Garou for example) – not a valid reason for taking a spouse’s name AFAIK.
-Being a transsexual person and being able to prove it (if you get surgery, the name change is auto-accepted, if not, you need to provide proof of taking hormones and proof of diagnosis, and wait the normal period – and it only changes name then). -> This reason didn’t exist pre-2002, Micheline Montreuil set a precedent for name-only.
-Hard to pronounce name (if you have a name like the original name of Apu in The Simpsons, which no one gets right)
AFAIK, you can’t change your name to your spouse’s even if you go through the standard name-change procedure.
The fee is 125$ in administrative fees, plus about 100-110$ twice, to publish in one weekly local newspapers and the Official Gazette of Québec. Total about 350$. And decision is taken and official 6 months later, if they accept (you can appeal).
This gives you a certificate of name change, but it’s not enough to change social security card, you also need to order a birth certificate afterwards (for at least 15$) with the new name.
Yeah, it took me 45 minutes to change it at my bank. And they got me my medicare card with the wrong signature (the old one), because they absolutely wanted me to sign my old name to renew… Now I got to change it again because the name on the card and signature don’t match each other (it’s their fault, and they at least recognized that).
It’s actually not a court. The Registrar of Civil Status is bureaucratic only. It only goes to court if you appeal their decision. You don’t need to present yourself, only send the paperwork…and wait and wait and wait.
—
I’m also curious about where you speak of where women are pushed to change their name if it doesn’t affect you. Talking about the US? The rest of Canada (I’m not sure what law they got there)?
And I was talking about someone living there pushing for change, I doubt our voice as Quebecers would be worth anything in say, a New York court, on a matter of making a new law. At best, we could have a voice to make change in the rest of Canada, at the federal level.
It just shows how much I know about the process.
Talking mostly about the US. Of course, I have the privilege of not having this issue affect me directly, but it doesn’t mean that I can’t be an ally to those who don’t have the same privilege (see western women supporting the ones in muslim countries about the hijab, burka, etc.). Also, as long as such basic issues aren’t tackled, especially in the US (which poses itself as a role model to other countries), we can’t go tackle more complex issues (such as representation in different government levels). So the fact that this is unresolved does, indirectly, affect me.
I guess I hope that:
– Me talking about the issue to other people (such as Tom Nolan) will make them aware of the problem
– Me talking about the Quebecer way of dealing with the name change issue gives a new perspective and a living example to those who didn’t know about it
I enjoyed reading MePersoner’s response to this. I think all 3 check lists are very interesting and I look forward to the upcoming black privilege checklist.
Also perhaps a child/adult check list.
You know, of the many, many, many, many, many, many reply lists I’ve seen over the years, that’s a particularly mediocre one.
I am just going to quote dear Tyciol’s comment from the end of the thread he just linked us to, because I think that it’s truly special:
This is why arguing from hypotheticals rather than irl facts makes you a giant, obvious troll.
Ahem! I am a sexy lady, and I would like a pony.
(Flashes cleavage, flutters eyelashes. Waits.)
Tyciol, I can’t help but notice that you have not yet made arrangements for the delivery of my pony. Apparently my sexy lady privilege isn’t working today? Maybe I just need to go put on a shorter skirt and then ask again?
Also, I am a woman and I would like a job as the editor in chief of either Spin or Planet. I am sure several men would also like either of these jobs, but I’m a woman so that means I should automatically get it, right?
Reading your list was interesting. Some items fit my experience, while other items don’t.
I was an elementary school teacher, until I left to take care of our kids full time.
It’s like a terrible Sci-Fi film. “Men, our weapons are useless against the terrible She-Beasts! They can do what they want, and NOTHING can stop them!” Sorry, couldn’t help it, I just find such hyperbole so adorable.
I do have to say that reading this… well, I’m at a bit of a loss for words. On one hand I should (or so it would seem) assume a certain credulousness because this list was compiled by someone named Barry — but in the age of monickers and pseudonyms Barry could be Barry, or Barry could be Alicia. I don’t know. If Barry is a woman then I’m not terribly surprised because while I’ve heard this sort of stuff spouted over and over by women I’ve also come to accept that it’s because AS women they know what women endure but not the male side of things in those situations OR what men endure as a whole; then again the whole thing is nicely set aside by saying that this in no way indicates men necessarily have it easy.
On the other hand if Barry is a man then I’m forced to wonder precisely how sheltered his life has been that he seems entirely unaware of the male half of the equation.
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.
It’s clear Barry has never been on the sharp end of a quota. Don’t get me wrong; there is and remains a certain necessity for quotas in this world. It’s just that the question involves where those quotas should be and how they should be distributed anymore. Things have changed and just as racial organizations remain necessary to a certain extent, so also have they proved they have the capacity to become all-consuming monsters crying “foul” at every perceived slight, even if they’re the only ones who can see it. The same goes for quotas. It’s well and good to cite old statistics and adamantly declare them as valid as ever; but the question remains whether said declaration is true or not. Not whether it once was, but whether it remains so to adequate extent the argument is still valid. We can SAY whatever we want; we can say I’m not a man at all, but rather, a highly evolved form of bicycle. We can SAY anything. “Statistics PROVE!” Yes, but like any mathematical figure those numbers are susceptible to manipulation and application; and worse, when dealing with people, perception.
Much like the old chestnuts “glass ceiling” and the famed “.73 cents on the dollar”, one may “prove” a thing so long as no one dares look further; and while these may have once been real points of contention, they no longer are yet they continue to be held aloft like placards of truth.
Pretty much ALL of these need to be subject to real scrutiny and evaluation, hardly taken at face value.
Oh, I agree, and it’s through real scrutiny and evaluation that I’m able to know that the Affirmative Action Quotas you’re complaining about are, in real life, illegal.
—Myca
If I’ve been faking being a man all these years (and I often feel like I am faking, but that’s more a comment on cultural constructs of masculinity than on what’s between my legs), I’ve gotta say, I’ve been doing an awfully good job of it.
Have met Barry and Myca. They are not ladies. Nor are they sheltered.
Next try.
Quit your spouting, Mandolin.
Race is a protected class and direct discrimination based on race is illegal. However, I think there may still be some programs (federal contracting?) which have quotas. I don’t know for sure.
Still, one would be pushing the bounds of reason to suggest that there aren’t mechanisms in place which functionally act like quotas. Many people seem to use “quotas” to refer to these, although the programs should probably be called “preferences.”
