I bring this up only because this is something that trans guys in particular get accused of – wanting so-called, "male privilege". But I also think the term itself is biased and misused by a lot of people. Before I go any further, let me just say that I'm only discussing this term when applied to western culture/society. I'm not talking other cultures because that is just too large and there really are solid instances of the very definition of male privilege in some other areas of the world.
Now, Wikipedia explains that male privilege, "refers to the unearned advantages or rights granted to men solely on the basis of their sex, but usually denied to women. In societies with male privilege, men are afforded social, economic, and political benefits because they are male."
I know there's trans guys out there who take traditionally male jobs after transition but I'm pretty sure it's not specifically the traditional male jobs that most trans guys transition for. There's the social angle – just being male in society. What benefits does that get exactly though? I'm trying to think and mostly what I come up with is there may be a small "safety" benefit. Less chance of being attacked (or worse) when alone if a male attacker sees another male, rather than a female. But a lot of trans guys take a long time to pass, are smaller (on average, not always) then the average man, and always have that thought in the back of their mind that in certain situations or around certain people if they're "found out" it could very well effect their safety. So personally, I don't see that as something that's a guarantee when you're a trans guy. So what exactly ARE the male privileges that we're all striving so hard to get (being facetious there, folks, even though this really is a serious topic)? If people are going to accuse trans guys of wanting this male privilege, then I'd like to know how they're defining that these days.
People will still throw out the socioeconomic stats that men make more than women, but imo if you really look where the stats come from, they're skewed in a way that doesn't take into account the type of job or even that many women simply do not want to do jobs that guys do (steel worker, manual labor, etc. ... not saying there isn't women who do these jobs, because they're are, just talking stats here).
Worse still is it's now kind of a hardcore feminist battle cry that male privilege is a huge problem in our culture. I am all for women's rights and I can see instances in our culture and even legal system where women's rights are being compromised, but this notion of male privilege in western society, especially when applied to trans guys, is off-putting to me at the very least. It's especially precarious when you are one of the more femme/andro guys and this comes up because then you just get accused that that's the only reason why you want to transition – so you could still basically be a "girl" but also enjoy this mystical male privilege. It's kind of boggling to me and shows not only the misunderstanding of trans issues (and what it's like to actually be trans) but also applying this term to even frivolous thing like standing to pee.
We do still live in a society that is predominately binary ... there's a female role and a male role in society. But we've come a long way. Females can do male jobs if they want to. Females can wear male clothing if they want to and have traditionally male hobbies, etc. In the grand scheme of things, there's very few things that females are actually bared from doing. I would say it's harder for a male to get a job in a traditionally female-held occupation. I have a male (MAAB) friend who's a substitute teacher. He says people have practically come right out and said that he didn't get a job because someone down the line thought he might be a "sex predator" (and no, he is not, has 100% spotless record of any kind of crime, etc., and there's absolutely no grounds to discriminate against him in that way).
I'd like to hear everyone else's take on this male privilege thing.
Male privilege definitely exists in Latin America//Caribbeans. However, in the USA and Canada I have to say that male privilege isn't exactly around. For example, in divorce//custody cases, women/mothers are definitely in an advantage.
I honestly think that some feminists are more interested in hating on men then they are in advancing women's rights. If anything, women can make people feel guilty by claiming to be discriminated against as to get their way sometimes.
My point is that male privilege is highly overrated in the USA//Canada.
I think you asked all the questions and then answered in every typical way possible. We have been "answer blocked", lol.
I think when people come at a transguy and mention "male privilege" they almost imply two things, either it is a birth right and unobtainable by transmen (because we are FAAB) or they're the militant feminist type who see anything even remotely masculine as undesirable and almost predatory.
What does male privilege mean to me? Nothing. Seriously, it has no desirable or undesirable implications for myself. I pass most of the time. I don't feel like I am privileged and don't feel like people have treated me any better now than when I was identifiably female. If anything people are less considerate to men. I don't have doors held open for me, showing emotions isn't as acceptable in the cis world, if my car broke down nobody would stop to help, etc.
What I'm getting at is there are altered expectations when you become visibly male to cis people. Some aren't necessarily good but they come with the territory.
You know females have privileges too but for some reason they're not held up like some trophy.
Quote from: Simon on December 06, 2012, 08:30:48 PM
What does male privilege mean to me? Nothing. Seriously, it has no desirable or undesirable implications for myself. I pass most of the time. I don't feel like I am privileged and don't feel like people have treated me any better now than when I was identifiably female. If anything people are less considerate to men. I don't have doors held open for me, showing emotions isn't as acceptable in the cis world, if my car broke down nobody would stop to help, etc.
You know females have privileges too but for some reason they're not held up like some trophy.
Preach! I never want to drive a car, but if people are more like to help me on the road if I ever do drive for whatever reason, that will be good for me. After all, to me, every part of a car will forever be referred to as a "thingy." :laugh:
Thinking you have no privilege is the definition of privilege.
Quote from: Darrin Scott on December 06, 2012, 08:41:37 PM
Thinking you have no privilege is the definition of privilege.
1. No, the dictionary says otherwise.
2. That's like saying that someone arguing against being defensive is defensive. You can't win. ???
Quote from: Darrin Scott on December 06, 2012, 08:41:37 PM
Thinking you have no privilege is the definition of privilege.
That is a straw man fallacy.
I will tell you that as a former middle-aged, not-beautiful-by-society's-standards woman, unless you are in a women's space (or one that caters to women), you are INVISIBLE. Car dealerships with a kid in tow? I couldn't get ANY salesperson to look at me. Maybe they thought I was just hanging out and my husband elsewhere was making a deal. I walked the lot, looked at cars, and NOT ONE salesperson came to help. I went into the showroom. I got busy glances but no one greeted me or asked if they could help. I left. Next day, same thing, only this time I was waiting for the husband to show up. His foot had not even hit the pavement and he had 3 salesmen on him. This was the late 90s, not 1960.
Walk into Home Depot I found the same thing. And when I tried to track down an employee for help they were invariably scarce. First few months I was passing I had sales people tripping over themselves to help me not only in Home Depot, but Staples, etc. Suddenly random people were starting conversations with me. Salespeople lingered and wanted to talk to me. I was startled at first; nothing about me personally had changed. Only my perceived gender.
Women in stores ask me to help them get things down, and I"m short.
