An Unabashed Imitation of an article by Peggy McIntosh
In 1990, Wellesley College professor Peggy McIntosh wrote an essay called “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. McIntosh observes that whites in the U.S. are “taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.” To illustrate these invisible systems, McIntosh wrote a list of 26 invisible privileges whites benefit from.
As McIntosh points out, men also tend to be unaware of their own privileges as men. In the spirit of McIntosh’s essay, I thought I’d compile a list similar to McIntosh’s, focusing on the invisible privileges benefiting men.
Due to my own limitations, this list is unavoidably U.S. centric. I hope that writers from other cultures will create new lists, or modify this one, to reflect their own experiences.
Since I first compiled it, the list has been posted many times on internet discussion groups. Very helpfully, many people have suggested additions to the checklist. More commonly, of course, critics (usually, but not exclusively, male) have pointed out men have disadvantages too – being drafted into the army, being expected to suppress emotions, and so on. These are indeed bad things – but I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes.
Obviously, there are individual exceptions to most problems discussed on the list. The existence of individual exceptions does not mean that general problems are not a concern.
Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases – from a boy being bullied in school, to soldiers selecting male civilians to be executed, to male workers dying of exposure to unsafe chemicals – the sexist society that maintains male privilege also immeasurably harms boys and men.
However, although I don’t deny that men suffer, this post is focused on advantages men experience.
Several critics have also argued that the list somehow victimizes women. I disagree; pointing out problems is not the same as perpetuating them. It is not a “victimizing” position to acknowledge that injustice exists; on the contrary, without that acknowledgment it isn’t possible to fight injustice.
An internet acquaintance of mine once wrote, “The first big privilege which whites, males, people in upper economic classes, the able bodied, the straight (I think one or two of those will cover most of us) can work to alleviate is the privilege to be oblivious to privilege.” This checklist is, I hope, a step towards helping men to give up the “first big privilege.”
The Male Privilege Checklist
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).
8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).
12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.
21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).
25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability. (More).
26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).
27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).
28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).
29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.
37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).
39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.
40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).
43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).
44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.” (More: 1 2).
45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)
45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men. (More.)
46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
(Compiled by Barry Deutsch, aka “Ampersand.” Permission is granted to reproduce this list in any way, for any purpose, so long as the acknowledgment of Peggy McIntosh’s work is not removed. If possible, I’d appreciate it if folks who use it would tell me how they used it; my email is barry.deutsch@gmail.com.)
(This is an occasionally updated document; the most current version of The Male Privilege Checklist can always be found at https://amptoons.com/blog/?page_id=2402 . The views expressed here, which I started writing in 2001, unavoidably fail to precisely express my current views; that’s life, isn’t it? To see posts discussing the Male Privilege Checklist and various items on it, please visit this archive page).
Related links
For another feminist list with a different thematic approach, see Andrea Rubenstein’s “Think We’ve Already Achieved Equality? Think Again.”
Pingback: Campaign to Attack White Privilege in America - Page 39
I stopped reading after about 5 points.
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.
“Probably” is right. If both competitors have the same education, and it is a male doing the hiring, it’s a safe bet that the woman has the better shot.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).
Sure, this is a valid point.
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
Huh? As if a woman of the same education is less likely to get a promotion. Based on what? 1950’s data?
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.
The very idea that you entertain this notion makes me question who’s the real sexist. As if anyone would think such a thing, and if they did – who cares. They’d be hard pressed to make a bigger generalization, so they are clearly not very smart.
5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).
Women are also far more likely to get promoted based on your sex. You can’t say one exists and not the other.
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.
Once again, based on what? Is there data? This is entirely opinion.
7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).
8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.
And men are much more likely to be ‘treated’ like sexual criminals without cause. Whenever people make pedophilia jokes, its never some 40 year old “woman” in a van.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
True, but if a woman avoids sex, she is seen as pure, if a man avoids sex he is seen as a loser virgin nerd etc etc.
I’m not going to go through the entire list because these points are just bad. There isn’t a “male privilage”, but there are male privilages. As there are FEMALE privilages. Wake the fuck up.
I notice that lots of the alleged male privileges here are really based on a female privilege.
Kind of like, “after I get hired based on affirmative action for women, someone may think that I got hired based on affirmative action”.
Or “after I am the 4th woman in a row to just quit the job and become a stay-at-home wife – which men can’t do as easily – the boss may wonder about the 5th woman applying for the job”.
There is also a difference in effects. On the women’s side, someone may think that she is a certain way because she is a woman. On the man’s side, there are things like being much more likely to die on the job, much more likely – if there were an attack on the United States – to be drafted, put into combat and killed. I personally know a guy who had his finger cut off by a saw at work, and a guy who was drafted, shot down in an airplane over Vietnam and held captive and tortured.
There is a one-sided way of viewing these things that I also suffered from when I was young. I saw very good looking women getting everything they wanted. I saw myself having to work, and women being able to quit work and leech off a man. I saw women left and right with advantages over men.
But I didn’t have the empathy to see that women may also have disadvantages. I saw how good looking women manipulated, but plainer women were absolutely invisible to me.
That’s going on here and in some feminist circles to some extent. I know that almost all Fortune 500 CEOs are men, but there are only about 500 of those jobs. If the distribution of intelligence and other abilities among men is flatter – with longer tails in the distribution curve – then the very peak positions are going to be filled with men. The very lowest positions as well – homeless, day laborer, stupid criminal.
“…On the man’s side, there are things like being much more likely to die on the job, much more likely – if there were an attack on the United States – to be drafted, put into combat and killed. I personally know a guy who had his finger cut off by a saw at work, and a guy who was drafted, shot down in an airplane over Vietnam and held captive and tortured….”
I work in a military setting in DC. I work all around soldiers in the US Military. Most women I have spoken to about it would like the opportunity to go to combat and give it all they have. And many would be willing to die for their country. But they aren’t allowed to fight, because of their gender. So you can’t really say it’s sexism against men that only men die for their country in combat, when men make the rules about it, and when women are willing to do the same.
Meghan,
Well, maybe. Mixing men and women in combat opens up a whole can of worms about combat readiness. I hear anecdotal stories, though, about the pregnancy rate going way up among women who ARE sent to combat zones, although they wouldn’t be on the front line. Not too many people really want to be shot at – I don’t, and you probably don’t either.
“… when men make the rules about it …”: I think you’ve got to start getting past that old saw. The majority of voters are women, and they are voting in people, not just men today, who are making these rules. Whether the face of that voting power is male or female, the voting power is female.
I noticed that you just focus on combat deaths. Industrial deaths, injuries and the like occur at an overwhelmingly higher rate vis-a-vis combat deaths. Those deaths and injuries are almost all men. Roofers, fishermen, coal miners, fire fighters, policemen, people working with heavy industrial equipment … that’s almost exclusively male. Those are somewhat higher paying jobs – compared to minimum wage, which they would otherwise be earning with little in the way of skills – and lots of men still feel societal pressure to “provide for” a family. Lots of women – although probably not here on a feminist Web site – also have the expectation that a man will support them.
I’m just writing this to contrast it with the male privilege checklist. I think “checklists” like that are divisive, but I guess if they are going to exist we should go to the truth of the matter.
I would personally (not that anyone listens to me, lol) be in favor of putting women into combat and opening up every single role as long as US interference stays on the level of being a bully and pushing people around in the world. I would ideally not like to see those kinds of military actions at all.
But if China and Russia ganged up and decided to truly launch an offensive against the United States, on United States soil, I think the military would have to be EFFECTIVE, not politically correct. If it’s true that the standards had to be reduced so far on average for women that simply throwing a hand grenade would kill the woman throwing it – because the average female recruit doesn’t have enough strength to throw it far enough – and if women in combat units provoke ineffectiveness because of innate male chivalry – I would think twice about putting women into combat.
If it’s true that the standards had to be reduced so far on average for women that simply throwing a hand grenade would kill the woman throwing it
If it’s true that Grandma was secretly male, she’d be Grandpa.
The US military scales its physical fitness test scores not only by gender, but by age. Funnily, we never hear hand-wringing about “but can 40-year-olds do the job?” or “I don’t want to be next to some guy in his late 30s who can’t carry a load the way the 18-year-olds do.” That’s probably because the physical fitness requirements are not absolutes (i.e., how strong/fast/fit do you need to be for a particular MOS?) but are intended to make sure that soldiers are in peak physical shape for their age and gender.
Men start out in the military as grunts who do the most physical labor. As they grow older, they gain experience.
If the women have neither the physical strength nor the experience of years in the military – and many or most can NEVER throw a hand grenade at any point in their life – that’s a different issue.
There’s also the aspect: Do you think that most 25-year-old women at the peak of their physical prowess can kick the ass of a 45-year-old male master sergeant if older men are so deficient physically? I’d appreciate an answer without weaseling or conditions or ancillary matters, although I won’t get one. I guess you can object due to vagueness and harassment and client privilege or whatever you can dream up or copy from interrogatory answers.