It is (and was) fairly simple to discriminate based on race even if you don’t do so through an official quota. This is made obvious by the fact that it was illegal to discriminate based on race prior to the onset of AA, and, surprise, people discriminated anyway. It’s the same process; it just happens not to be solely aimed at benefiting white people.
Barry, what I said with regard to not knowing whether your a man or not was not meant as a slight; I’m new to your blog and it was a valid statement from that perspective.
As for the reference to “quotas” — gin-and-whiskey has the right of it. While technical quotas may be off the books and illegal, I’ve been to places where comments such as “We’re under scrutiny because right now we’ve only got/we have too many/ women working here/men working here” are not unheard of. It’s said apologetically, but it still means at the wrong time and place you’re not getting the job. A legal quota? Perish the thought!
Real scrutiny because too many of either sex is present? That just might be another matter.
I’m currently working on going into nursing. Since this is my pursuit I’ve done some research, talked to a few folks. I apologize that this serves as precisely NOTHING more than anecdotal evidence but in a very real world where certain things are “that of which we do not speak” there is what holds legal or political weight and there is the nudging truth behind the powers that be.
Were such NOT the case then it would argue against the very first item on your list just as effectively as it argues against my own anecdotal evidence, n’est-ce pas?
Speaking to a male nurse who has some position of authority in a local hospital about whether or not I should pursue this field of work, I was told that not only are men desperately needed in a female-heavy career field for the obvious reasons of lifting and moving patients, but that there is constant demand for hiring more men because despite that women make up the majority of individuals who ultimately pursue nursing administration is constantly being looked at for the sheer volume/ratio of women-to-men in the field.
It’s the reverse and means that my chances as a man are excellent; great! But does it belie the notion that there are RULES and then there are “rules”? QUOTAS (illegal) and “quotas”?
As I said initially, statistics show… but the statistics themselves need to be scrutinized in order to see WHAT questions they answer, and whether they answer them accurately. It’s been my experience that answers depend on who asks the question just as often as it depends solely on the facts of the matter.
For the records (and by way of continued introduction) I am ALL for as much equality as is feasible in the real world; and by that I mean the job goes to whomever can do it best regardless of race, creed, sex, with NO special considerations given to anyone.
But there’s the rub: Removal of special considerations. It’s easy to say quotas are illegal but it does nothing to dismiss what gin-and-whiskey said with regard to things which effectively ACT as quotas, and that applies to racial considerations (which I used ONLY as a comparative example, I wasn’t trying to mesh the two as this is a list based on sex, not race; the two merely hold a certain political comparability with regard to how they’re approached) or gender-based considerations.
If there ARE no “quotas” (or things which effectively act as quotas, in this case) then there’s also no room for any special consideration, is there? For if a place CANNOT be filled with only men, the question would be WHY? And if there’s a WHY, then there must be a guideline; and if there’s a guideline, it has to give some form of statement, percentage… and that would be….. class?
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.
Who says this? It’s an honest question because I’ve certainly heard it before, but from WOMEN, not men.
“Oh, look at her with those balloons on her chest! You KNOW why they hired HER!”
“They only hired her because she’s pretty!”
Or, in the case of female bosses, I’ve even heard women question the boss’ sexuality for having hired an attractive woman. Truly, a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
If it was men who always said this sort of thing I could see the point to this list item; and if it was only women, I’d say this isn’t male privilege in the least, but a shrewish attitude. If it’s both men and women, then I have to question whether it’s an exception (which people tend to adore over generalities) or the rule? And in either case, WHY?
One answer I’ve heard before regarding that is “Women only act/think this way because Men have conditioned us to for so long!”
To that I may only say that if we’ve been doing your thinking for you since the beginning of time it’s a good indicator we should continue because you’re probably not ready yet if you haven’t gotten ready since the Dawn of Humanity.
For the record I don’t think men have been doing any such thing, nor that women are incapable of thought; my own wife’s intelligence FAR outweighs my own, as does her education. I’d never deign to make a family decision without consulting her, for both equal input as an equal party AND for the wisdom of her counsel.
But since women ARE perfectly capable of their own thoughts without male influence it means any women who think in that particular fashion are responsible themselves, would it not?
“But it’s MEN who assume that sort of thing, not women! That’s how this list item came to BE!”
Really? And should we presume to know what men actually think any more than I, for example, should presume to know what women “actually” think?
Sorry, I call shenanigans.
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
Once more, it’s curious. It presumes no woman in a position of authority would ever pass a man over for promotion by virtue (or ill) of his merely being a man and her just not liking men as a rule of thumb.
It has just GOT to be nice, I mean soul-stirring, wake-up-in-the-morning-feeling-good-about-oneself NICE to be morally superior by virtue of one’s sex.
We can assume women undergo this form of denial/career-detriment at the hands of men because come on, “everybody KNOWS”; but it’s just not going to happen to a man, and certainly not at the hands of a woman.
That doesn’t smack of prejudicial thinking, does it?
Truly — Alas!
I thought on this yesterday and began to question myself.
I thought on this last night… and began to smile, realizing at last that I was approaching it all wrong. The notion of stereotypes occurred to me.
You see, stereotypes are BAD; we’ve all heard it. No one stops to tell you why stereotyping is bad, only that it is. Thank goodness it’s not a great leap of genius to fathom that stereotyping is “bad” because it, in conjunction with the human predisposition toward hearing things, taking them to heart and then repeating them parrot-like but seldom bothering to evaluate them for ourselves, lends to prejudicial thinking.
No one stops to think about where stereotypes really come from. Oh sure, we hear subtle reference made to bias and prejudice and hate and bigotry and chauvinism — etc, ad nauseum… but we don’t think about the stereotypes themselves and whence they came.
Because it’s unpleasant to admit that for all the shame, for all that we wish to put them aside in our diligent pursuit of a better truth, of enlightenment, stereotypes have some foothold in reality. They are FAR from hard and fast rules and in very, very short order demonstrate themselves to be the refuge of the foolish, the short-sighted and the generally unpleasant who prefer a world of ignorance — or even those who simply like to bitch about the world each and every day without really ever doing a thing to change that world — but those stereotypes retain some foothold in reality all the same.
If I say “Women are green and ten feet tall” it has no foothold in reality and I’m written off (rightly so) as a kook. The thought never crosses anyone’s mind again save to relay it as an amusing anecdote of what some nutjob once espoused in conversation.
If I say “Women love to kill their babies” and then cite statistics and media references of women who have committed infanticide it CLEARLY deserves eye-rolling dismissal. Saying such a thing is comparable to saying “Men are murderers”. Scorn and for shame.