This is what I perceive as privilege. People noticing me and wanting to cater to me, whereas prior to transition, they did not.
Jay
Okay, I don't know about car dealerships, but I do have some observations about Home Depot. My sister once went there in a dress, and no one helped her. However, she went to the same store in camo cargo pants and a t-shirt, and people asked her if she needed help. I don't think that gender mattered in this situation. The employees probably thought that someone in a dress wouldn't know anything about tools and therefore be annoying to talk to. It's a sad reality, but hardware store employees tend to do that.
@sneakersjay - That is so weird! I had the exact opposite happen to me. I was a pretty attractive guy before transition. I was physically built (lean and muscular), and nobody would give me the time of day. People in stores did not help me, and people did not talk to me. Now that I am a woman (and I am not real pretty), people are always talking to me. In stores, the employees seem like they can't help me enough. I figured that male privilege was being left alone when you did not want people to bother you. I personally really like how things are now.
I'm mtf and I go to lowes, I get asked a lot if I need help, same way anywhere there are salesmen.
As for male privilege, its around in some form in many places, but I don't think its as universal as it used to be in the US at least.
Here's one that comes to mind immediately. My girlfriend has a few health issues. A couple months ago, I went with her to an appointment with a new doctor. The new doctor comes into the room, shakes MY hand, sits down across from ME, and talks to ME the whole time. Makes eye contact only with ME. Asks ME the questions about her health, questions that only she would have been able to answer. Glances at her only in passing when I try to direct him to her for her to answer him, and then turns back to me.
It was like she wasn't even in the room. It was almost comical.
That I would be the authority in this situation, out of the two of us? that's male privilege.
Quote from: sneakersjay on December 06, 2012, 09:16:47 PM
I will tell you that as a former middle-aged, not-beautiful-by-society's-standards woman, unless you are in a women's space (or one that caters to women), you are INVISIBLE. Car dealerships with a kid in tow? I couldn't get ANY salesperson to look at me. Maybe they thought I was just hanging out and my husband elsewhere was making a deal. I walked the lot, looked at cars, and NOT ONE salesperson came to help. I went into the showroom. I got busy glances but no one greeted me or asked if they could help. I left. Next day, same thing, only this time I was waiting for the husband to show up. His foot had not even hit the pavement and he had 3 salesmen on him. This was the late 90s, not 1960.
Walk into Home Depot I found the same thing. And when I tried to track down an employee for help they were invariably scarce. First few months I was passing I had sales people tripping over themselves to help me not only in Home Depot, but Staples, etc. Suddenly random people were starting conversations with me. Salespeople lingered and wanted to talk to me. I was startled at first; nothing about me personally had changed. Only my perceived gender.
Women in stores ask me to help them get things down, and I"m short.
This is what I perceive as privilege. People noticing me and wanting to cater to me, whereas prior to transition, they did not.
Jay
This is a good point. Car dealerships have a weird thing about them. I've never been ignored at one (and as most of you know I don't "pass" all the time and in a situation like buying a car I'd have to show my actual ID anyway). I never was society's version of a "pretty" female either. But I know plenty of people, both male and female that have been ignored at them. My dad once knew a guy that was a millionaire and owned a large company. He went into a dealership and was wearing a flannel shirt with holes in it and ripped jeans and was totally ignored. I think they just size people up in a few seconds and determine how likely they are to buy right then just on appearances. The Home Depot thing I haven't personally gotten the no one talking to me, but I have gotten one guy talking down to me like I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about, which was annoying. I suppose that could have been a case of gender bias there.
But in scenarios like that, is it more that the guy is just an ass? It is one of those situations where it's just a guy who's still stuck in some 50's mindset that "the little lady" should be in the kitchen cooking dinner and not out buying tools and cars? I'm having trouble discerning if that is then male privilege or if it's just not realizing that a lot of things have changed?
Is it more that attitude that a percentage of MAAB's have, more than it is a female actually couldn't do something (attitude that a perceived "women" with a child in tow couldn't buy a car ... when the fact of the matter is that woman had the means and could have very well bought the car).
This is just me, but I won't take anyone's sh*t in a lot of environments (especially retail). I had an awesome time buying my first car because they tried all the intimidation tactics on me. It was hilarious everything they tried. After about 20 min I told the guy flat out, "why don't you cut this sh*t and go get your boss for me, I'm tired of talking to the low man on the totem pole." The guy was shocked, but he want crawling away with his tail between his legs and got his boss. We sat there for 30 min while the boss tried different things and when I finally worked them down to the price I wanted to pay, I signed the paperwork. Not everyone is willing to go that distance and be that person. It's why car dealers act how they do, because most people cave.
Come to think of it, that guy in Home Depot talking down to me was the first time anything like that had happened in a very long time. It caught me off guard for sure. Even still, I told the guy, "Look buddy, it's you who doesn't know what they're talking about. If you don't know what a compression sleeve puller is, that's fine, I'll go to Lowe's". And I turned around and walked out ... and went to Lowes.
So I guess in my lifetime I have felt the attitude coming from some MAAB's but I didn't put up with it. Perhaps it rarely happens because of the way I carry myself or the way I deal with people? I don't know. I may look like a andro chick or a femme emo guy but I know about fixing stuff, cars, all the usual "male" stuff. Most of the time when I'm talking to other guys and just carrying on a convo they don't bat an eyelash at me or treat me any differently. I was over at the body shop I go to one day and had just got done picking out the paint (I'm restoring an old car) and the paint guy actually showed up (salesman) and he jumps in and we're talking all about cars and stuff and he actually said something to the effect of, "us guys blah blah blah" and then did a double take on me and said, "uh and ... and women ... yeah!" I found that hilarious.
I'll tell you one thing that strikes me as odd. If you're married and filing taxes, the man will always be the first one listed on the taxes as the "head of household". That's a little old fashioned in my book. I mean everything else, from our house to medical insurance my name is actually first (still got the female name).
@ozoozol was the doctor an old guy or a young guy? Just curios if that whole "50's mentality" might have been playing out there too...
This all may come down to individual perspective and experiences.
Quote from: insideontheoutside on December 06, 2012, 07:02:22 PM
Now, Wikipedia explains that male privilege, "refers to the unearned advantages or rights granted to men solely on the basis of their sex, but usually denied to women. In societies with male privilege, men are afforded social, economic, and political benefits because they are male."