But as I said above, as long as we stick with bullying tiny, unequipped nations, I’m all for political correctness in the military. In that case, men *should* be propping up women and making everything equal.
And how about that thing above – strangely enough also ignored by you – about industrial deaths, which vastly overwhelm combat deaths, being almost exclusively male. Surely there’s a way to turn a tortured, horrible death after falling into a vat of industrial chemicals into a male privilege.
I’d appreciate an answer without weaseling or conditions or ancillary matters, although I won’t get one.
Do you think most 25-year-old men at the peak of their physical prowess could kick the ass of a 45-year-old master sergeant? I don’t.
If older men are not so deficient physically, why does the military lower its standards for them? Why doesn’t our 45-year-old master sergeant have to meet the same requirements for pushups, situps and the two-mile run that a 25-year-old recruit does? I’d appreciate an answer without weaseling or conditions or ancillary matters, although I won’t get one.
As for industrial accidents, Amp’s already discussed – at length – elsewhere here why workplace dangers rise with a lack of regulation and union representation. But maybe you think a vat of acid really cares about the gender of the person who falls into it.
The 45 year old master sergeant has mental skills and leadership skills that are vastly superior to the 25-year old, because he has 20 more years of experience in the job. So the physical standards attenuate over time to remain achievable by a physically fit person of the appropriate age. Women qua women do not have the innate advantage created by age/wisdom/experience, so the same justification cannot be used.
The justification that can be used is that military service requires physical fitness. Fitness, however, varies with somatype. A physically fit 125-pound woman and a physically fit 200-pound man do not have the same physical abilities, though there will be significant overlap. So I do not have a problem with there being different standards; there is a biological difference. If it was 1200 AD and being a soldier was primarily about upper-body strength, then I’d be open to the idea that “hey, chicks just ain’t got what it takes”. Most wouldn’t. But today soldiers need brains and a warrior spirit, much more than they need to be able to bench-press X pounds. There is no particular reason to think women have less of either of those than men, at least in potentia; my own daughter, for one, will gut you like a fish if you cross her.
If I was designing a military – and don’t think I wouldn’t! – then I would, however, have one physical standard for ordinary troops, and another standard for combat troops, and I would not care if 1% of women could achieve it, or 99%; I would set the standard by the needs of combat in the present era.
The idea, by the way, that women cannot throw a hand grenade far enough to save their own life is PROFOUNDLY RETARDED. A standard M67 hand grenade weighs 14 ounces. It has a lethal radius of 5 meters, and an effective fragmentation radius of 15 meters. The average male soldier can throw one 30 to 35 meters. Women athletes, in general, throw things about 3/4 as far as a man does; that’s quite far enough to avoid dying in the blast.
I believe Mr. Chicks-Can’t-Fight is thinking of a single report from Parris Island (Marine Corps boot camp) that said, pre-training, 45% of female boots could not throw a grenade far enough. That’s a possibility. Boots suck, and female throwing is different than male throwing. That’s why they’re in training. But anybody who has seen a girl’s softball game has seen girls throwing similar projectiles anywhere from 20 to 50 meters WITHOUT the added incentive of “Jesus, I don’t want to blow up”.
By the way, although the reliable you’ll-get-wounded radius of a grenade is maybe 15 meters, the actual fragments can travel up to 230 meters. Tom Brady can’t throw a hand grenade 230 meters. It’s an intrinsically dangerous weapon, used only when the risks you’re avoiding (40 Viet Cong soldiers cutting your guts out with their bayonets) are worse than the risk you’re facing (you might get an owie). The desire to blow things up with grenades without getting blowed up oneself is why people invented rocket-propelled grenades.
And guns, for that matter.
On the dangerous-jobs front, I think the MRA-ish side has a more plausible story. And I have to say “unions and regulations would make there be less dangerous jobs” is a singularly non-germane response to that story. I would demur from the theory of male oppression by pointing out that there have been women who wanted those jobs, and they have historically been kept out of those professions whether from misguided chivalry, guardianship of perceived male prerogatives, belief in female incapacity, or other reasons.
So the solution to me would be to – while doing our best on humanitarian grounds to reduce the risk of any dangerous job – remove those social pressures and constraints. If a generation or two later, there are still millions of male acid-toting steel dancers and seven female ones, OK. Start making cluck-cluck chicken motions at feminists who decry wage inequality but won’t take the jobs in the poison acid factory.
I will say that, at least in some places, there IS still a social expectation that of course a man will work, that’s his job, while women work outside the home or home-make as they choose. Maybe I’m just bitter from my recent divorce, but MY judge certainly seemed singularly uninterested in the refusal of my ex-wife to get a job; it was a fight to get them to impute minimum wage to her side of the economic equations, and there was an absolute refusal to even consider imputing to her the income typical in a profession she has a license for, and even to consider the income she actually historically earned previously in the marriage. It was just “she has a need and you have an ability to pay”.
I’m a little bitter about the money (though the battle isn’t over) but I’m more concerned about the message being sent to my daughter, which is “stay home and make babies and divorce men in sequence, and you’ll still have a reasonably comfortable life.” I don’t think she’ll find that an attractive prospect, but it might be an expectation-deforming one.
[TG asks that I restore this comment, so that everyone can read it and see how badly I mischaracterized him. Fair enough — I wasn’t the mod who deleted it, but I don’t mind restoring it. I’ll leave it to other folks to decide for themselves if comments like “Maybe I’ll shave my legs and start batting my eyes at parties; I’m kind of tired of work” reek of misogyny or not. –Amp]
Mythago sez: “Why doesn’t our 45-year-old master sergeant have to meet the same requirements for pushups, situps and the two-mile run that a 25-year-old recruit does? I’d appreciate an answer without weaseling or conditions or ancillary matters, although I won’t get one.”
—-
I think Robert answered that more fully above, and I also answered that in my posts – for one thing, the master sergeant has gained valuable experience.
Hand grenades: Here is a discussion on the board “The Straight Dope”:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-110528.html
The same arguments come up about women throwing softballs etc.
Here’s one comment (but the link that was given does not work anymore):
http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/105thcongress/3-17-98donnelly.htm
Requirements for graduation are also gender-normed and flexible. In fact, members of a congressional delegation visiting Fort Leonard Wood recently learned that there are separate gender-specific standards for the throwing of hand-grenades, primarily because comprehensive tests at Parris Island in 1987 and 1990 found that 45% of female Marines could not throw a live grenade safely beyond the 15 meter bursting radius.
____________________
Robert sez: “… stay home and make babies and divorce men in sequence, and you’ll still have a reasonably comfortable life.”
—-
If you add “divorce well-off men in sequence” then you can change “reasonably comfortable life” to “a life that many or most men will not attain themselves after 40 years of hard work”. She can get far richer that way – even today – than by having a good major and working hard. And, by the way, that flow of money doesn’t appear anywhere in the “wage gap”, although it’s very lucrative “work”.
I hate to trot out the usual suspects as substantiation, but there are plenty of women who are multi-millionaires with no work because of the setup in society. Patricia Kluge, a former “exotic dancer” got nearly 1 BILLION dollars after a divorce (and has recently declared bankruptcy).
And on a smaller scale, there are millions and millions of women in the United States alone who have a very comfortable existence off men. I see a few of them as neighbors, you may as well if you look more closely. 7 billion dollars in alimony flows annually to women in general, for starters, and marriage-termination settlements and inheritances from men are probably on the order of hundreds of billions.
Hey, come to think of it: Maybe I’ll shave my legs and start batting my eyes at parties; I’m kind of tired of work.
Well, my entire reply was deleted, so I bid you adieu if this makes it through.
Really irritating – I’m arguing in good faith.
TG, woman-haters bore me to death. That your little rant about how women are lazy, seeking to divorce well-off men, never work, etc., was meant in good faith does not make it anything other than the bitter rant of a misogynist, nor does it make you someone I want to waste time talking to.
I’ll thank you not to post any further comments here.
Isn’t it weird how women want to divorce well-off men, yet the divorce rate gets lower and lower the higher the couple’s income is?
Probably women are just bad at math.
Yeah, well, Barbie did tell us math is hard.
Of course they’re deficient, at least relative to younger men. But they’re experienced, which is harder to get than physical force.
Why assume that older people are experienced? Because you can’t sign up when you’re older, unless you have experience. There aren’t 42 year olds in boot camp. Hell, the Marines won’t even take a 29 year old unless s/he has experience.
He does for two out of three, if it’s a female recruit. Look at the Army standards and compare a 40-46 male to a 22-26 year old female.
The older man has to run faster (18:42 for two miles, as compared to 19:46)and do more pushups (30, as opposed to 17.) However, he has to do fewer situps(32 as opposed to 50) .
Then look at the marine standards. (When you do, note that the Marines don’t accept new recruits over 28. That 46 year old is valuable.)