In this world where The Battle of the Sexes later escalated to The Gender Wars, where it’s less about finding answers and solutions, far more about some bizarre form of “winning”, we only begin to half-heartedly analyze should I compare those murdering witches to men:
“FAR more women than men kill their children. It’s true.”
“Well, that’s ONLY because women are the ones saddled with those children!”
You see, the killing itself is no longer important; what’s important is that Women as a whole be defended in the comparison with Men.
If I say “When you put a bunch of women together in a work environment you can expect trouble and discord and social rifts fairly soon” — aaah, THEN you all know what I’m talking about. We’re not supposed to SAY it because it’s prejudicial and blatantly sexist — but you know what I’m talking about.
It’s a negative stereotype and we should endeavor to set such aside…
…but you still all know what I’m talking about even though we’re not supposed to ever say or suggest it.
Because it has some foothold in reality.
Yet it seems a reality determined to select only the very worst aspects of a group and tout them as general truths, whether they change or not and sometimes long after they change. It seems a reality which chooses to hold a thing up as a problem without ever bothering to beg the question Why?
So I have to admit some — many, even — of the so-called “male privileges” listed ultimately have some foothold in reality and thus came to be. I have to look at them and if I wish to be truthful I have to admit these things have happened in a very real and very serious sense.
Some of them merit real consideration as representations of very prominent problems out there, even if they still ultimately beg the question of why and we have to wonder whether they can ever be solved. To cite Number 8 on the list:
8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.
…would not be errant in the least; further, it would be the very sort of thing which I, as a man and as a father, would weigh, consider, take to heart. Number 8 holds merit because it speaks of real potential for a world which is, for all we may wish otherwise, filled with potential dangers of all sorts ; yet for all of that to say something like Number 7:
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.
…takes us to a tenuous, exaggerated, foolish and — dare I say? — grossly stereotypical place, for all that the two go hand-in-hand. It’s horribly misleading, sensationalistic. It smacks of not only of hideous bogeymen but a self-aggrandizing victimhood, wallowing in dark, murky places by real choice and holds precisely as much water as saying “If I’m a woman my odds of being falsely accused of rape by a morning-after regretter are practically non-existent.”
I find it sad. My own wife, brilliant though she may be (and a fan of your blog) will often hold up the rape-threat argument, citing how men need not fear such things while women seem to be dodging heinous threat at nearly every corner and alleyway; yet for all of that when we speak in the evening before she heads home and I worriedly ask her to be careful out there, on the subways and trains of New York, she accepts my words because she knows they’re spoken from concern BUT she pooh-poohs and I can practically see the tilt of her head as she assures me there is NOTHING for her to fear, she’ll be just fine today as she is each and every day. She’s flattered that I’m worried about her but unless something far-fetched or blatantly unusual occurs, she knows there’s really nothing about which to worry.
One is an argument. Just that: Argument.
The other is the reality in which we live.
As James Thurber once said: You may as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backward.
It reminds me of the old Monty Python routine wherein four old-timers are sharing childhood stories which are nought more than perpetual one-uppersonship (you saw what I did there, right?) on who had it REALLY bad!
http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm
Some of the items on this list, as I’ve admitted, hold some water and merit consideration. Others… well, in a way we’re ALL sexually egocentric, and many of these items indicate an extremely narrow, ill-considered and victim-based view of things at large. I’m not bothered by them because of some certainty that they hold NO truth; that would be errant and dismissive on my part.
No, I’m bothered by many of them because with regard to personal and sexual/gender-related accountability (the second being a far-fetched notion in the best of circumstances, which makes Male Guilt just as far-fetched) they are self-assuaging. One need not be held accountable if it’s all someone else’s fault; and vagaries, half-statements about lurking figures and bogeymen which COULD be, are a good way to play a socio-political game of this sort.
Barry, I’m glad you posted this list and and I found it, because whether we agree or not it made me think on various matters.
Ampersand, I love the list. most I agree with some I hadn’t even thought of. So lets just say most of this is true. What is a women to do then in 2012 when this unequality is still going on? Some women actually do the ” can’t beat them, so join them” and marry so they can let the man do what he can instead of swimming upstream. But for someone who can’t stand this what are posible solutions for all areas of her life, work, romance, finances, social………
Most everything on this list is either a lie, or applies equally to both genders.
http://wadelong.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/response-to-the-male-privilege-checklist/
Sorry to be the one to inform you all, but if you were born in a 1st world country the list of your privileges, whether straight or lgbt, male or female, dwarfs every other list. Your success, your lot in life, your potential as a human being and the rights you indulge in have nearly nothing to do with your gender or sexual orientation compared to the luck of the draw on where you were born.
So suck it up and be thankful the dice-roll didn’t land you in a Bombay brothel or a D.R.C. tantalum mine. If you really want to espouse equality, stop making up BS lists about how you’re the “other” and have it so hard when there are still entire nations out there that have yet to establish a decent standard of living for *anyone* there. You are the 1%, as am I, the first world, the biggest privilege a human can have.
I agree with Kai’s post.
Every morning, without fail, Alice slaps her five year old daughter Beth in the face, strong enough to leave a big red mark that persists for a while. She does this whether or not Beth has done anything to provoke her.
“Mommy,” says Beth – “why do you hit me? What have I done to deserve this?”
“Stop your idiotic complaining” says her mother “for I know for a fact that there’s a little girl down the street who has it much worse, for her mother punches her every morning in the stomach until she coughs blood. I find this appalling and have often tried to convince her to stop, to no avail. So how dare you expect better treatment when there’s someone else who’s worse than you?”
The reason Alice is able to do that is because Beth has no power of her own.
I totally see where women are coming from wanting the power men wield(I like having it), but take it from me don’t expect me to give it to you.
You have the votes necessary elect yourselves to power. You have the life spans necessary spend your dead husbands money.
Don’t expect us to go without and fight and don’t expect us to give up power, because we should(we never did before). You might have a decent shot men are starting to act like boys of late.
I’m not a woman.
I’m also not particularly interested in debating with you, Cerebereth, as I’ve already noticed in some of the other threads that you have a tendency to avoid actually responding to what people are saying but rather changing the premises. For example, Kai’s post said “you shouldn’t complain of an injustice that affects you when you’re better off than someone else”. I responded with another example of that logic. To which your response is entirely irrelevant.
(I’m sorely tempted to actually respond to it, but I’m not going to, because then you’ll just respond again and I’ll end up debating you after all)
Thats your decison to make.