I definitely think gender equality has come a long way in our society, but I still think there's some imbalances on both sides. Like others mentioned--men have hard times teaching the younger grades, they can't wear dresses while women can wear pants, they're not allowed to be too emotional, etc.
I think I've had some experiences where I know if I was male things would be different--like, I wouldn't have been told to quit the wrestling team by my father, I wouldn't have been skipped over for promotions for and paid less than the guys at some of the places where I've worked, or been told by people that I shouldn't be allowed to work third shift security because I'd get myself killed. Now, while these may seem like fairly small things, and I am sure they can all be challenged as me either being overly sensitive or it's just old people who are stuck in their ways, I think it shows that, at least in my life experience and how I've viewed things, being born in a female body has denied me of some things that men are just entitled to.
It's just all these little things that just add up to something more. Since we have laws here to prohibit gender discrimination, I can get a job as a police officer if I chose to apply, or join the wrestling team, but there's just all these little attitudes to show that females aren't wanted and aren't accepted.
Things are better for women these days in our culture, but there's still this male privilege, which to me is
acceptance. I've noticed a heck of a lot more men doing "pink collar jobs" (like nursing and being secretaries) than I've seen women doing blue collar jobs. And, some of the women in blue collar jobs I've seen are just given the "easy" assignments because the guys don't think the girls can handle the harder stuff (like, whenever I see women doing construction on the sides of the road, the women are always just the ones holding the sign telling me to stop or slow down, they're never actually driving a backhoe or working the equipment). I think these privileges are mostly invisible to those who have it, so it's hard to notice, and it's even hard for people without the privilege to notice sometimes just because we're so used to living with it.
A great article on privilege is "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy MacIntosh. http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html) She goes through all the things that being white gives her a peace of mind with (like she doesn't have to say to herself "I wonder if X happened to me because I am not white"), and I think we can have both sexes write up nice little lists on all the things being male or female gives them a peace of mind with.
Both genders have privileges, they're just different.I don't plan on transitioning to get any male privilege; the sexist things I've experienced, while some of it does bother me, isn't really that big of a deal to me that it makes me want to go through medically transitioning to male for. Despite my lack of promotions while working for a sexist company, etc., I've done pretty well for myself despite my female body. People who say transguys transition to get male privilege are probably just ignorant, and if they're female, they're probably overlooking all the female privilege that they have.
@insideout - I'd say he was in his 40s or 50s, which would make him born perhaps in the 1960s.
But for me, it pretty much encapsulates what male privilege is. It grants more weight to the opinions and positions of men (if you feel like it, listen to the voice-overs in commercials, keep track of whether the speaker is male or female and what kind of product is being sold). If you're male, men (and frequently women) are more likely to listen to you when you have something to say. The flipside, as was mentioned above, is that if you're female, men are less likely to care about what you want or think (about your personal space, being left alone on the train, the knowledge you could share, or your health issues).
Quote from: ozoozol on December 06, 2012, 10:24:34 PM
But for me, it pretty much encapsulates what male privilege is. It grants more weight to the opinions and positions of men (if you feel like it, listen to the voice-overs in commercials, keep track of whether the speaker is male or female and what kind of product is being sold). If you're male, men (and frequently women) are more likely to listen to you when you have something to say. The flipside, as was mentioned above, is that if you're female, men are less likely to care about what you want or think (about your personal space, being left alone on the train, the knowledge you could share, or your health issues).
Yes, there's a professor at my school who's really old and refuses to call on women, because he thinks they don't belong in law school. And also, it's mostly the guys who raise their hands and volunteer answers, and a lot of the times when the women raise their hands, they always end up apologizing! Like, "excuse me, I am confused with X topic. Sorry..." Men have been raised to know that their view matters, and that they can ask questions and not feel bad; where it's a big deal for most women who haven't had that conditioning.
Quote from: insideontheoutside on December 06, 2012, 10:09:30 PMI'll tell you one thing that strikes me as odd. If you're married and filing taxes, the man will always be the first one listed on the taxes as the "head of household". That's a little old fashioned in my book.
The "head of household" is based on income and is the person who pays for more than 50% of the expenses. Since more married men than married women are the principal breadwinners, of course most of the Heads of Household will be men. But they're not all men.
You also mentioned salary studies. I don't know which ones you are talking about, but the ones I've seen are adjusted for all sorts of factors, and women still wind up making less. So the experts claim.
One thing I find curious is that now men talk to me as if I actually know something about cars and tools, regardless of whether I have actually demonstrated such knowledge. If I profess ignorance about a particular aspect, the other guy doesn't talk down to me; he just explains it.
Also curious is that I have a much better time at the Home Depot (although I buy most of my stuff at the gay hardware store now) because I don't feel like an interloper. Now I feel free to just wander around until I find what I need. It's not that I don't want to ask for help in finding what I need; it's that I feel more comfortable looking for it.
And I have to admit that I'm going to miss automatically getting help and protection when my car breaks down. Even when I was forty-five and overweight, a highway patrolman actually guarded me for forty minutes when my tire blew in a construction zone one night on the freeway. When the AAA guy finally showed, I saw the cop scoping him out, really scrutinizing him, before sort of transferring me.
I guess that's "female privilege."
Arch, that's a good point -- a consequence of being assumed competent is that it's then assumed that you don't need help.
Honestly, whenever I hear of a woman wanting to join any male-dominated career to "break a barrier," it ticks me off. I met a girl who wanted to be a firefighter for that very reason. Listen, lady, you should only be a firefighter if you actually want to be a firefighter. ::)
I do a lot of people watching and I do notice that a good portion of women seem to be the type who apologize for themselves. Which is sad to me. I have a friend who's also saying, "I'm sorry!" for even tiny little things and I always go, "for what?" I've also seen women who purposely play into that "damsel in distress/poor little girl" type of thing as a means to get what they want. To that I just say, whatever. That's their prerogative I suppose. Both genders definitely seem to have their privileges and and behaviors. I totally agree though that women seem to have to put up with more demeaning things. Being ignored I think could happen to anyone, but the talking down to or talking "around" (like the doctor's office thing), the blatant ignoring in favor of males (the law school), the obvious sexist company, the taking away of reproductive rights ... all those things are definitely occasions where women's rights could be improved. But I'm pretty sure misandry or hardcore feminism isn't the way to go about it to get favorable results. That only creates it's own backlash. And I do think that particular group is responsible for a lot of the trans man hate.