There’s a change at 46 years old but even 45 year old marines are supposed to run three 10 minute miles, do three pullups, and do 45 crunches. Even the youngest women get 31 minutes for three miles, skip the pullups, though they have to do an extra 5 crunches. For every age group the women get three extra minutes on the run, and no pullups.
Does that suffice?
I I wanted to join the military as a grunt, they wouldn’t let me in. If they let me in, it would be because I had some sort of specialized skill that made me unusually valuable–maybe I could work as a JAG, though a JD isn’t valuable these days–at which point it would override my oldness and out-of-shape-ness.
If I had joined when I was 30, then by now I’d be far more valuable just because I’d know what I was doing.
But of course, there are many combat roles which don’t necessarily require upper body strength: flying fighters or bombers or choppers; working on subs and surface ships; driving tanks or Bradleys; and so on.
Of course they’re deficient, at least relative to younger men. But they’re experienced, which is harder to get than physical force.
A JAG, physician or clergymember who enlists for the first time at age 35 is more experienced than a 28-year-old Master Sergeant who signed up on his 18th birthday and has been on active duty ever since? At what, filling out paperwork?
So no, it doesn’t suffice, because as you’re well aware, the question is why military physical-fitness standards are an absolute marker of competence when applied to gender, but ain’t no thang when applied to age. The obvious and sensible answer is “because they’re requirements that soldiers be in excellent physical condition”, and the level of situps, pushups and speed necessary to demonstrate excellent physical condition changes with gender and age.
Robert @311, it’s another example of Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too, and how the solution is more feminism, not less. (If you think women don’t do sucky, dangerous industrial jobs when they’re available and pay well, then you really do think women are bad at math.) But as an example of how male privilege isn’t real, so there, it’s about as silly as saying “Everybody assumes I’m dorky and can’t dance because I’m white, therefore there’s no such thing as white privilege”.
Certainly there are judges who assume men = breadwinner, woman = not; it would be bizarre to assume the judiciary is free of sexism. But isn’t it interesting how woman-haters like TG will seize on your personal experience, and utterly ignore Jenn’s, for example, or of any other woman whose experience in divorce was not “Wheee! A life of bonbons!”
Why “female privilege” is better called “benevolent sexism.”
Of course, we’re talking a tiny tiny bit of the forces here w/r/t older enlistments. Want to be a Marine enlisted? You’ve got to be 28 or older. Officers have to be YOUNGER. http://www.marines.com/eligibility/requirements.
Generally, you can only get in older if you happen to fit in an unusually specialized field like law or medicine, or the like.
So yes: they’re more experienced in the experience that the Army wants and needs, which happens to be their (extremely limited) specialties.
Because there’s a lot of stuff that comes along with age, including “experience,” “education,” and such. But that has shit-all to do with gender: all gender gets you is a set of sexual characteristics.
Imagine that you compare 40 year olds to 20 year olds. On average, the older folks would be less competent in the physical arena, and more so in the mental arena. Bring gender into play and it’s different: women are no different mentally, but less strong physically.
Obvious to who?
Here’s one: They want people who bring something to the table. Older folks are more likely to have other benefits, whether it’s “experience managing others” or “15 years of knowing how to fix cars” or “a medical degree” or “years of experience in the actual armed forces.”
Physical force is nice but is (relatively speaking) simple to find. Knowledge is a lot harder to find. It’s valuable, and the armed forces select for value. So they give a break to the people who are most likely to bring other value.
Obviously there are exceptions. But so what? Every system has some exceptions.
Because there’s a lot of stuff that comes along with age, including “experience,” “education,” and such
How does “experience” help you lob a grenade safely? How does “education” enable you to carry all your equipment across a battlefield?
The physical-fitness standards are not scaled to experience or education. If I’m a 35-year-old who passed the bar last week, I have to do exactly the same number of situps as if I’m a 35-year-old who gave up being managing partner of a national BigLaw firm to serve my country. We assume a 35-year-old is more experienced than a 20-year-old, and not without reason. But if the purpose of the standards is to make sure that all soldiers can perform basic tasks, then why scale them for age? Is having a JD going to make it easier for me to shoot straight?
Obvious to who?
To people who want to make a consistent point. Or, you know, who bother to actually find out the military’s own reasons for implementing those standards. According to the US Army, for example:
If you read the remainder of that regulation, it’s obvious that the point is to keep soldiers functioning at a peak level – not to say ‘you must do X situps to be able to fight’, which is the argument about gender.
Pingback: » Invocation of priviledge and the usage of ‘Cunt’ schemanic.com
Pingback: Oh, Rape, You’re So Hilarious « Sex with Timaree
This is very helpful. Thank you!
Nice job, Peggy! And thanks! Here’s my thoughts:
1. Recognize the oppression (institutionalized), the target (women), the oppressor (men).
2. Men are forced into the oppressor role by violence or threat of violence, by the most powerful elements of the society. They are rewarded by being giving institutionalized privilege but you can bet your bottom dollar that they didn’t come into this world wanting to oppress. I think of my baby boy. What’s it take to do that to a boy?
3. Works the same for all the oppressor roles. What’s it take to force one’s loving young children to become killers for country? What’d it take for the thoughtful, loving people of Nazi Germany to allow genocide? What’s it take for us to allow a significant portion of our own children to languish in poverty or prison?
4. The elements of disproportionate power and wealth are institutionalized and they will find the right oppressor to do their dirty work. The oppressor role does not come naturally to any of us.
5. So. Expose the oppression. Do not tolerate the oppression by the oppressor. Support the targeted. Do not blame the oppressor. Support the oppressor to step out of that role. Break down or reform the institutions that that codify it.
6. What else can we add to this list?
slimjimbest,
The only problem I have with your checklist is that it seems to deny that anyone in particular is at fault for this; there’s just an amorphous sexist system that forces men into the role of oppressor. While I agree that many men act in ways that perpetuate privilege and oppression without being aware of it, I think it’s important to remember that the system exists because people choose to support it. To take one item from this list: men choose to pressure their spouses or partners to take on household chores and child-rearing responsibilities, or they choose to stand back while other people pressure their partners to do that, or they choose to accept the situation when their partner feels, for whatever reason, that it’s her job to do the most menial tasks.
One of the biggest and most harmful myths is that oppression, whether it be sexism or racism or any other type, just kind of happens naturally, because that’s the way people are. Not all people in the dominant group choose to oppress, but enough do to keep the system in place, and until we start calling people on those choices we won’t get rid of the oppression. Some oppressors need to be blamed.
@edgestate — agree 100%! My point is that this is a very elaborate and mature system. Without working really cleverly about redirecting it, the system will protect its function like a human’s homeostatic mechanisms will keep one’s body temperature relatively stable. Its not enough for some people to choose not to oppress. Its not enough for us to call those on the oppression. Its not enough to blame the oppressors. Its not enough for women to move from victim role to completely powerful individuals. Its not enough to for women to free themselves from the internalized oppression. Its not enough to get men to stand up to the violence in our society that cements this oppression in place. Its not enough for all members of society to see this these patterns made visible. Although changing ALL of these would help hecka lot!
I’m not saying I have the answer. I can learn about my own sexism and work with others to undermine it at every turn. But single-solution answers clearly will not work to create a just result. Its way bigger than that. And part of the solution is to embrace people’s innate goodness coming into this world and working to preserve that from the get go. Blaming me as man is not too useful a way to liberate me and enlist me to turn this around. Making me aware, absolutely! Allying, yes. Considering the system from every angle and focusing on leverage points, yes. Reforming our institutions, yes. Dismantling our opportunistic war economy and disabling prison system, yes. Creating opportunity for young people to thrive, yes. Making conflict resolution a part of our DNA, yes. And so on. Cheers.
Pingback: Surfing the Rape Wave: What Tosh Teaches About Humor, Power and Privilege | Fem2pt0
Pingback: Was ist Sexismus? « sanczny
As a trans female I’m happy to say I didn’t have half of these before and I don’t have any of these after.
Pingback: Why are straight men viewed so badly nowadays? - Empty Closets - A safe online community for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people coming out
If a man is in a bad mood, he’s not likely to have anyone suggest that he needs to have sex or that it’s a ‘certain time of the month’. His concerns are more likely to be taken seriously because they won’t be seen as being ‘colored’ by things like the above.
Wow…I’m a man considering a career in social work. A career that will do doubt have me working alongside a lot of women, for the benefit of a lot of women (and children). Understanding women and the struggles you all face in this world is of critical importance to me, but as a man (even one with an education) I admit that I’ve been blinded to it quite a bit. This checklist was very interesting, however, and (honestly) opened my eyes a little. If you have any more ideas regarding this issue, please feel free to share them with me. God bless and have a wonderful weekend!
Pingback: Male Privilege and Submissive Attitude | Mistress Roxxanne Rex
Regarding #7: “If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low.”