I’m not saying to ignore your respective countries problems, I’m saying that the difference in quality of life between any group in a first world country is in the single digit percent range when compared to any non first world country. If people want to get all up in arms about privilege and “the first step to fixing privilege is to recognize your own” then I’m asking everyone here to step up and realize you’re all incredibly privileged. Instead of looking at the list of boons you get from merely being born in America or the UK or wherever you’re from that is hundreds of items long, you’re focusing on relatively tiny lists that, while still important, are icing on the cake compared clean drinking water, a police force, not getting pulled into human trafficking, and so on.
My entire point is that people in 1st world countries are massively more equal than they are not, and this whole “privilege” trend is giving *everyone* who isn’t straight, white, male of average height and weight, a reason to say “it’s not my fault I’m not successful or taken seriously, it’s the evil overlords, those straight white males keeping us all down”. It doesn’t even matter if that concept is right or not, it’s not productive to the cause, and it’s grossly out of perspective in regards to the reality of the world.
I do not think you understand the meaning of the words “lie” or “equally.”
What cause?
Equality. The best way to keep people from joining you in thought or rationally considering your perspective is to antagonize them for no reason. You shouldn’t try to guilt people into feeling bad enough to think “hey, I have privileges and these poor people don’t (which isn’t true for the reasons stated above) I should work to fix that”, because people will just get upset that they’re being told they’re the problem.
The concept doesn’t work an individual level, I’m white, male, and straight, but I have had personal disadvantages and advantages in my life that I had no control over that make these subjective lists invalid in assessing my relative “privilege”. So instead of trying to play what is essentially a giant, childish blame-game and giving people new concepts to use for hate-speech, we should be attempting to be all-inclusive, promoting tolerance and elevating everyone, not trying to drag people down.
Kai, are you saying that we should never discuss sexism against women, then?
That’s quite far from the assertion I’m making.
I’m saying the amount that “privilege” or lack there of affects the difference between demographics in America in regards to success and happiness are incredibly small margins compared to what people from any non first world country face. So arguing about who is or isn’t privileged is a flawed concept to begin with in regards to equality, because everyone who lives in a first world country, regardless of demographic, is incredibly privileged.
And even within America, there’s a class of people who are vastly under-privileged, more so than women or someone a part of the lgbt community, which is people born into low class families.
I’m not saying sexism/racism/etc doesn’t exist and that it’s entirely pointless to talk about them, I’m saying these privilege lists are very narrow minded, counter-productive, and if we’re talking about global equality our efforts would make larger strides focused on countries much worse off than ours.
Ah, but there are so many of us! Can’t we care about equality in other countries AND our own countries at the same time?
I doubt many people here would dispute this. But 1) privilege as a system has many levels–the fact that a poor man has less privilege in an absolute sense than a rich woman doesn’t negate the fact that the same poor man has more privilege than a poor woman of the same race, religion, orientation, etc, and 2) lower class families tend to be disproportionately people of color & families headed by single women, so the issues are hardly separable.
Oh you’re right, each individual demographic cannot be separated. Which is why creating imaginary lists for single-facets of identity are mostly pointless. What privileges a person enjoys is an overdetermined concept, meaning there are so many variables that go into it, it is impossible to pick out a single facet as having more or less significant sway. So not only are the lists and concept one-dimensional and not useful, they have been breeding a victim mentality and hate speech based on one’s classification.
As for fighting for equality both here and abroad, yeah there are some things that still need to be corrected here, but in America we enjoy a very high level of equality and free speech. I’d argue most of the fight is already over, and rather than spending 50% of our effort on the last 10% of things that would make everyone “equal” here and 50% on a place that still has 99% of their battle to fight, I’d rather focus more where the focus is needed more.
Sorry I haven’t been commenting (and won’t be commenting much in the future), I’m very busy with my day job (and will be busy through August, alas).
I think I addressed the “what you care about is too petty to be worth discussing” criticism pretty sufficiently in this post from 2006. I’m going to quote extensively from that post in this comment.
Kai writes, “The concept doesn’t work an individual level, I’m white, male, and straight, but I have had personal disadvantages and advantages in my life that I had no control over that make these subjective lists invalid in assessing my relative ‘privilege’. ”
As the introduction to the list, which I guess Kai didn’t read, says, “Obviously, there are individual exceptions to most problems discussed on the list. The existence of individual exceptions does not mean that general problems are not a concern.”
The point of the list is not to describe your individual situation, Kai. It’s meant to be a tool for making general sexism against women more visible, not a tool for individual self-assessment. Quoting myself from the 2006 post:
Regarding the pettiness charge, I think your standards are unreasonable. Is there anyone who ignores all local issues so long as, somewhere in the world, someone is suffering worse? Pretty much anyone who isn’t concentrating full-time on global warming and genocide can legitimately be said to be using their time on something other than the most immediately pressing issue in the world today.
Not only is it an inevitable human condition that most people are interested in analyzing what happens in their daily lives, it’s probably a good thing. A feminist movement that considers day-to-day sexism too petty to ever discuss would be ivory-tower and snobby. A well-rounded feminism – like a well-rounded life – should include many concerns and many approaches. The demand that we ignore “petty” local issues is a demand that we stop acting like human beings.
Another question for you, Kai: Why do you think you have the perspective to declare what is and isn’t important for other people’s discussions? Why do you think it’s a good idea for you to be policing what we talk about?
Judging from what you say, I’d bet you’d say weight is a petty issue, but I doubt the parents of anorexia patients would agree. If a woman spends her entire life feeling inadequate and wrong because of her weight, that’s not Rwanda, but neither is it nothing. Makeup seems less like a petty issue when you consider that women have been fired from their jobs for not wearing it. And so on. Similar responses could be made for most of the other issues you consider petty.
Even seemingly small problems can build up over time, and cause significant distress. A small wage gap can build up to enormous amounts of money over many paychecks; the endless social pressure to put on unwanted makeup or heels or to cover up or to expose can, for some women, build up into significant sources of stress and distress. Do these issues bother everybody? No. But they harm some people, and are therefore worth discussing.
Another perspective: He’s very busy with his day job and will be busy through August — hurray!
Kai:
And yet, here you are, arguing about privilege.
Are you writing from somewhere in the field, where you are working diligently against genocide? Because apparently your efforts would make much larger strides doing work like that.
However, I would not dream of telling you what you should be spending your time on. It’s your life; spend it as you please, even if what pleases you is telling other people what should and should not matter to them.