@ozoozol There is still outright sexism in marketing. It actually amazes me how much companies get away with on that front.
I saw an article recently that was telling women in corporate positions that by smiling at men it makes them weaker and opens them up to sexist behavior and comments. I found that fascinating too. There was no scientific evidence to it, it was just a blog article on a news site, but still. The article seemed to state that men smiling at women was just a way for them to get what they wanted and when women smiled back then it would just confirm to the man that he could then manipulate that women. The way I see it, that may work for the type of women who's a push over anyway (like the one's always apologizing for themselves) but if a women has worked her way up the corporate ladder, she's no push over. This article also seemed to imply though that ANY time a man smiled at a women in a corporate environment that that's what was happening (he was trying to get something out of her). I think I was moderately offended by the whole article now that I think of it.
@Arch I'm the one that actually owns our "corporation" (majority that is) so technically I am the main bread winner ... but still not listed first.
@DianeP I have to agree, especially in jobs like that where lives could be on the line. You have to take that stuff seriously and want to do it and all the responsibilities that go with it. If you're just doing it to be the woman firefighter that's not a great reason. I know female cops, EMTs and firefighters and they all just really love their jobs and want to help people.
As a very strong and committed feminist, don't get me started on male privilege.
If you don't think that male privilege exists in the United States, then you don't understand what male privilege is.
Feminism is about more than "women's rights." Rights are a legal matter, not a social, cultural, or political matter. You can have all of the same rights and still suffer great inequality. Racism in the law has been eliminated, but institutional racism and racist attitudes are widely persistent. Consider the disproportionate ratios of minorities to whites in the prison population, especially among death row inmates. A lot of crime is due to poverty (desperate people in desperate situations), but there is a disproportionate ratio of minorities to whites among the poor that can be attributed to racist policies from decades and centuries ago.
There is very little upward mobility in American society, because the core factors of socioeconomic improvement are education and personal connections. If you grow-up in a poor neighborhood to a poor family, you will not have access to high quality education, and the people with whom you become well-acquainted will be of similar socioeconomic status. Studies have shown that the vast majority of jobs are obtained through personal connections instead of classified ads, recruiters, or job fairs. Working-class people also have a different mindset than middle and upper classes: If you and everyone in your family/household is always struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck, then college will not be high on your list of priorities, let alone graduate school. And keep in mind that undergraduate degrees are now worth as much as high diplomas used to be.
All of this creates what's known as the "cycle of poverty." No matter how smart and/or hard-working you may be, there's little chance that you or your children will ever break out of it because your opportunities are severely limited. The next Einstein could be a child in the poorest, most crime-filled neighborhood in the country, and she/he will almost certainly never reach her/his potential because in every part of her/his life, since there is nobody to properly recognize, support, or sponsor her/his intellectual and professional development. On the other hand, you have George W. Bush, a white man of not-outstanding intelligence and work ethic but with every socioeconomic advantage imaginable, and he gets to attend Yale and be Governor of Texas and then President of the USA.
The cumulative and lasting effect of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation has been to limit the opportunities of African Americans for two hundred years. But even when those legal restrictions were abolished, the problem was far from solved because blacks were (and are) stuck in the cycle of poverty. Nowadays, there is a glaring divide within the African American community between middle-class blacks (whose numbers are small, comparatively speaking) and working-class blacks. The middle-class blacks rarely associate or socialize with working-class blacks and instead usually just associate with other middle-class blacks (and middle-class whites and middle-class Latinos, etc.). They're not helping working-class blacks to become upwardly-mobile because they are hardly in a position to help.
The same goes for many other minorities. Latinos have been historically employed primarily for low-income manual labor jobs, since the original immigrants were willing to do that work for lower wages than other racial/ethnic/cultural groups. Thus, they are stuck in the cycle of poverty. The Native American population was decimated through violence and diseases from European settlers, who seized their lands. The remaining Native Americans were mostly moved to reservations, which are effectively ghettos. Again, they are stuck in the cycle of poverty. I used to live in Rapid City, South Dakota. My first elementary school was very (economically) poor and ranked second-to-last (for test scores) in the whole city. Obviously, it was in an economically poor neighborhood. A large percentage of its students were Native American. My second elementary school was comparatively wealthy (much wealthier neighborhood) and ranked second-best in the city. There were virtually no Native American students in that school.
There is a pervasive cultural myth, unique to the United States, that if you're smart and work really hard, then you can "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and achieve the American Dream. This is partly why the United States, in terms of legislation, rhetoric, and social structure, is by far the most politically and socially conservative nation in the entire developed world. Attitudes toward the working class and the underclass are generally informed by negative stereotypes. The poor are perceived as lazy and unintelligent and eager to abuse the welfare system. You'll see no positive and popular depictions of working-class life in mainstream culture and media. If turn on the TV or go to the movies, you'll almost always see only middle-class life. The dramas in popular fiction (including TV and movies) are about middle-class problems, not the difficulties that face the working class.
These negative attitudes carry over to minorities, since racial minorities comprise most of the working class. So there you have the institutional racism and racist attitudes and how they interrelate and remain to this day. Go ask the average Caucasian American if there's still much racism in the country, and the answer will most likely be "No." We have a black President, right? The reality is that most whites have a privileged perspective that allows them to remain ignorant of the hardships that face minorities. So they cannot comprehend how racism could still exist, especially considering that racist laws are no longer in the books.
A lot of times in ads for prescription drugs (why we have these in the US, don't get me started) when they go thru the side effects, particularly when they are very dangerous, they usually have a woman talking. It has to do with how seriously people take what women have to say.
Now do trans men have privilege, I'm guessing that passing transmen do. Of course, once you'd come out you'd lose it.
When people say they would prefer to be a male they may want the privilege. I know of someone like that on Genderqueer Chat. I always wonder about that. Actually I am worried a bit about losing female privilege. The thing is I am not very strong, if I have a flat tire or can't reach something...
I think socially like in politics and so on men definitely have the advantage, but in many social situations and so on there is sort of a dance with giving and receiving power and control. And some situations are like the ones I mention. In "Just Add Hormones", the author talks about being able to change a tire for the first time (after waiting around awhile). Everyone then assumes he will help them.
--Jay
So what is privilege? I could use a lot of time and words trying to recite and paraphrase from sociology texts. Instead, I'll illustrate with examples.