Relative to what? I am assuming relative to women, but I ask since it’s only implied. According to findings of the NISVS 2010 Report it’s only true if rewritten to “having been raped” (there is a difference in lifetime prevalency). Current and future odds (which I assume you are talking about when you are saying “…odds of being raped…”) are best estimated from the most recent historical data and for this (last 12 months) the NISVS 2010 Reports show a near parity of male and female rape victims if one considers unconsentual sex as rape.
As a minor sidenote I’ll just point ot that staying out of prison is also swiftly becoming no small feat for men in the US with an imprisonment rate of 943 per 100,000 male U. S. residents, 14 times that of women*. The privilege list does not take any intersectionality into account, but I still feel it’s necessary to point out that this risk of course is much higher for black (I’ve read that appr. 10%(!) of the male black population is incarcerated) and hispanic men (and subsequently less for white men).
* http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p10.pdf (appendix table 9)
Note that imprisonment rate are calculated from sentences longer than 1 year. Any sentences of 1 year and below is not included in this imprisonment rate. So the “real” imprisonment rate is likely quite a bit higher.
I’ve heard a lot in popular culture “you need a girlfriend”, for a man who might be too obsessed or passionate about something, or who doesn’t relax as much as his friends.
Indirectly, he’s being suggested to have sex.
So yeah, it happens, if movie memes have any kind of basis in reality.
Here, TV tropes, my favorite site:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouNeedToGetLaid
“In the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, after Will Turner reveals that he made all the swords in the blacksmith’s shop and constantly trains with them, Jack Sparrow quips that he needs a girlfriend. He later decides Will is a eunuch, and it becomes a Running Gag. ”
” Doctor Who, “The Eleventh Hour”: The Doctor to Amy’s friend Jeff when he borrowed Jeff’s laptop and opened it.
“Blimey! Get a girlfriend, Jeff!” and later, “Delete your Internet history.” ”
I love Dr Who.
Pingback: White Privilege and Black Gold: From Ali to Gabby DouglasPolitical News and Opinion from a Multicultural Point of View | Political News and Opinion from a Multicultural Point of View
Here’s another one that came up in a conversation with my boyfriend last night.
I can enjoy driving a crappy car that does not cost a lot because if it breaks down when I am alone at night, I would find it funny and a personal challenge to fix the mechanical problem and get myself home again.
I told him it was a privilege for him to be able to feel that way. For me, and most other women, driving an unreliable car is full of fear, apprehension and anxiety and for some women, driving alone at night is not an option in case it breaks down. Therefore, most women have the higher financial burden of ensuring their car, if they have one, is in good order and not too old.
Muriel
i thought this list was great, but i wish it addressed the difference between sex and gender. it really made it difficult for me to read with this huge oversight.
Pingback: Gabby Douglas and White Man's Privilege
Pingback: where is your line? » Blog Archive » I think about being a Woman
@Muriel Matters:
Not all men are like the your boyfriend you just described. Not all men can defend themselves from aggressors, especially many of them (as petty thieves and cowardly gangs tend to attack in higher numbers). If you are worried about being attacked at night while driving alone, invest in a firearm/pepper spray, or buy a better car. I’m a male, 6’4″ and 180 lbs, and I carry pepper spray with me at night. It’s not a woman only thing. Assuming that only women are attacked is foolish and ignorant.
Just a few things off the top of my head, I will refute a few of these points.
24. There is a term for this. Men who sleep around a lot and use women are referred to as “douchebags” or “man-whores”. It is generally frowned upon by self-respecting males.
30. You’re right. Guys who act that way are called “dicks”, “assholes”, “pussies”, etc.
32. Man in those instances refers to general term for humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)
41. Right. Because cologne ads for men don’t depict shirtless men , suit ads don’t depict well cut men in suits, etc. The list goes on. Oh and there aren’t magazines like Cosmopolitan (and more gossip magazines, can’t list too many I’m afraid), that depict shirtless, photo enhanced, men with super abs, right? There aren’t websites and books devoted to creating unrealistic images of attractive men that women can drool over, right? Try seeing our side of the story once in awhile. Very few men look the way celebrities/actors do in magazines and photo shoots. The same applies to women in those positions. Get a grip.
Points 16, 18, 28, and a few others contain things not found in academic/un-biased studies. Linking your own blog/a feminist think tank as “proof” is like saying black people are savages and then linking the KKK website for evidence.
Overall I’m not waving the pro-man flag here. Obviously there are certain disadvantages for each gender. Maybe men don’t want to be breadwinners? Maybe some men would rather stay home and take care of the household. Yet those men are referred to as babies or pussies. I don’t see those instances on this list. I’m merely saying that equality (true equality, that is) is the answer. Forced equality like AA (affirmative action) or reverse racism will only create resentment.
@John Lincoln:
Obviously not all men can defend themselves against aggression, and obviously both men and women can be physically attacked. No one (including Muriel Matters) claimed that “only women are attacked” – you simply made that up out of whole cloth. But it is nonetheless a fact that women are considerably more likely to be the victims of physical violence than men, including in a scenario such as the one Muriel described.
Regarding #24 and #30, of course the exact same gender-based insults like slut or bitch would not be applied to men who exhibit such behaviors. But the obvious point is that men are considerably less likely to face any insult or condemnation for exhibiting those behaviors than women are, and likely to face lighter condemnation when they do. I suppose you could criticize the wording of #26 and #30 in that they say no chance and no fear rather than less chance or less fear, but beyond that you don’t have a valid point.
Regarding #32, “Man in those instances refers to general term for humans” – yes, that’s pretty much the entire point, which apparently went well over your head. “Man” is often used as a general term for people in addition to adult males specifically, making male the default gender, at least by implication.
Regarding #41, apparently you missed the part saying “such images of men exist, but are rarer.” This should be a completely non-controversial statement to anyone who doesn’t live in a fantasy world (at least in the US; I suppose some other countries may be different in that regard, although not in my limited experience in Central America, Europe, Africa, and Australia).
Regarding #16, #18, and #28, if you had bothered to follow the links included you would’ve seen that each one includes copious references, including to peer-reviewed academic journals.
In short, you’ve really managed to embody a lot of arrogant, defensive male stereotypes in relatively few words, so congratulations on that; but you haven’t actually refuted any points. You’ve just provided readers with a shining example of, to paraphrase your insult to Muriel Matters, foolishness and ignorance.
Lee:
I would like to see a citation for that fact as any statistics I’ve seen show that men suffer a higher rate of physical violence than women.
Canada 2009: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=61
US 2008: Men were 76.9% of murder victims: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0311.pdf
US 2010: Violent crimes victimization rates for men and women are getting closer, but men still have the highest rate of victimization of violent crimes (15.7 vs. 14.2 per 1.000): http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf (p.11 table 9)
Pingback: Olympic Recap: The Gabby Douglas Chronicles | - POPSspot
Pingback: Feminist blog I stumbled upon yesterday - Stormfront
Pingback: Radical Feminism Preaching Trans Misogyny - Empty Closets - A safe online community for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people coming out
bravo!
Pingback: Bites et privilèges « Liberté (Egalité) Fraternité
Hello everybody. I’m french, so please excuse my english if I do some mistakes. I’m a 26 yo student in engineering.
I red the entire points and sincerely, this is shocking. It’s completely one sided. I glanced at some comments and it appears that a lot of people think that too.
Being a man today is, it’s true in some ways, easier. What is not said is the pressure man face everyday for everything. You’re recquired to be strong, to provide everything for your family, to take on hits, and I could go on.
Just a simple and dumb example. You take a situation which would make you cry. You probably will hold it as a man, because socially, it’s not really something that is very manly. This example illustrate the constant pressure men must handle.
Another thing is that as a man, you must court a girl you like. Whatever you may do, you will always have to prove yourself. This never happens to girls, are they are the one courted. I’d like all men and women to think 20s about their past relationships and try to remember how much time they courted, and how much they have been courted. And this can go from a nightclub context to a 50yo meeting after meetic.
You say women are privileged for jobs but that is less and less true. I don’t know in the US but in France, girls have better grades, and are hired more easily in a lot of work fields. Such as management, finance, commercials…
It seems like today women are trying to make right what’s wrong, and even if this one sided blog is shocking, we know there is a lot of wrong. But it’s also time for men to speak about these injustices they may face everyday.
Let’s say you had been robbed 5 times in your life, all of them by black (North african in France) people. You’d be dumb thinking they’re all thiefs, right? Then, I’d like to be able to speak to a girl on a bus stop, or in a mall, because i’m interested in her, without being treated like all they guys she may have faced before, even if they were insulting. But, men and women will agree, you know what will happen: you’ll be thrown out.
Keep in mind that being a women has downsides, but they don’t do hard and dangerous jobs like someone said in the comments, they’re unlikely to be shot (i’d rather be raped than shot to death if a street robbery goes bad) as much as man do, they can speak or their feelings in society without being called a fag, they can decide to go in the army, in the oil business, and everywhere, even if it’s more difficult, while man just can’t do something as nursing for example, without having to face wider problems in the everyday life. This blog is stupid because it shows just the difference between men and women. When i red that women are more likely to be raped, I almost fell of my chair: women and men are different. And poiting the obvious is just, excuse me for my french, plain bullshit.