Grace
Grace, I’m not arguing about who is or isn’t privileged as my main point of contention, and Ampersand, you didn’t address my largest concern with the main topic either. The largest assertion I’m making is that subjective privilege lists serve to further compartmentalize people, and it creates a victim/aggressor mentality that can only create further hostility between groups that should be banding together to take care of what equality issues we have left. I was primarily using the example of being born in a 1st world country to show that privilege lists are a flawed concept in many facets.
I also never made an assertion that the issues we do still face are petty, more so that they are a result of individual variables mixed with tones of sexism and racism and using generalizations and trying to fight these issues on a broad plane is ineffective.
So my question on-topic is, do either of you who have responded to me think these lists are productive, despite their subjective nature, their potential for antagonism/victimization and or the support of a “I’m not a part of the problem” attitude, and the fact that they all center around singe-facet concepts that are overdetermined?
Kai:
So… we’re only allowed to comment on the central point of your main thesis? Does this rule apply to you, too? Because you haven’t been following it.
More than two people have responded to you.
I’m reluctant to spend time answering your question, when Ampersand already responded at length and you have ignored the substance of what he said entirely. I’m not sure why you think anyone should reply, when you’re not engaging meaningfully.
But what the heck, I’ll answer your question and see if you engage meaningfully after that.
Yes, I think these lists are productive. When I first came across them, thinking about them helped me to own my own privilege, which helped with my own self-directed growth and development. For one thing, it prompted me to shut up and listen more, especially when people were relating life experiences which I did not share.
When we focus on one aspect (like male privilege, for instance), we can bear in mind that there are other aspects which are real and meaningful, and which combine with male privilege in different ways. You seem to be arguing that we cannot focus on one thing because something else is so much more important. But of course we can focus on one thing, the better to understand it, without ignoring everything else even if we don’t mention everything else while we’re focusing on the one thing. You can talk about, oh, genetics, for instance, without always mentioning evolution, and still keep the existence of evolution in mind. Not every legal discussion has to mention all related statutes. You can talk about soccer (football, for those of you in the majority) without forgetting that shinty exists, and also without mentioning it.
No one here has disagreed with you when you say that first-world people are hugely privileged in many ways over second- and third-world people. Of course we are. It’s obvious. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s plenty of work to do at home.
And work at home is really what privilege lists are all about. You can’t force someone else to recognize his own privilege, as the comments to this post have proven over and over again. Privilege lists are a tool, flawed but useful for all that, to help you work on yourself, and for other people to point out when they believe that your refusal to look at your own privilege is hampering you in understanding them in a particular case. For those uses, the concept of privilege, and the lists which help illustrate it, are useful and productive.
Grace
I disagree, and since you seem to dislike the way I present myself and my arguments, I won’t burden you with them anymore. I will say that you’ve not given off the air of someone who is very tolerant or welcoming of experiences and perspectives that are not your own though.
Kai:
That’s certainly your privilege.
Kai:
I should have replied with sweetness and light to the following example of tolerance and welcome?
Kai:
No.
You want to behave like that, and enjoy the privilege of no consequence? No. Here, the consequence is very mild: people responded to your challenge with their own opinions and counterarguments, and pointed out some logical flaws in your assertions. If you have little stomach for that, then fare you well.
I challenged your ideas, however contemptuously you presented them, and I spent significant time trying to do it well, time which I could have spent doing other things. So did Ampersand. Your response is to flounce away, and over your shoulder, tell me that I should have welcomed your aggression.
No. I decline to be a doormat.
Grace
What Grace said! :-p
I really liked your comment #469, btw, Grace.
I shared my opinion, and my initial response was aggressive, mostly because I’m getting pretty tired of people constantly saying *I’m* the problem because I happen to be male/white/straight. The most common thing I’ve seen done with these lists is to play a blame game, not reflect personally. I’m annoyed at their misuse, and for the reasons I’ve asserted I don’t see them as helpful.
You disagree, and as it is on the internet, two people with strong and opposing opinions will never reach a consensus, so I didn’t see a continuing conversation as productive. And if you disliked my initial aggression, maybe returning it wasn’t the best course of action, maybe I’ve simply had a different experience than you regarding the subject. I’m glad you’ve personally been able to use something like this for a positive thing, but all I’ve seen them do is make people focus on how we’re all different, and not how we’re alike.
No one here has said anything like that, Kai.
You’re welcome to stick around and keep discussing things if you want, Kai — but please try to treat others here with civility and respect. Thanks.
Huh.
I actually thought you were female. (“Kai” isn’t something I recognized as a male name offhand. And I certainly had no idea you were white (“Kai” again) and didn’t really care much whether you were straight.
On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. But they can still think you’re an imbecile based on what you post.
Kai:
People who are male/white/straight are not the problem.
People who are male/white/straight and who refuse to acknowledge that this gives them a relative advantage in many ways which are difficult to see – they are a problem. They are part of The Problem, if there must be just one Problem.
People noticing how they are the same, or similar, is a wonderful thing. It’s the basis of much communal activity, including worship services. It’s the foundation and roof of most friendships.
But as a tool for trying to suss out inequities in a system, it’s a non-starter. As you have observed, we do not interact on a level playing field. Some people travel on nice, paved roads, while others work their way through a swamp.
You can’t look at why one person is on a paved road while another is in a swamp without examining differences.
That’s why privilege looks at differences. Yes, we’re all travelling. Yes, we all need food, and shelter. But these commonalities don’t explain why person A is strolling twenty miles per day and playing poker over cocktails in the evening while person B is bushwhacking five miles per day and falling asleep, exhausted, at midnight.
It seems to me that you’re taking it personally when someone points out that you’re walking on a paved road. You want to point out that the paving is cracked and buckled, and you still get stones in your shoe sometimes, and that you get a lot more sunburned, out in the open, than those people in the swamps. That’s all true – not every single advantage accrues to you, and you still have difficulties to contend with in your life.
But what really chaps the hide of the person in the swamp is when the person on the road says, “There’s no swamp. I’m just moving faster because I’m me and you’re you.”
Sometimes, the person in the swamp is able to get the person on the road to acknowledge the difference in terrain, and then we get to see the second line of defense: “You know, I can’t help it that I’m on a road and you’re in a swamp. I had nothing to do with it. And therefore it doesn’t count.”
Now you’ve introduced an alternate defense strategy: “Sure, I’m on a road and you’re wading in a swamp, but that’s trivial compared to the people over there. They’re in a freakin’ desert! They have NO FOOD AND WATER. You’ve got animal protein all around you, and water dripping gently off the soft Spanish moss which hangs from those picturesque cypress trees! You have it easy!”