Heterosexual privilege allows you to assume that almost all of the people that you meet, unless they behave in an unusual way, are also heterosexual. If you're a straight woman, you can approach almost any man with the assumption that he's straight. If you're a straight man, you don't tend to worry about whether the woman who catches your eye is a lesbian. You don't generally have to worry about whether your romantic (or sexual) relationship makes other people uncomfortable or raises eyebrows or causes family strife, on the basis of your partner's gender alone. As a heterosexual, you're never concerned about whether your sexual orientation will affect how other people behave toward you; they won't take you less seriously; they won't treat you with condescension or suspicion or cruelty or disgust. You don't think about whether they will accept you or not because of your sexual orientation, and you never have "come out" as a heterosexual. Being heterosexual doesn't make you fear for your well-being.
Let's say that you're heterosexual. When you turn on the TV or go to the movies or listen to songs on the radio, you can expect to see/hear other heterosexual relationships being depicted and can therefore relate to the characters for that reason. Why can't shows/movies/songs about gay relationships be mainstream? Gay people have to accommodate depictions of heterosexuality in order to enjoy popular entertainment. Straight people do not have to accommodate depictions of homosexuality, and they do not want to accommodate such depictions. What are the chances that a romantic comedy centered around a homosexual pairing will make tens of millions of dollars at the box office? Could the Twilight franchise have been as popular if Bella, Edward, and Jake were all female or all male? I know firsthand that there is a substantial gay audience for Twilight, in addition to the massive straight audience. But there would only be a gay audience for a gay Twilight, no straight audience.
The sociological concept of privilege, which is what we're discussing here, not the dictionary definition, means that people who have the privilege are generally not aware of it. When you're a member of a minority, you worry on a daily basis about whether your status as a minority will create disadvantages and difficulties for you. As transgender people, I'm sure that we all know about cisgender privilege. Do you think that cisgender people are aware of their cisgender privilege?
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 06, 2012, 11:19:00 PM
As a very strong and committed feminist, don't get me started on male privilege.
If you don't think that male privilege exists in the United States, then you don't understand what male privilege is.
Feminism is about more than "women's rights." ........
Okay ... yeah I get you ... and you talked a lot about white privilege and middle class privilege, heterosexual privilege, etc. and all the reasons for classicism and and whatnot but barely touched on male privilege except to say "don't get me started" on it. I'd prefer not to go off on the tangent of ethnic minorities and socioeconomic situations. I get that we can derive certain behaviors from growing up in certain situations or areas, but how does this directly relate to the type of male (not associated with race
at all, simply male) privilege we're talking about?
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 06, 2012, 11:50:23 PM
The sociological concept of privilege, which is what we're discussing here, not the dictionary definition, means that people who have the privilege are generally not aware of it. When you're a member of a minority, you worry on a daily basis about whether your status as a minority will create disadvantages and difficulties for you. As transgender people, I'm sure that we all know about cisgender privilege. Do you think that cisgender people are aware of their cisgender privilege?
Okay so you're using generalizations and other examples to say that "regular males" wouldn't be aware of this privilege because they've never not had it? But what exactly IS it (as far as I can see it's more attitude/actions than actual denial of any legal "rights" in many cases ... not all ... but many)? And also, how does it relate to trans guys and their experience?
Here's a checklist: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/)
...And as someone mentioned, whether or not we benefit from one aspect or another will depend on whether the people we interact with view us as male. Some aspects, like those stemming from childhood socialization, will probably not apply to most of us.
Okay ... here's my thoughts after reading that checklist. Yes, the majority of all of those things can be true (and I do like how the list maker stated there can be exceptions to those, because there's always exceptions ... I know a male rape victim for instance), and this is probably going to go off on a tangent now but how do females and those seen as females who aren't really (male identified trans people who may not "pass") combat these male privileges? I still don't think radical feminism is the answer. Any "extremist" viewpoint is going to have a backlash that's more than likely detrimental. What I do think is that this is one of those things where the group being effected needs to take the bull by the horns on an individual level. I have experienced a number of the things on the list but not to any great extent because I don't put up with that sh*t. I was never in the corporate world, but I own my own business now and I make a six figure income. I started life in a trailer park (until I was 2). My parents always told me I could be anything I wanted to be if I worked for it. I still think that's true to an extent. I understand that circumstances and situations keep a lot of people from excelling but at the end of the day, you have to take responsibility for your own life as well. That's a percentage of succeeding. It's not just believing you can do it, it's taking every action you can and sometimes spending years on "small steps" to achieve goals. Sometimes it even takes asking other people for help. The fact that it's harder for some people to succeed because of society's "standards" is definitely a problem, I'm not saying it isn't, but I still think individuals have some power to change their circumstances. Action speaks louder than simply identifying a problem. If it's not a matter of personal safety when it might be wise to back down or simply get away from a situation, then I believe that a person needs to make their voice heard. Don't put up with some individual >-bleeped-< who's treating you like you can't do something or comprehend something just because of your gender. You think Hilary Clinton puts up with that crap? ;)
So in short, I have a better understand of the types of things people consider to be male privilege. I acknowledge they exist and it's crappy that they do, but I believe that individuals have the power to change this (and maybe even educate those who are unaware of what they're doing).
OK, so what about male privilege? Again, I'll illustrate with some examples.
If you're a woman, and you're walking down the street or in a parking lot alone at night, you always worry about whether those footsteps that you hear behind you are from a potential rapist. The closer that those footsteps become, the more nervous that you get, and you'll likely quicken your pace. Men don't have to worry about this. If you're a man, and you're walking at night behind a woman whom you don't know (or who doesn't know you), and you're both alone, then you might be bothered if you see that woman start walking faster to increase the distance from you, thereby communicating her anxiety. You know that you're a nice guy, not a rapist, so why should she be afraid of you? Such a question is a demonstration of male privilege. You ask it because you almost never have to worry about being raped, but women worry about it often, perhaps even on a daily basis.
If you're a woman entering a workplace that's predominately staffed by male employees, you'll probably wonder if you're going to be sexually harassed at some point or if the men will make inappropriate sexual comments about you behind your back. If you're a man entering a workplace that's predominately staffed by female employees, you don't worry about being sexually harassed, and you either don't mind sexual comments being made about you by women behind your back, or you don't think about, or you might even enjoy it. If you're a man, you don't tend to worry about how your work clothes will be judged by your coworkers as long as they comply with office dress code. Just wear slacks, a shirt with a collar, and maybe a decent tie, and you're done. If you're woman, you know that you will be judged, and you think about what kind of impression you want to make at the office. Your clothing choices may cause you to be seen as "frumpy," "a cold bitch," "a stuck-up bitch," "boring," "fun," "exciting," "friendly," "inviting," "a cock-tease," etc.