I’m sick of this women whining. I’d like them to fight for what’s right, because there is a lot of wrongness toward women today, but being aware that even if it’s difficult, men have also issues, and nobody talk about it. If they will, they would be called machos, or anti-feminists. I know that, because I did. And practicly everytime what happens is that I’m told women’s problems are more awful, more present, and that i don’t understand any of it. There is no such things as enemy between men and women, but both are different, and both have issues. Neglecting one for the other is stupid, because, in my opinion, it will only raise anti-feminism movements. I’d rally one if these matters became more serious and if being a man today would be being a douchebag. Because that’s how I feel reading this blog. It feels like we’re wrong, we’re the bad people managing the earth.
This kind of blog just raise the hatred, a list of things is the dumbest thing ever. We, men, can do a list too. And mine can be longer.
Martin, nearly everything that you’ve listed would be examples of how the patriarchy hurts men, too. Rigid gender roles, saying “Men must be tough, women must be nurturing, and anyone who isn’t is some kind of freak” are bad for everybody. This blog has addressed that quite a few times. This particular post is about the ways that the patriarchy helps men, though much of it is subject to “The patriarchy will help you in this way if you follow the rules about what a man should be.” These are all related issues, not opposing ones.
Pingback: Atheism Plus Website/ Library/ Resource Guide – Crowdsourcing! | Greta Christina's Blog
Martin,
Have you heard of Strauss Kahn or Polanski?
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.
– Depends, person to person and job to job. A female teacher is much more likely to get the job than me, because I might be a phedophile. Of course, I have a penis, what was I expecting?
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).
– Thus, It is possible for me to be rejected for a job because I don’t have a vagina.
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
– (See the answer to #4)
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.
– If I fail in my job or career, I will be viewed as a loser and a failure in the public, mostly in eyes of females.
5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).
– Which means, I am far more likely to be accused of sexual harrassment. I might even be accused just because one of my female co-workers wants to eleminate me, ruin my career.
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.
– On the contrary, if I do the same task as a women, the female will be praised more because it will be viewed as a much bigger “success” in a “male-dominated, oppressive society”. Post-feminist modern society will value the female’s task more.
7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).
– Which means I am more likely to be accused of being a rapist. I even might be accused of a false rape allegation.
8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.
– Which means, when I go out after dark, I am far more likely to be attacked, robbed or murdered than a female. Because there are less female.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
– If I choose not to have children (or a relationship), I must be a loser failed at life who will never be able to get laid.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
– If I have children, I must provide primary care for them, because that is what’s expected.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).
– If I have children and provide primary care for them, the media and the public will always value “motherhood” more than “fatherhood”. Which means mother is always more important than a father.
12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
– If I have children and a career, I am imprisoned in life, stuck in the strict lines of the system. Between the home and work, providing for my family until the day I die.
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.
– (See the answer to #13)
14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
– The fact that my elected representatives and president is mostly people of my own sex does not make a solid proof of a female oppression. Would it be a “oppression” against men, if the representatives and presidents were female? Should there be two presidents? One male, one female? Should there also be black presidents, in addition to the white ones, so that the black people won’t feel oppressed? One black male president and one black female president? What about asians, homosexuals, disabled people? Should they also have their own representatives and presidents of their own? To each one, a male and female? Wouldn’t it be a oppression if we don’t provide them the occasion of seeing the “person in charge” to be one of their own identity?
15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
– (See the answer to #14)
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).
– (See the answer to #17)
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.
– As a male child, I will be constantly demonized, criticized and blamed for the troubles of the world and gender issues, solely for my sex. The media, public and the government will provide all the positive discrimination for women while I read the “Girls are more intelligent than boys” articles on newspapers. While I grow up, I will constantly hear that my sex are scum, rapists and oppressors. I will always feel shameful and guilty.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).
– (See the answer to #17)
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.
– I’m sorry. What?
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.
– So what? (See the answer to #14)
21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
– Because it will mostly likely to be ME, who pays them. Let alone that I am expected to do so. Women buy, men pay. Mostly.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
– In the meantime, I am paying more for car insurance. Because I have a penis.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
– Yet the attension is probably on the female. Not only because they have a vagina, but also the post-feminist modern society always encourage the female. Better to be heard than to be ignored.
24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).
– While any women can “go wild”, unleash herself and get praised by the post-feminist modern society as a “free modern women”; as a male, I have to make all the sacrifices, make every step, hold every door, pay everything and *still* I have to please those “a lot of women” in bed with my long ejeculation time and big penis. So that I won’t get dumped.
25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability. (More).
– (See the answer to #24)
26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).
– In most cases, I am paying for the clothes and other products of my wife/girlfriend/daughter. This is what’s expected of me.
27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).
– (See the answers to #24 and #26)
28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).
– (See the answer to #22)
29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
– The disadvantages of being not attractive is relatively small, because what’s demanded from me is totally different. (See the answer to #24)
Also, If I don’t have the adequate qualifications, I am labeled as a loser failed at life who will never be able to get laid. A virgin, a nerd.
30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
– In my opinion, it’s generally impolite to be such person . However, even if I can be someone like that, it’s not against a female. Or I am a rude, sexist scum.
31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
– Actually, it is the opposite. It’s mostly the male victims who goes unnoticed. Assaults, rapes, and other crimes against men does not view special treatment in the media like “domestic violance” and “acquaintance rape”. A man who is a victim will CERTAINLY viewed as being a weak man, inadequate and a loser who deserves what he suffered. Furthermore, crime and violence against men is viewed as humour. Look at your TV, how many men are kicked at the balls and be laughted at? Violence against women is evil, violence against men is humuor. If not, then he must have deserved it.
32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
– It seems true at first, but deep inside, its not that simple. So many people made this such a big issue that, majority of the media switch to using unisex words as long as its possible. I mostly see “firefighters”, not firemen, “police officers” not policemen. But some words remains the same. The structure of the language cannot be changed that easy. It needs time.
33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
– Because I never ruin other people’s lives periodically, because of a natural biologic process of my body.
34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
– True enough.
35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
– It’s not fair yes, but the employer will always look to his/her own interests. Nobody would want to pay a person who will not be around for months or maybe years for the sake of a personal life decision.
36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.
– But I am not the blame for the stupid people’s mythological fantasies. Rather than bashing men, try to close all churches in your country.
37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
– (See the answer to #36)
38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).
– However, it is also me who is expected of spending his life laboring and providing until I die. Becoming a slave in the system or washing dishes? I personaly choose the latter.
39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.
– (See the answer to #38)
40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
– Even if both the couples are working, it is mostly the male who pays more. Also: (See both the question and the answer of #38)
41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
– Firstly, the odds of a female to get laid is far higher than a male. Thus, it is natural that there is pornography. Secondly, there many examples of sexually appealing men in the media, not rare. Keep on searching. Thirdly, it is males who are portrayed as idiotic, stupid, immoral, disgusting, rapist, psycho, creepy, crimeful persons. And all other unwanted characters. Look at the commercials, films, tv series. It’s always the “idiot husband” and “the intelligent, modern, free women”. It’s always the men who is slapped and it’s always the men who is kicked in the balls. Crime against men is viewed as humuor.
42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).
– (See the answer to #24)
43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).
– However you are also incredibly likely to be psychologically tortured, banned from sex, accused of being not “man” enough, get your penis cut off and lost it to a garbage disposal (then being laughed at in the mainstream media).
44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.” (More: 1 2).
– When I am walking on the street, I am viewed as a pervert, a rapist, or a phedophile by complete strangers just because I smiled.
45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)
– (See the answer to #31)
45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
– On average, I cannot communicate properly with the opposite sex in fears of being blamed of sexual harassment, or being labeled as a pervert.
46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
– Just like the females have the privilege of being unaware of their female privilege.
Forgive me if there are grammar/spelling mistakes, I am not a native speaker.
Pingback: Privilege in an Ablist society « Claireot's Blog
Pingback: Unpacking the invisible knapsack of pregnancy privilege | Feminist Midwife
Pingback: Circular Arguments: “I Asked You to Talk, So Shut the Fuck Up!” and Other Ridiculous Debate Tactics « bunnika's blog
Very interesting article and comments. I arrived here while reading through some of Lindsay Zoladz’s excellent writing. The essay by Peggy McIntosh was also extremely interesting, challenging and thought-provoking.
Interesting as this type of thinking may be, I believe that there’s a fairly substantial blind-spot at the heart of it, namely the issue of who gives privilege and what that entails for everyone living in a culture. This issue is key because if you ignore it or leave it unacknowledged, as McIntosh might frame it, you are building an argument that lacks a central structural element; points are left hanging, apparently without support.