And the person in the swamp keeps an eye on the animal protein to see if it’s going to bite, and gets soaked to the skin by the gently dripping water, and tries to figure out where it’s safe to step next, and in her spare time gets pretty irritated with you.
So my guess is that you’re hearing some of that, and taking it personally. And for the person in the swamp, it may be a lot more personal than it is for you. Because, here’s an important thing which happens when we refuse to acknowledge that privilege matters: we still try to explain the different outcomes, and since we’re not talking about the playing field, we start talking about the players. “That guy on the road is awesome! Twenty miles a day! That’s amazing! OF COURSE you should hire him for your courier service instead of that person in the swamp! She only goes five miles a day – pffft.”
Now, I ask you, how is the person in the swamp not supposed to take that personally? People are making judgements about her person. Of course she takes it personally. My guess is that you’re hearing that anger, and you don’t like it, because you didn’t do anything to earn it.
Well, it turns out that you did. When someone pointed out that you’re on a better part of the playing field, you tried to avoid acknowledging your own relative privilege by pointing out that someone else has it even worse. That’s what earns the anger. It’s not the unearned advantage. It’s the effort to camouflage the unearned advantage, and if there’s no unearned advantage, then your advantage must have been earned, right? When you refuse to acknowledge privilege, the necessary implication is that you are a better person.
You may be sick and tired of people pointing out that you have an advantage. I’m sure that’s tiresome. They probably find it at least as tiresome that you get credit for being a better person when a significant part of your relative success is that fate put you on the high ground.
I know that when I started looking, actively, for those tricky spots where my privilege has helped me, one of the results was that I paid more attention to individual people, and what they did with what they had, rather than focusing mostly on results. It made a difference; some people started treating me more nicely, too. It was uncomfortable and humbling – turns out I’m just not as all-around nifty as I used to think I was. But it worked for me. Maybe it would work for you.
Grace
When you refuse to acknowledge privilege, the necessary implication is that you are a better person.
I wonder if what seems to be refusal comes from the seeming that idea that once someone declares something is a privilege there is no way that declaration can be wrong, lest the one saying its not a privilege be called a privilege denier.
Why don’t we all just grab the privileges we have hold them tight and make due with them?
I mean I am not sure what the goal of this whole privilege awareness campaign is, but it doesn’t seem to be doing much besides creating a group of deniers.
Wonderful privilege analogy.
The comments are fascinating, and even with Scalzi wielding a banhammer with enthusiasm, many of them are like having your entree with a side of maggots. But there are some gems from contributors people here might recognize…
Grace
Oh, and there’s this gem, from someone who has written a bit about privilege in the past.
Grace
I disagree with that analogy for the same reason I disagree with yours above, it’s exaggerated.
It’s not the difference between a nice clean safe paved road and a dangerous swamp, it’s small percentages of variables and statistics here and there. For the game analogy, “Male” again covers just one variable. So let’s say that variable contributes to a number of over-all “difficulty”, low numbers being easy high numbers being hard. You pick male, and as the only variable yet placed, you get a 300 out of a possible 1000. Pretty easy, then you pick born in a first world country and that knocks it way down to 50, then you pick born to poor parents, that ramps it back up a bit to 250 (since poor is relative to where you’re born), then you pick homosexual, and that bumps it to 350, then you pick intelligent and that takes it back down to 300, and the more variables you add the less weight each has to that numbered difficulty. In the end having chose “female” at the beginning would end up in a 20-50 point difficulty difference by the time all the variables that are “you” come together.
You’ve made the assertion that due to variables that I can’t control, it’s okay for people to be mad at me. That’s not right, and that’s what I dislike about this concept, it’s intrinsically negative. The assertion is made that if I don’t accept that I’m so privileged then I’m a part of the problem, even though “male”, “white” or “straight” have actually fairly little to do with how easy or hard my life has been compared to another. Sure, if you compare things in a vacuum then statistically the isolated variables of being male and female are not equal, and yes, that should be fixed. But the assertion that those variables are so huge that I should feel guilt over things I can’t control, and take whatever anger comes my way for who I am, is ridiculous.
I don’t believe that she did make that assertion.
However, perhaps I’m mistaken.
To settle the matter, please quote where she said that. (Note that whether or not you deny you have privilege is an variable you can control.)
“Now, I ask you, how is the person in the swamp not supposed to take that personally? People are making judgements about her person. Of course she takes it personally. My guess is that you’re hearing that anger, and you don’t like it, because you didn’t do anything to earn it.
Well, it turns out that you did.”
That makes the assertion that any anger someone can feel from being underprivileged is justified, and the sublimation of that anger on to whatever demographic they feel is generally the problem or the oppressor is fine. Somehow I do something to deserve that anger without doing anything, if I don’t accept every facet of my “privilege” and treat it like a burden then anyone who is underprivileged on any one of those facets is totally justified in being angry at my demographic.
Kai, that’s not what it says. At all.
In the analogy, the person in the swamp (underprivileged) takes it personally, gets angry, totally fine and justified, I (apparent person on the road) take that anger personally, not fine. How does that not support the conclusion I game to about that passage?
It is, isn’t it? It’s pretty good that no-one asserted it, then.
Acknowledging one’s privileges is not the same as feeling guilty for them. Or for allowing other people to express anger at you for them. You should read the comment by Mary Anne Mohanraj that Grace linked to in @480. There’s no anger or guilt implied there.
I’ve been extremely privileged my entire life. I’ve been born male, white, straight, grew up an Ashkenazi Jew in Israel to a family that was both affluent and supportive. I don’t feel guilty for any of that. I don’t feel guilty for anything I achieved. But I also don’t feel that my demographics only benefited me in the ways that are obvious to me. And I don’t at all feel that understanding more about how I benefited in any way diminishes me. And in many small ways, understanding my privilege means that I can, with very little effort, change behaviours that were doing nothing to help me but were making life harder for people around me.
Most of the media I’ve found regarding “privilege” is some pretty hateful stuff, yeah there are exceptions but I really do feel like the concept generates more anger than compassion. I just think it’s another way for people to distance themselves from each other by demographic. The assertion that I should feel guilt over my demographic comes from that media wave around this buzzword “privilege”. Just look up the phrase “cis scum” to see what I mean.
As for the second portion of your post, it presumes that people who don’t go through a process of “accepting their own privilege” are somehow unconsciously acting negligently toward people who aren’t privileged in the same way they are. I disagree with that, I don’t see myself as more or less privileged that nearly all the people I encounter here in America. That doesn’t prevent me from being compassionate, recognizing general inequality, and not taking what I have for granted.