Speaking of appearance, the cosmetic and fashion industries are universally understood to be geared toward women. Women are "supposed" to wear make-up, but men are not "supposed" to wear make-up. Women are "supposed" to spend a lot of time and money shopping for clothes and shoes and jewelry and cosmetics and getting manicures/pedicures. Men are "supposed" to spend a lot of time and money shopping for utilitarian items such as gadgets and tools and cars. Look at the clothing that's made for women: It's all universally more form-fitting, skin-revealing, and thinner than clothing made for men or claimed to be unisex. Women's jeans are much tighter; women's sleeves are much shorter; women's necklines are much lower; women's shirts and dresses always hug the waistline. Women can wear (and are sometimes expected to wear) sexy lingerie, but the idea of lingerie that's made for men to wear is laughable to most people. Guys get teased for wearing briefs instead of boxers. In short, women's clothes are always designed to accentuate and show-off women's bodies.
Men who wear clothes with those attributes are thought to be probably gay. Women who wear clothes that are baggy or loose and have longer sleeves and higher necklines and thick weaves are thought be tomboys or butch lesbians. Take a look at swimwear: bikinis are more common than one-piece women's swimsuits, but virtually all women's swimwear is thin, form-fitting, and highly revealing; American men wear thick, long, baggy swim trunks. (Please note that Speedos are preferred by men in most other countries.) The net effect is that women are perceived to be obsessed with their appearance (to say nothing of sexual objectification here), perhaps on an inherent level, and the implication is therefore that women are shallow beings whose main value is looking good. How can women expect to be taken seriously in professional, academic, and intellectual environments when cosmetics and clothing are gendered in this way?
Look at the popular shows on TV and the popular movies in theaters. Name as many sitcom families as you can and ask yourself what they're like: "The Simpsons," "Family Guy," "The King of Queens," "Everybody Loves Raymond," "According to Jim," "Married... with Children." The wife characters are always, always gorgeous women (and are usually pointed-out as such at some point by other characters), while the husbands are usually average-looking at best and/or overweight, with no other outstanding attributes (e.g., intelligence, wit, career accomplishments). You will never see a sitcom family in which the wife is a Plain Jane and the husband is a sexy hunk. The problem isn't just that women have to be very good-looking in order to play starring roles on TV while men don't. The bigger problem is that men can watch these shows and feel validated that their appearance doesn't matter, and they can still be the head-of-household and breadwinner and have a hot wife. Where's the validation for women who watch these shows?
Name the highest-grossing movies of the last decade, the ones that grossed over $200 million. They are predominately male-oriented, testosterone-driven action movies. The women in those movies invariably take supporting roles that have some sexpot aspect to them. In Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Tom Cruise gets to climb the side of a skyscraper, but he never has to wear revealing clothes and try to seduce a rich and powerful person. Paula Patton, who plays the only female main character, has to wear a sexy dress and seduce a guy in order to advance the plot. Think about Scarlett Johansson's part in The Avengers and how she's portrayed compared to the male characters. The Harry Potter franchise may have been started by a woman, but the protagonist is still male, and the story is from his point of view with Hermione as a supporting character.
How about James Bond? Again, the female characters are usually sexpots who dress sexy and show skin in sex scenes, while Bond himself, though very sexual, is rarely seen as less than fully-clothed. If he is half-naked or naked in a scene, then his body is usually obscured. Lots of women enjoy James Bond movies, and I'm sure that they would love seeing Bond show a lot more skin. But that won't happen because a lot of male viewers will be turned-off, as if women aren't turned-off by the sexy Bond girls. In other words, Bond movies (and most other mainstream movies) must be catered to men's homophobia but need not be catered to any possible women's homophobia.
The Twilight and Sex and the City movies were very popular with female audiences, but that's also problematic for two main reasons. First of all, the audiences were overwhelmingly female, whereas the audiences for the other blockbusters (which are male-centric narratives) were well-balanced between male and female. There is an unspoken but universally-accepted rule among Hollywood executives that you cannot make any big-budget movie that appeals to all demographics unless it has a male protagonist or an ensemble that's predominantly male. Hollywood considers any movie with a female protagonist (or an ensemble that's predominantly female) to be a movie that's targeted specifically at women; such movies almost never draw a significant male audience. I have seen this reported by Nikki Finke, the preeminent online journalist in Hollywood.
Second, look at how women are portrayed in movies that are targeted at female audiences. They always have conventional gender roles (as do the male characters). Bella Swan apparently has no life without her man, Edward Cullen. Carrie Bradshaw and her friends are consumed by shopping and fashion and "girl talk." Romantic comedies are all about women needing men to feel complete, and they are sold as typical women's fantasies. If that weren't problematic enough, these wish-fulfillment narratives are odd because, once again, the female protagonists are always, always very good-looking. Why not have a romantic comedy in which a frumpy, homely, career-driven woman gets to have the hunky stay-at-home man of her dreams? On the other hand, The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked-Up both feature male protagonists who are not very conventionally-handsome but who marry very conventionally-beautiful women.
The Hunger Games is important because it's the first major blockbuster in a very long time that appeals to all demographics and has a female protagonist who can just be a bad-ass and who never has to be sexy (except for one insignificant scene) and who never has to rely on men all of the time. The last movie that accomplished this, AFAIK, is Aliens back in 1986. We definitely need more movies like this.
The point is that so much popular entertainment requires women to accommodate male perspectives and male tastes, while men do not have to likewise accommodate female perspectives and female tastes in the same way. Most heterosexual couples find mutual enjoyment in big-budget action movies (which are basically male fantasies), but women have to drag their men to see "chick flicks." The inequality, and thus the male privilege, should be apparent here. How do you think popular entertainment affects popular attitudes about gender? However problematic the concept of the gender binary may be, much more problematic is what gender roles imply about the comparative value, status, and power of each gender. If we're not aware of the male privilege that comes with these gender roles, then gender inequality will perpetuate.
As far as FTMs go, the notion that they want to have male privilege is suspect to me. But a trans man can have male privilege if he can pass and be stealth. If he's known to be trans, then the male privilege is probably negated by the glaring lack of cisgender privilege.