So why is the issue of privilege and its etiology key here? Because unless you understand and acknowledge it, whatever meaningful discourse you might have on the subject of privilege is limited and skewed. If there is a white, male network of privilege in our culture (and planet), and I believe that there is, how did this come to be? More importantly, perhaps, is the question of who “gave” this power to white males? In other words, to whom did white males address their concerns about unfairness and inequality, so that they could achieve their current exalted status? Did they make appeals to a large congress of all-powerful, swarthy females – who listened attentively to their grievances and magnanimously granted them their current near-hegemony, with reparations and apologies all around? I would suggest that the advances (and concomitant atrocities) brought about by white males have to a large extent been the result of a proclivity to challenge power, to challenge ideas and beliefs, and to address problems with fixed bayonets rather than limp and oblique allegations of unfairness.
McIntosh’s “invisible knapsack” seems risible in its indirectness. It paints only the negative spaces that surround power; passive-aggressively suggesting that if you enjoy privilege, then you are per se guilty of having taken that power from someone else. To my way of thinking, this is sad and pathetic.
Rather than commiserating about the insidious nature of white, male privilege, why not step up and
1) demonstrate that you understand how it came to be, then
2) demonstrate that you have found a superior alternative, then
3) show an ability to frame a cogent, intellectually honest, direct and powerful response to it, then
4) show that you have numbers, perseverance and willingness to sacrifice everything to bring about change.
Because that’s precisely how things got to be this way.
Pingback: Transguy: Packing Privilege
Responding to a commenter near the top, there is clear gender bias in the workplace. We have the studies to prove it.
Clearly, men who like the benefit they enjoy from their privilege want to have their confirmation bias stroked and don’t like things that make them question it.
We have affirmative action programs because they’re needed. And when we have a society that isn’t constructed around privilege, that doesn’t default or defer to white males, then those programs can be phased out into a true meritocracy. But we are light years from that, made abundantly clear by some of the posters in this comment train.
It’s kinda like the selfish fat kid who would eat the entire birthday cake if someone didn’t force him away from the table and portion out slices to everybody. Those horrible commies sharing that cake which he clearly needs more than they do and obviously deserves it more! Cos everybody knows men can’t get erections without cake, and if they don’t get erections they aren’t real men. Something.
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2012/09/are-scientists-sexist-new-study-identifies-a-gender-bias/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+smithsonianmag%2FSurprisingScience+%28Surprising+Science+|+Smithsonian.com%29&utm_content=FaceBook
Pingback: how to dress (for yourself) - that girl magazine
Pingback: dressing for men, and other antifeminist nonsense - that girl magazine
Aurora,
If I can borrow elements from your excellent analogy, I’d first point out that I’ve never seen a “fat kid” – selfish or otherwise – at a party singlehandedly eating a birthday cake. Maybe we go to different parties and that’s a more common thing in your circles, in which case I’m sorry because that must be painful to watch. Actually I might like to see that once, especially if the kid is really fat and is wearing an old-timey sailor costume and eating the cake really fast while everyone else claps and encourages him or her.
What I do know is that almost with exception the distribution of birthday cake at the parties I’ve been to has been the very model of equanimity and fairness, even if the birthday boy or girl gets a corner piece or one with a frosting princess and/or a car or something. I guess what I’m trying to say is whatever, and no. Ditto on communism and erections.
Aurora Novus: The problem with your analogy is that it is common sense, and an underlying assumption, that the fat kid had nothing whatsoever to do with making the cake.
Although it’s obviously more difficult to assess in a big company, let’s take the example of a person who comes up with an invention or new way of doing things and then starts selling it. He does it alone until sales explode, then he has to hire people to keep track of the orders and prepare the products for delivery and all the rest.
In that case, the fat kid baked his own cake – totally on his own at first, and with routine help (that everyone can do – not everyone could come up with the initial invention) down the road.
It really is a different story if the fat kid bakes his own cake.
I see that as a basic difference between the left and right in America. The left thinks that the fat kid is simply there due to coincidence, the right thinks the fat kid earned it all on his own. And the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, because it is evident that a person who sends out resumes and networks for 10 hours a day will probably find a job faster than someone who sleeps until noon and then wanders down to the corner bar. On the other hand, it is obvious that being born into a rich family has nothing to do with anything you thought up. That IS unfair, and it will obviously unfairly favor Little Rich Boy.
If you want to redistribute wealth, take it away from people who haven’t earned it, not people who earned it.
I’ve gotten it from both sides.
I was on a message board where I argued against affirmative action. All of the right-wing people rallied towards what I was saying.
Then someone on the left said that it is unfair that “you people” are also in favor of legacies at bit Eastern universities.
I said that I am not. Base it on merit. Suddenly, I was attacked from the right wing. Legacies perpetuate smart people. I don’t believe that one bit. Not one bit. They perpetuate rich idiots and their rich idiot sons and daughters.
I am also in favor of simply taking all of the money away from rich families. 100% inheritance tax. Let the idiots earn it themselves.
If it helps, the left and the right disagree with most everything I say.
Penelope: it’s also a different story if the fat kid uses flour and butter his mom paid for, borrows his great-aunt’s cookbook for the recipe, and gets his dad to help him get the hot pan out of the oven, and then crows that he made it all by himself.
I assume Aurora was trying to get at some kind of ‘privileged people thinking a fair share is stealing what’s rightfully theirs’ analogy, but I kind of got lost there too
“… it’s also a different story if the fat kid uses flour and butter his mom paid for, borrows his great-aunt’s cookbook for the recipe, and gets his dad to help him get the hot pan out of the oven, and then crows that he made it all by himself.”
—–
Sure, I knew that argument was coming (“he didn’t build that”).
But if the fat kid put some effort into making the cake, maybe we can begrudge him two or three pieces vis-a-vis the freeriding guests who didn’t lift a finger.
He’s inviting guests over and then telling them they can’t have birthday cake because they weren’t in the house when he baked it? (Yet another reason this is a bizarre analogy.)
Is anyone else flashing to the amazing fat-kid-cake-eating sequence in the novel “Matilda”?
Pingback: A Little Reactionary | Man And More!
Some folks missed my point with the “fat” kid and cake analogy.
The point was that those who already have more than they need are usually the ones who demand still more.
There was a study not long ago that measures this kind of entitlement. Persons of various economic states were asked questions about things like obeying traffic laws, and with little variance the wealthy individuals felt that those laws didn’t really apply to them, that they were more important than everyone else and thus entitled to break the rules. Same study, they put a bowl of candy in the room and told every participant that the candy was for poor children. Nearly without exception, the rich people took a bunch of the candy for themselves while the poor folks left it alone.
The finds, in short, were that people who were accustomed to wealth had very little empathy for those that didn’t. The problem is the privilege bubble and how it warps the way that people think, divorcing them from our normal, evolved biological urges to cooperate and share.
And there is the other phallacy, that we are a “competitive” species. We in fact evolved as a cooperative organism–we are natural collectivists. See “Mothers and Others” by anthropologist Sarah Hrdy for some of the most excellent work on this topic you’ll find, and it completely debunks the nonsense you hear from Pinker and others in evo-psy.
Saving the best for last…Professor Gail Dines gave an excellent talk a few months ago viewable here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDcTt0emXhE&feature=share wherein she discusses the emergence of neoliberalism and the corporatist hegemony, and its impact on feminism specifically. The first 30 minutes speak specifically about neoliberalism and the sociological context (which is her field) and it is highly enlightening. It puts the lie to the entirety of our “business owner/producer” culture, brings the executive elite class to proper perspective with the rest of us, and demonstrates most sharply why we the people–who have been duped and lied to by these power elites–must break the spell of their marketing.
Rather than add further comment I will simply direct the remaining readers/commenters on this thread to that video, because I think that it is by far the best piece of de-programming that any of us can consider if we are to truly break the hegemony of our corporate owners.
I think we were deliberately misunderstanding the point of the analogy as a way of pretending that the ugly stench of anti-fat bigotry wasn’t in the room. A sort of combined ignoring and gentle mocking. You know, sort of like when someone (who might be of any weight, by the way) farts, and everyone pretends not to notice but maybe waggles their eyebrows a little in a humorous fashion.
Sorry you didn’t catch that. Thanks for your thoughts, which were interesting. And please find another metaphor.
Pingback: Feminismus 101 – Teil 5 – What can I do for feminism? | Feminismus 101
Male privilege is also when men state “creeps ruin it for nice men like me.” when it comes to courting behavior.
No creep can “ruin” a woman for someone else. If a man’s interest is creeping her out, it’s because that man is creeping her out, not because some other, lesser man might rape her and she’s afraid when she shouldn’t be because the man really is a nice guy, honest, if she’d just stop and listen to him. There is no right to use a woman’s time in order to convince her to talk/date/have sex just because a man is “interested”. Women have lives that involve far more than just being shown interest by men, and women would like to get on with their lives without being treated like they have committed something wrong.