And that’s the premise that these lists/assertion function under.
Kai – the anger in Grace’s analogy isn’t directed at you because you were on the road. It’s because you’re pretending that the swamp doesn’t exist.
I think there’s an underlying issue here that can also be seen in a *lot* of the comments on Scalzi’s post. A lot of people seem to be working from the assumption that there’s an inverse relationship between advantage and moral standing. That being privileged is somehow *in and of itself* something other people are justified in getting angry at you for.
If you assume that, then it’s natural to want to deny or trivialize any advantage, as admitting to an advantage is the same as admitting a moral failure.
But that’s questioning the wrong thing. Part of acknowledging one’s privileges is acknowledging it’s possible to have advantages that one in no way is responsible for, they just benefit from being born to the right group at the right time. No one is asking for you to feel guilty or to accept the anger of others. They’re asking you to stop trying to hide from the inequalities inherent in the world we live in.
But I already don’t. That’s what I’m asserting, the process of “accepting one’s privilege” is artifice, it’s not necessary to the process of seeing inequality, being compassionate, and making a difference in your own life. As I said, I don’t see many people in the country I live in as more or less privileged than me, I simply see situations or variables here and there that aren’t equal. One does not need to take inventory of their life, noting down what they didn’t earn because of who they are, to be capable of compassion.
That is true. And that’s not what people are asking you to do. You seem to be arguing against a notion of “accepting/acknowledging one’s privilege” that has little to do with what that actually means. I don’t think you’re deliberately trying to create a strawman so much as you just aren’t willing to budge from your pre-conceived notions of what this thread is about. The result, however, is the same.
That’s what these lists are, calls to people that fit a facet of a demographic to “check their privilege”, I have issues with them because they are entirely subjective, and the places that they tend to be posted/used espouse them as exactly that, necessary to the process of attaining equality.
The list at the top of the page confronts all males, says “you have all these things over anyone that isn’t male”, and many of them could easily be entirely false. This doesn’t victimize women, but it does make the assertion that I don’t deserve a significant chunk of what I have in life, and that feeling is suppose to provoke me into being more compassionate and understanding.
I don’t think it has anything to do with what you do or don’t “deserve.” I mean, the fact that you’re much less likely to be raped, sexually harassed, or assumed to be incompetent based on your sex are not things you don’t deserve–they’re just things that women *also* deserve.
As far as job discrimination, it’s much more about probabilities than individual situations. It’s entirely possible that you were far and away the best candidate for every job you’ve ever gotten. It’s also possible that there was a better qualified woman who didn’t get hired on the presumption that she’d need too much time off with her kids. There’s no way to know in that kind of individual detail.
To use Grace’s analogy, no one is saying that you deserve to be in the swamp, more that the fact that you’re on the road *in and of itself* is not something that you earned. It’s therefore not appropriate to brag about how much quicker you’re going than those slackers in the swamp, because you’re just a better, harder working person than them.
Can you explain how those are functionally different?
Privilege theory doesn’t stop at the list . It doesn’t just say “oh, you’re privileged.” It also contains the NEXT part of the sentence: “therefore you shouldn’t talk/get hired/decline to give away your stuff/disagree/etc.”
Imagine that Joe says “check your privilege” and Mary responds “Yep, no change. Now, as I was saying….” We both know that isn’t the “appropriate” response; why do folks deny that this is about specific changes in behavior?
Do you not see the problem here?
Some poor people are poor only because of their circumstances: they’re inherently smart and hard working and motivated, but don’t have the right starting point to succeed.
Some rich people are rich only because of their circumstances: they’re inherently stupid and lazy and unmotivated, but they got a leg up on everyone else, at birth.
But take someone who is in the top 10% of personal ability and who is born rich. They’re in the top 10%, which has nothing to do with their starting point: even if everyone else was born rich, they’d still be in the top 10%. (If they were born poor, however, they might not make it at all.) It’s incorrect (and a bit insulting) to imply that the only reason–or even the main reason–that they’re more successful than almost everyone else, is that they’re “walking a smooth road.”
Or, to put it a different way: Privilege provides the biggest marginal benefit to slackers.
Neither you or anyone else is a particularly effective handicapper. Do you think that you can look at Kai and figure out how much of his success is due to his birth, and how much is due to his ability? (Of course not.) When you assume that someone is mostly successful because of their privilege, it’s simply the opposite side of the coin to someone assuming that all poor folks are just lazy slackers that didn’t try.
I’m baffled that you think they are functionally the same. Acknowledging that I didn’t get screwed unfairly in certain ways doesn’t require me to feel guilty. It doesn’t require me to say “yes, I am a horrible, privileged person” whenever someone who has had to overcome roadblock I didn’t points that out.
It provides plenty of benefit to non-slackers; your argument that the hard-working ten percent only got where they were because of privilege is misleading, as I think you know.
And are you really making the argument that because we cannot quantify how privilege has affected a particular Internet poster, it’s impossible to talk about privilege in general, or to observe how it works on a larger scale? You and the science of economics might have a bone to pick, then.
I’m not particularly well read in priviledge theory – most of what I learnt of it, I learnt from reading this blog and other writings by contributers here. I have yet to see someone suggest that because I am privileged, I should be giving up jobs or my possessions or anything else. I may have missed it; and there could well be parts of privilege theory that go beyond my knowledge – and it’s quite possible I would disagree with those parts.
But Kai has been quite explicit that his criticism is a criticism of the lists themselves, not of unstated parts of privilege theory. And the lists are *not* about what’s “deserved”, or about guilt. They’re about awareness of the circumstances of other people.
The point of “check your privilege”, as far as I am concerned, is not to get someone to say “you’re right, I am privileged, let me give up what I have to balance the ledger”. It is to get people to understand that what they experienced is not the same as what others experienced, and that the world doesn’t look the same from every vantage point.
Because it’s not. At least not in the way you mean it.
As I’ve said above, I’ve had lots of advantages in life. Some of them were unfair. Others I consider fair, though maybe not everyone would agree. Acknowledging this fact does not place me under any moral obligations, just like it doesn’t make me somehow inferior to the people who didn’t have those advantages. I still get to make my own moral choices. But recognizing that not everyone is the same as me informs me and helps me make those choices.
Now it’s my turn to ask you for an explanation: explain to me what’s the difference between your criticism and the statement “If I’m aware that I have an advantage, I feel like I need to do something about it which may be inconvenient, so the only way to keep the status quo is to remain ignorant”.