TL;DR - don't get me started on male privilege, LOL.
Quote from: DianaP on December 06, 2012, 08:38:24 PM
Preach! I never want to drive a car, but if people are more like to help me on the road if I ever do drive for whatever reason, that will be good for me. After all, to me, every part of a car will forever be referred to as a "thingy." :laugh:
You mean the whos its that attached to the whats it that needs to be removed with the wahtcama call it?
;)
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 07, 2012, 03:15:34 AM
OK, so what about male privilege? Again, I'll illustrate with some examples.
If you're a woman, and you're walking down the street or in a parking lot alone at night, you always worry about whether those footsteps that you hear behind you are from a potential rapist. The closer that those footsteps become, the more nervous that you get, and you'll likely quicken your pace. Men don't have to worry about this. If you're a man, and you're walking at night behind a woman whom you don't know (or who doesn't know you), and you're both alone, then you might be bothered if you see that woman start walking faster to increase the distance from you, thereby communicating her anxiety. You know that you're a nice guy, not a rapist, so why should she be afraid of you? Such a question is a demonstration of male privilege. You ask it because you almost never have to worry about being raped, but women worry about it often, perhaps even on a daily basis.
If a man gets raped there is a big chance he will
never get any help. People will laugh at him and tell he enjoyed it. If a woman raped him she knows she will never be found guilty of this crime. This is both if she rapes women and men. In the us it is not illegal for a man to be raped. Also as a man you can never tell anyone about it because you know that they will not take you seriously. If you are a woman you will be taken seriously other than you you where raped by a woman of cause. I once heard a story about a woman that was raped by her mother when she was a child. People didn't take her seriously and said that mothers where to kind to do that.
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 07, 2012, 03:15:34 AM
If you're a woman entering a workplace that's predominately staffed by male employees, you'll probably wonder if you're going to be sexually harassed at some point or if the men will make inappropriate sexual comments about you behind your back. If you're a man entering a workplace that's predominately staffed by female employees, you don't worry about being sexually harassed, and you either don't mind sexual comments being made about you by women behind your back, or you don't think about, or you might even enjoy it. If you're a man, you don't tend to worry about how your work clothes will be judged by your coworkers as long as they comply with office dress code. Just wear slacks, a shirt with a collar, and maybe a decent tie, and you're done. If you're woman, you know that you will be judged, and you think about what kind of impression you want to make at the office. Your clothing choices may cause you to be seen as "frumpy," "a cold bitch," "a stuck-up bitch," "boring," "fun," "exciting," "friendly," "inviting," "a cock-tease," etc.
That's a lot of generalisations there. I do agree with the fact that women do get a lot of crap sometimes, but I don't think it's fair to say that men enjoy sexual comments look at what I wrote about rape.
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 07, 2012, 03:15:34 AM
Speaking of appearance, the cosmetic and fashion industries are universally understood to be geared toward women. Women are "supposed" to wear make-up, but men are not "supposed" to wear make-up. Women are "supposed" to spend a lot of time and money shopping for clothes and shoes and jewelry and cosmetics and getting manicures/pedicures. Men are "supposed" to spend a lot of time and money shopping for utilitarian items such as gadgets and tools and cars. Look at the clothing that's made for women: It's all universally more form-fitting, skin-revealing, and thinner than clothing made for men or claimed to be unisex. Women's jeans are much tighter; women's sleeves are much shorter; women's necklines are much lower; women's shirts and dresses always hug the waistline. Women can wear (and are sometimes expected to wear) sexy lingerie, but the idea of lingerie that's made for men to wear is laughable to most people. Guys get teased for wearing briefs instead of boxers. In short, women's clothes are always designed to accentuate and show-off women's bodies.
Men who wear clothes with those attributes are thought to be probably gay. Women who wear clothes that are baggy or loose and have longer sleeves and higher necklines and thick weaves are thought be tomboys or butch lesbians. Take a look at swimwear: bikinis are more common than one-piece women's swimsuits, but virtually all women's swimwear is thin, form-fitting, and highly revealing; American men wear thick, long, baggy swim trunks. (Please note that Speedos are preferred by men in most other countries.) The net effect is that women are perceived to be obsessed with their appearance (to say nothing of sexual objectification here), perhaps on an inherent level, and the implication is therefore that women are shallow beings whose main value is looking good. How can women expect to be taken seriously in professional, academic, and intellectual environments when cosmetics and clothing are gendered in this way?
When I didn't know I was male I thought I that women's clothing was made by evil sexist males. When I found out I was male I also found out that a
lot of women actually like that kind of clothes. Could it be that they actually like to wear it? I know women sometimes get crap for wearing less revealing, but do you know what men on the other hand gets for cross dressing? They get beat up. Getting called a woman, a
>-bleeped-<, made fun of and it maybe makes people more likely to rape them. Both sexes gets crap from clothing so stop only focusing on women.
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 07, 2012, 03:15:34 AM
Look at the popular shows on TV and the popular movies in theaters. Name as many sitcom families as you can and ask yourself what they're like: "The Simpsons," "Family Guy," "The King of Queens," "Everybody Loves Raymond," "According to Jim," "Married... with Children." The wife characters are always, always gorgeous women (and are usually pointed-out as such at some point by other characters), while the husbands are usually average-looking at best and/or overweight, with no other outstanding attributes (e.g., intelligence, wit, career accomplishments). You will never see a sitcom family in which the wife is a Plain Jane and the husband is a sexy hunk. The problem isn't just that women have to be very good-looking in order to play starring roles on TV while men don't. The bigger problem is that men can watch these shows and feel validated that their appearance doesn't matter, and they can still be the head-of-household and breadwinner and have a hot wife. Where's the validation for women who watch these shows?
Name the highest-grossing movies of the last decade, the ones that grossed over $200 million. They are predominately male-oriented, testosterone-driven action movies. The women in those movies invariably take supporting roles that have some sexpot aspect to them. In Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Tom Cruise gets to climb the side of a skyscraper, but he never has to wear revealing clothes and try to seduce a rich and powerful person. Paula Patton, who plays the only female main character, has to wear a sexy dress and seduce a guy in order to advance the plot. Think about Scarlett Johansson's part in The Avengers and how she's portrayed compared to the male characters. The Harry Potter franchise may have been started by a woman, but the protagonist is still male, and the story is from his point of view with Hermione as a supporting character.