The truth is, in the scenarios where I’m approached by random men asking for dates, phone numbers, or anything else indicating interest, it is not rape, assault, or violence I fear. It is the fact that they might persist when I am not interested, which in turn makes me feel disrespected, not taken seriously, and possibly condemned for handling the situation “wrong”… when I shouldn’t have to handle it at all. The men are using my politeness, the romanticized appeal of just “giving a guy a chance”, and the social pressure to give something in return for a compliment as a way to get around my lack of interest in them. They don’t care that I’m not interested, because as far as they’re concerned, there’s a certain phrase or action that will make me interested, and it’s their privilege as “nice guys” to be given enough time and attention to figure it out. Time I could spend going about my own business, and attention I could give to other people or problems.
Pingback: Brief Musings on Street Harassment and Male Privilege « Feminism, New Media, and Health
Pingback: Consulting Nerd Girls | Slightly Feminist
The angry men who are decrying this list just make me laugh. All of their bellyaching translates to this – a woman got promoted at work over them, or they’ve been turned down for sex so they blame the women. It couldn’t possibly be that they’re incompetent or creepy!
Geez, MRA’s, get some new material.
Pingback: Social Justice Part Fish: Gender Egalitarianism — The Good Men Project
Or that they’ve been raped, uh? That they turned down a woman and she just decided that that wasn’t good enough? And it turns out that they aren’t a special snowflake, an aberration, a statistical fluke according to the NISVS 2010 Report. That didn’t occur to you, did it? Not even when you read my comments in this thread, because I assume you read them all since you used the words “all of their bellyaching”, right?
Your blind spot is showing and telling.
Comments like yours and for instance that of Amanda Marcotte on the sleep rape thread on Feminste are examples of what turned me who would like to see an end to all sexism, an end to all rape, equality and no prescriptive gender roles away from feminism back when I tried to find a framework to conceptualize my rape in (as the cultural narrative then sure as hell didn’t provide one. It still doesn’t, but I think it’s improving and I hope it’ll become more and more easy for all victims to come to grips with what happened to them).
So, continue to pat yourself on the back for assuming that I have fewer sexual experiences than I want when in reality I have one too many.
You’re right about one thing though, I am angry right now.
Everyone, dial it down several notches, please. –Moderator
I should have moderated and used another tone in my comment. The unfathomableness of my existence whitles on me and after a string of those lately this is where I burst and wrote this comment. It was not fair to you to bring this anger to your place Ampersand and for that I apologize.
@ZenMamaPolitic Personally, I have actually read Peggy McIntosh’s ‘White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack’, and understand it very well..unlike some others posting on your forum. And I am in agreement with you 100%. As a matter of fact, I have experienced many of the circumstances that you mentioned above (As an African American Black woman), and can tell you that it is the actual reversal of privilege. It does happen. In fact; it happens far too often. Your contribution to the discussion on Patriarchal Privilege is very much appreciated. Thank You.
I notice a lot of comments about men facing more workplace injury risk, and about good looking women using men for their money. On the first note, at age 18, when I was in peak physical condition and could easily lift and move 100lb. items repeatedly, I applied for a job at a lumber mill, where the repetitive lifting requirement was far below my capacity. I didn’t get the job, and I have always thought it was because of my gender. It was a dangerous job, and like most dangerous jobs, there are several factors working against women who may otherwise apply for them. To begin with, women are pushed not to get too strong, too bulky (not that bulk is required for the kind of physical strength needed for most heavy jobs) from a young age, so fewer of them are going to be prepared for those jobs. Beyond that, there is the assumption on the part of the hiring bodies that, not only can women not handle the workload, but also that they would cause a distraction for the men on the floor. This is the men on the floor’s problem. If you are there to work, and are a grown ass man, this is a non-issue. To blame a woman, however attractive, for being a distraction, is the same kind of thinking that blames a woman’s outfit for her rape.
In regards to women using men for their money, I certainly won’t argue that there aren’t freeloading exploitative women, just as there are freeloading, exploitative men, now that some women have the means to be worth exploiting. Beyond that, a woman who relies on her looks for anything (and service industry, the women’s equivalent to factory and construction work, relies heavily on looks for tips, the only thing that can lift the job above minimum wage-slavery) has a very early sell-by date. Not only that, women in this society are trained from an early age, by the toys supplied to us and the shows and books geared towards us(with several fantastic exceptions, but you need a thoughtful parent to ensure exposure), that being pretty and charming is the way you win in life. It is expected that we will be weaker (yes, we are, generally, less developed in the upper body, but still, if fit and willing to train, capable of heavy work) and that we will not do as well in math, therefore much later in life not be prepared to go into tech fields. We are programmed to make less money in many ways. We are taught to be polite, not to ask for too much from other people, to be compassionate, not to be “a bitch” or “pushy”. This also means we are programmed to fail in wage negotiations. I’m not saying this is intentional, or that men are evilly plotting this. Men suffer a great deal from these mores as well. A lot of this programming is perpetrated by other, older women, who don’t see the big picture or the effect it can have. It’s not that being nice is a bad thing to teach girls, its just a good thing to teach boys as well, along with standing up for yourself and knowing your own worth. When women are raised to be nice, to look pretty, etc, well, the only way to “succeed” simply by being nice and pretty is in stripping, sex work, or finding a sugar daddy. If women are open and clear, and both parties are practicing informed consent, there is nothing wrong with these as career choices, but for many women they are not choices, they are the only option they see. Having a “sugar daddy” means being subservient for money and priviledge. Again, if this is pleasureable and truly desireable for both parties (some people really get off on that) then there is nothing wrong with that. Many women in these situations, however, lack the education and rescources for anything else that would offer comporable pay. In regards to the military, most of the problems with women in combat have to do with men’s training regarding women. Isreal, the only nation to have integrated combat units, ended up scrapping the program because men would defy orders to go back and “save” the women. The men would, in effect, be killed by their sexism. While I believe it should be possible for men and women to fight together on a front, it can only work if women cease to be viewed as damsels in distress, really and truly, so that even in a high stress situation their fellow soldiers continue to view them as SOLDIERS. Also, in a draft situation, while I support the ERA and all its implications, it does add a layer of complexity to the draft, as this could mean both members of a heterosexual couple with children could potentially be drafted. There would have to be provisions preventing this, as well as provisions for same sex couples with children. We haven’t had a draft since most of the gay rights movement actually had any success, so this is an issue we will eventually have to face regardless.
Feminism is about creating a better world for men and women, allowing us to work together honestly and equally, as people. It is an attack on the societal structure that hurts all of us, male, female, and everyone in between.
I find this statement to be cavalier and ill-informed:
“and it is women and not men who suffer the most from intimate violence and rape;”
Comparing rapes is VERY hard-all these experiences are pretty individual. However a big share of rapes the the US occur in the US prison system where the victims and perps are both men are men.
http://spr.igc.org/en/stephendonaldson/doc_01_lecture.html
Rapes in prison are often condoned by prison authorities-an involve victims who are repeatedly raped over periods of years. Much of the “voluntary” sex involves men who seek protection from being gang raped. Studyng the overall phenomena is very hard.
If you want to talk about rape look at the range of literature and at least think about trying to handle it with a little sensitivity and objectivity. There is a LOT of pain out there-and it isn’t all what you have known or experienced.
One giant issue that needs to be addressed as part of this balance sheet is cuckoldry. about 1 in 3 married women have at least one child that is not their husbands even though the husband is on the birth certificate. Those children are fathered by a relatively small percentage of men overall.
Men are comparatively more likely be childless-and more likely to have man children than women.
>Having a “sugar daddy” means being subservient for money and priviledge.
Not necessarily. Some of the highest paid prositutes, with the longest shelf life are dominatrixes. They have their equivalent in the “sugar baby” world too. Attracting women as a “sugar daddy” is not necessarily a easy task-and comes with all kinds of risks of being defrauded. The biggest risk is that a guy winds up seriously emotionally involved with a woman to whom he is little more than an ATM machine-and even if she has children, they may or may not be his.
I personally think paternity tests are as big a deal for most men as birth control has been for women.
What a lot of women want to think of as “patriarchy” with men as a class above women, is perceived by many men as pyramid with a relatively small layer of men at the top, women in the middle, and a large layer at the bottom that is male. Even if on “average” men were higher on the hierarchy, that is meaningless if a man doesn’t have the means to move up the pyramid.
I would argue that many men are _forced_ to focus on what are really pretty meager opportunities for upward mobility. Many opportunities for making money that men have come later on in life or involve huge risks. The later in life issue is tricky in this sense: the social/sexual identify of people is formed typically pretty early-before age 25. Money/social attention obtained after that age is VERY different that rewards earlier in life.
A lot of the social hierarchy men face is _completely_ outside their control. For example, height is one of the major factors many women use in assessing a man’s initial attractiveness.