But I didn’t make that argument, at all! How are you getting here?
My point is that folks like to look at Joe and say “Joe, you’re only where you are due to privilege.” That’s a bit like shooting ducks in the dark. We don’t know–can’t know–what privileges Joe has had or lost throughout Joe’s life, and we can’t know where Joe should be.
No, of course not…. so long as we apply the normal “groups are not individuals” theory. Things which apply to a group on average need not apply to individuals–in fact, it’s often ludicrous to assume that they do.
In practice, that’s not how it works w/r/t privilege theory. As applied in practice, there’s a root assumption that those things apply to every male. The average gets applied to individuals. That is a problem.
Yes.
Look: you can’t treat everyone equally if you want to change the status quo. When you talk about privilege, you talk about “unearned” benefits. The goal of privilege theory is either to take those away, or to give them to everyone. In either case, the function is the same: to fix the problem, privileged folks either need to selectively give up benefits, or they need to be selectively excluded from benefits that are made available to others. Some folks believe the change should be voluntary. Some folks believe it should be forced.
[shrug] relatively inaccurate ones, then. I wonder sometimes if this is a semantic debate.
Would you agree to revise the list (not that it’s yours) to add modifiers like “Often” or “usually” or “sometimes more frequently”? THAT would be an accurate list.
If it says “If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent” then it’s no surprise that people object.
Replace it with “If I have children and provide primary care for them, then in most cases I’ll be praised for my parenting skills if I’m even marginally competent, often because people assume that I wouldn’t be a good parent and are surprised that I can do it” and you’ll have fewer objections.
Bollocks. That phrase is almost universally used to shut down a competing opinion in an argument, and/or to make the listener agree.
Nothing wrong with this. But this happens in a lot of conversations. And of course it is also somewhat universal. If you have more privilege than I do, that doesn’t make your perspective worse–just different. Sometimes it’s harmful; sometimes it’s valuable.
None? Not even those arising from convention?
If we’re trying to figure out how to pay the rent that month, it wouldn’t affect the morality for me to point out that you keep 100,000 in cash under your bed, as a present from your father?
Of course it would. And if I wanted you to pay more than half the rent, that’s why I would point it out. There is no other reason that I would choose to discuss your box ‘o cash at that very point in time, other than to attempt to create an obligation for you to use it.
Sure: There are lots of things which I know, and process subconsciously. I’m not ignorant of many of my privileges, for example (I’m sure I am of many others…) But “not ignorant” doesn’t mean that I think about them all the time; that I prioritize all of them them in all of my decision making, and/or that I agree with any particular person about the relative scope of what they’ve done for me.
There are certain circumstances where I think about that a lot, and others where I don’t. But I’m generally a better judge of myself than you are: if you try to prioritize a particular claim of privilege w/r/t a specific topic as a means of gaining conversational advantage, that’s often a problem.
Does that explain it?
I’m having trouble with the underlying premise that there’s some sort of happily objective “just help Joe understand and leave him to his own moral outcome” thing going on. OK, more than “trouble”: I think it’s bullshit.
Pretty much all of the time that someone tells Joe to check his privilege, or points out Joe’s privilege, it’s because they want something from Joe. They may want Joe to back down. They may want Joe to give up something of his, or cede control. They may want something else entirely. But the goal is to help someone, or something, other than Joe.
That’s fine. Most of us have conflicting needs and desires. But what annoys the heck out of me is the pretense that it’s NOT about getting something, as in the rent example above.
There’s a difference between giving up a privilege and giving up what has been attained so far by that privilege. If I discovered that in my workplace, a woman with the same job description and seniority had a lower salary than me, I would support a move to equalize our pay. I wouldn’t write her a cheque for the money I’ve already accumulated that she hasn’t been able to.
That does not correspond to my experience of people telling other people to check their assumptions. Normally, from what I’ve seen, if someone tells Joe to check their privilege, it’s because Joe had just made an argument that would be invalid for someone without the privilege and didn’t take that into account.
I’m not saying that there aren’t people who use privilege-checking as a way to shut people up, or as a way to score a cheap point in an argument. But that’s not a particular propery of privilege-checking – almost every ideological position can be (and is being) used in that way. The fact that most people are rather bad at having civilised discussions either invalidates all viewpoints, or none.
And, perhaps more salient to this thread and Scalzi’s as well, it’s also not appropriate to say “swamp? What swamp? I don’t see any swamp. I’m not interested in swamps. I want to talk about the problems with this road I’m on, because it really needs to be paved. You people yelling about swamps just want me to feel bad and ignore my road issues! Now, about my road…”
Which of these three would get your support?
1) lowering your pay to match hers;
2) Giving her half of the difference between your pay and hers;
3) raising her pay to match yours. (This is pretty much a given.)
I’m not suggesting that you should do so, but I’m curious: how/why do you distinguish between those two things? (I generally share that view, FYI, mostly because we have to draw a line somewhere, and in most cases the distinction between future/past is a better choice than the usual alternatives.)
To me, these are crucially different things.
It’s pretty much always reasonable to talk about the assumptions underlying an argument. “In your support of voter registration, you appear to be assuming that everyone can get a government ID. Are you aware that , taking into account availability, cost, and travel time, 20% of eligible voters state that they cannot afford the time and/or money to do so?”
Privilege is a subcategory of assumptions. Categorizing an assumption as arising from privilege contains an implicit claim of impropriety, that you’re not “supposed” to have made it. It also carries an assumption that the lack of knowledge actually relates to privilege. Of those 20% of eligible voters, how many of them would know the 20% figure? Of the people in the state, how many of them? It’s privileged if you don’t know that people in the U.S. go hungry each day; it’s not privileged if you fail to be up on the latest news posted on anti-hunger blogs.
You just repeated it in @496: stating that others ‘imply’ or in fact actually say that people with privilege only got where they are because of privilege. Which “folks” are these? Do they, in fact, tell Joe that privilege was the sole or overriding reason for his success? Or are we back to the difference between imply and infer, where folks tell Joe “you benefit from privilege”, and what Joe chooses to hear is “everything you have is because of privilege, and your hard work counts for shit”?
(I’m setting aside cases which I think we would all agree are in fact only about privilege, say where Joe gets his job because he’s the boss’ kid.)
re @499, I’m baffled that you leave out the person who should be remedying the effects of the mistreatment – that is, Eytan’s boss. Why should Eytan be making up for the lower pay, instead of insisting that the employer do so, even if that cuts into the employer’s profits?