One of the things we are seeing in US culture today is a mass defection of young men from academic pursuits that have payoffs later on in life-in favor of stuff that has a quicker return-even if it is a lesser return.
I would also argue this is one reason for the rise of “patriarchal” religious groups like the LDS and Evangelical groups that have become more prominent in recent years. They create rules that tend to specifically weed out men-those groups are in fact mostly composed of women-but if a man gets through their screens, he has marital options me might not have in the secular world-but he must conform to rigid norms-and often make substantial monetary and time donations for that privilege.
Those groups are also pretty tightly controlled-and typically operated to the benefit of a small subset of their male membership. I think many men really see little out there they can really identify with or trust.
That is part of the reason we see things like a relatively high suicide rate among men
Do you have any evidence for this? I strongly doubt whether it’s even close to true.
—Myca
Yeah, my reaction was a big ol’ “Citation Needed” too.
I wonder what the commenter would say to the (well-documented) stats that men are more likely to abandon female children (not be involved or pay child support) than male children, and that divorce rates post-birth are higher if the child is a girl.
Pretty sure that statistic comes straight off pulledoutofmyass.com.
The usual fauxtistic one sees bandied about by MRAs is “1 in 10” – which is also pretty shaky in that it was based on a single hospital and looked at situations where the father challenged paternity; about 10% of the time he was not the biological father. In other words, in this particular population, in couples where the father went to the trouble of trying not to be the child’s legal father, ninety percent of the time he was wrong.
Actually, Mythago, I think the Red Cross study was at around a third, but those were men who had some motivation to get tested.
The figure in the public at large is obviously lower than the figure involved with men who have a suspicion. I’ve seen the figure at large put at around 10 – 15%. Maybe that figure is too high as well, but exact figures would be difficult to get. I don’t think they can go house-to-house with a clipboard and ask if the child is from another man (even if the wife knew herself).
It seems like the statistics of that are all over the place and also varies between populations.
A metastudy of 67 studies found the following:
– http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/504167
One should mind that the first number may be too low while the second may be too high as stated in another metastudy:
– http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/749.long
I’ve learned that it’s common practice for medical staff to not disclose to the father if they find out by accident (either by incompatible blood types or by other means) that the father is not the child’s biological father.
In fact this was pointed out to my wife (when I wasn’t in the room) when she, our newborn and I were enrolled in a national mother-child survey (which despite it’s name also surveyed fathers). The survey entailed blood samples from her, the child and myself. I was asked to participate separately and that bit of information were not relayed to me.
Not relaying such information to the father may be considered the best choice as not to disrupt the family ties, but it might also have some pretty damaging side effects. It even goes as far as fudging why a father isn’t a donor match to his ill children. A while back I read an article about a (I think) Canadian man who had a child with his wife. The child had a genetic disease which meant that he would be a carrier of a specific gene (I am fudging/simplifying/going from memory on the genetic specifics here). They later divorced and the man chose to not have children in his subsequent relationship because he was under the impression that he was a carrier of that particular gene. He then much later learned that he in fact wasn’t a carrier of this gene, but by then it was too late for him and his new partner to have a child.
Reasons like that is why I as a principle is for a mandatory paternity confirmation test at delivery at the hospital rather than the “pater est” or “sign this document declaring yourself the biological father” which is the current legal standard for married and unmarried fathers where I live.
Do you have a cite for this? I just googled and found this, http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Mormon/A-Portrait-of-Mormons-in-the-US.aspx#2 , which says that Mormons are 56% female, and evangelicals 53% female, which is slightly higher than the population as a whole, but not an enormous difference.
That is not obvious to me. Either Diamond or Baker in one of their books cites a study that suggested men with high suspicion where no more likely to have wives who bear children with other men than men with low suspicion.
Frankly, I think people overstate their ability to perceive a LOT of things-the risk of a partner becoming HIV+ is another good example. I’ve seen a study that suggest that is just plain hard for people to assess accurately when it involves potential romantic partners. One of the most experienced school administrators I’ve known was principal at a boarding school-and told me that years after he started, he was usually surprised when he found evidence of hard drug use. I see little reason to assume paternity is that different.
keep in mind, the LDS is more heavily 18-29-and that group in the general population more heavily male according to This source
Anyhow, I only made the claim “mostly” even a slight change in gender ratios is likely to have a huge difference in the social experiences of those participating.
Marriage “markets” are what economists call highly inelastic-meaning that small differences in ratio can have a huge impact.
I personally think that in historical terms gender ratios were more heavily female-and the current high male ratio is caused by relatively few military casualities/fatal workplace accidents among young male populations where those were both historically high.
The technology now exists to select for female births-but no religious group yet encourages it. The first group that does will I think be in a strong position to recruit young, male members selectively.
Polygamous LDS groups maintain a high female ratio by
systematic abuse and abandonment of young men.
So, your “evidence” for your claim boils down to “it just seems right.”
Cool story, bro.
I tried posting this early on-but it doesn’t seem to have gotten in.
Here are a bunch of citations on paternity.
My favorite sources there are those by Robin Baker and Jared Diamond.
Sample bias is _hard_ to avoid in these studies. I think the global incidents is around 10%.
Baker, R. and M. Bellis. “Human sperm competition: ejaculate adjustment by males and the function of masturbation”. Animal Behaviour 46: 861-65]
“…In tests of genetic paternity recently conducted by Robin Baker and Mark Bellis, they found that around 10 percent of children had been sired by someone other than their ostensible fathers — although the fathers consciously believed these children to be their own”.
Diamond, Jared, book, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee”, pp. 72-73
Significant number of children turn out to have be fathered by someone other than their putative father: “extramarital sex is an integral, albeit unofficial, part of the human mating system.” Also, refers to “… a study of blood typing and genetics which had unexected results and was quashed. It was done in the 1940s at a “highly respectable” US hospital. The study found that fully 10 percent of babies were not the biological offspring of their legal fathers”.
.. estimated a cross-cultural median EPC figure of 9%, with a range from 1.4 – 30%. (EPC = Extra-pair copulation).
Published estimates of ‘paternal discrepancy’ range from 1.4 per cent for Caucasians in post-war Michigan and 2 per cent for the !Kung bushmen to 30 per cent in deprived urban areas of Britain. pp199-200.
… a worldwide median nonpaternity rate of 9% from a sample of 10 studies.
Baker, R. Robin, and Mark A. Bellis, “Human Sperm Competition: Copulation, Masturbation and Infidelity”. London: Chapman and Hall. (Robin Baker and Mark Bellis were at Manchester University)
The 30% figure is from either Baker or Diamond. The thing is the 2nd and middle children a woman has are less likely be another man’s than her first or last-which is reason for the discrepancy between 10-15% of births and 30% of mothers. Now the whole thing varies TREMENDOUSLY between communities-we really see pockets of this sort of thing.
“stats that men are more likely to abandon female children (not be involved or pay child support) than male children, and that divorce rates post-birth are higher if the child is a girl”
One thing that needs to be look at here: is just what the long range outcomes are for abandoned boys vs abandoned girls. I am NOT doubting the figures here-but we need to look at the whole picture-and also what are the major predictors of abandonment of girl children. I suspect this involves specific subsets of people.
I have seen claims that in general, boys tend to suffer more immediate negative symptoms from divorce(depression, doing poorly in school, truancy, crime, drug use). However,the claim was with girls the big symptom tends to a tendency to have unstable marriages later on life. I have NOT examined those claims carefully.
One of the more useful pieces of information I think women could have is a “calculator” that would show women their chances of abandonment/non-involvement/non-payment of child support by specific classes of men. One huge predictor I suspect is drug/alcohol use on the part of either partner. Another is real or falsely suspected(well-documented) non-paternity. Part of why I like paternity tests is I think the can remove false suspicions of non-paternity-which can be needlessly highly damaging to children.
I don’t see either Baker or Diamond in your link; even you don’t appear to recall which of them supports your argument.
Your other arguments are….just incomprehensible. A woman’s second child cannot be her last child? Having children by more than one man equates to paternity fraud?
Mythago – the Diamond book and the baker articles are listed in the big table of articles in the page nomoreh1b links to in @372. What you can learn from them – especially the Diamond book where it seems that a few sentences were cherry-picked right out of their context – is unclear to me.
Regardless, it seems that almost all the sources on that page agree that roughly 10% of all paternity tests found that children were not sired by the man who acted as their father. The 30% number seems to be the ceiling rate found by some studies. And nothing on this page justifies anything else that nomoreh1b says – for example, there’s no clear indication that all the people believing they are fathers are married to the women who ostensibly bore their child. Indeed, the word “husband” only appears in three of the sources, two of them unpublished (one being a letter to congress), and the third arguing that cuckoldry is involved in 1-3% of births.
The only article (Andreson 2005) cited to deal with “paternity confidence”, by the way, state a strong correlation between the father’s level of confidence in paternity and actual paternity.
From Page 61 of Sperm Wars by Robin Baker
Page 141