How about James Bond? Again, the female characters are usually sexpots who dress sexy and show skin in sex scenes, while Bond himself, though very sexual, is rarely seen as less than fully-clothed. If he is half-naked or naked in a scene, then his body is usually obscured. Lots of women enjoy James Bond movies, and I'm sure that they would love seeing Bond show a lot more skin. But that won't happen because a lot of male viewers will be turned-off, as if women aren't turned-off by the sexy Bond girls. In other words, Bond movies (and most other mainstream movies) must be catered to men's homophobia but need not be catered to any possible women's homophobia.
I agree with you here. Movies suck. This is the reason why I don't watch many of them.
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 07, 2012, 03:15:34 AM
The Twilight and Sex and the City movies were very popular with female audiences, but that's also problematic for two main reasons. First of all, the audiences were overwhelmingly female, whereas the audiences for the other blockbusters (which are male-centric narratives) were well-balanced between male and female. There is an unspoken but universally-accepted rule among Hollywood executives that you cannot make any big-budget movie that appeals to all demographics unless it has a male protagonist or an ensemble that's predominantly male. Hollywood considers any movie with a female protagonist (or an ensemble that's predominantly female) to be a movie that's targeted specifically at women; such movies almost never draw a significant male audience. I have seen this reported by Nikki Finke, the preeminent online journalist in Hollywood.
Twilight is the most sexist bog I have ever heard of. Of still not sure why people like it.
I have seen many good movies from Hollywood with female protagonists, maybe that's a new thing then because the where from the 80'.
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 07, 2012, 03:15:34 AM
Second, look at how women are portrayed in movies that are targeted at female audiences. They always have conventional gender roles (as do the male characters). Bella Swan apparently has no life without her man, Edward Cullen. Carrie Bradshaw and her friends are consumed by shopping and fashion and "girl talk." Romantic comedies are all about women needing men to feel complete, and they are sold as typical women's fantasies. If that weren't problematic enough, these wish-fulfillment narratives are odd because, once again, the female protagonists are always, always very good-looking. Why not have a romantic comedy in which a frumpy, homely, career-driven woman gets to have the hunky stay-at-home man of her dreams? On the other hand, The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked-Up both feature male protagonists who are not very conventionally-handsome but who marry very conventionally-beautiful women.
The Hunger Games is important because it's the first major blockbuster in a very long time that appeals to all demographics and has a female protagonist who can just be a bad-ass and who never has to be sexy (except for one insignificant scene) and who never has to rely on men all of the time. The last movie that accomplished this, AFAIK, is Aliens back in 1986. We definitely need more movies like this.
The point is that so much popular entertainment requires women to accommodate male perspectives and male tastes, while men do not have to likewise accommodate female perspectives and female tastes in the same way. Most heterosexual couples find mutual enjoyment in big-budget action movies (which are basically male fantasies), but women have to drag their men to see "chick flicks." The inequality, and thus the male privilege, should be apparent here. How do you think popular entertainment affects popular attitudes about gender? However problematic the concept of the gender binary may be, much more problematic is what gender roles imply about the comparative value, status, and power of each gender. If we're not aware of the male privilege that comes with these gender roles, then gender inequality will perpetuate.
As far as FTMs go, the notion that they want to have male privilege is suspect to me. But a trans man can have male privilege if he can pass and be stealth. If he's known to be trans, then the male privilege is probably negated by the glaring lack of cisgender privilege.
TL;DR - don't get me started on male privilege, LOL.
I see what you mean: We need less sexy females and hot males in fiction!
Seriously thought. This is why I normally don't like feminists. They say there are for equality, but they will never focus on sexism towards males. It's just 'females have to worse than men' and nothing but that. I have nothing against people that call themselves feminists and actually care about both men and women's right, but when they don't think/care about equal rights then I have a problem.
http://www.nothingiswrong.com/feminism/ (http://www.nothingiswrong.com/feminism/) I don't feel like copy pasting so I will refer to my blog.
Quote from: Sparrowhawke on December 07, 2012, 05:41:03 AM
If a man gets raped there is a big chance he will never get any help. People will laugh at him and tell he enjoyed it. If a woman raped him she knows she will never be found guilty of this crime. This is both if she rapes women and men. In the us it is not illegal for a man to be raped. Also as a man you can never tell anyone about it because you know that they will not take you seriously. If you are a woman you will be taken seriously other than you you where raped by a woman of cause. I once heard a story about a woman that was raped by her mother when she was a child. People didn't take her seriously and said that mothers where to kind to do that.
I was one that had that happen to me. (I'm not the only one. It does happen but it's just not quite as common) It is more common though if you are perceived as being vulnerable. The other thing is they won't believe you,they will say it's not possible,you're confused or you are making it up. If it's male on male your family may reject you,think you're gay even if you are not,ignore you and the same with your friends.
It has to do with being perceived as being vulnerable,men are usually perceived as being less vulnerable. As a general statement it may be true,but it is far from reality,what about the husbands and boy friends that get the crap beat out of them by their wives and girl friends? It's not as common but it does happen. There are women who are just as much predators as men can be,they can be just as vicious and mean spirited. To say it's just the men is not dealing with reality.
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 07, 2012, 06:04:38 AM
I was one that had that happen to me. (I'm not the only one. It does happen but it's just not quite as common) It is more common though if you are perceived as being vulnerable. The other thing is they won't believe you,they will say it's not possible,you're confused or you are making it up. If it's male on male your family may reject you,think you're gay even if you are not,ignore you and the same with your friends.
I'm so sorry you had that happen to you. It's a sad world to live in.
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 07, 2012, 06:04:38 AM
It has to do with being perceived as being vulnerable,men are usually perceived as being less vulnerable. As a general statement it may be true,but it is far from reality,what about the husbands and boy friends that get the crap beat out of them by their wives and girl friends? It's not as common but it does happen. There are women who are just as much predators as men can be,they can be just as vicious and mean spirited. To say it's just the men is not dealing with reality.
This is why feminists annoy me so much sometimes. They only deal in women's right and ignore men's rights even thought they say they stand for equal rights. I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this.
I've noticed that women are always shocked when they hear I was abused by my mother, but men are much less surprised. I think it's because of strong cultural conditioning to see mothers as safe and nurturing. I've also been told by someone who works in social care here in the UK that domestic violence is much closer to 50/50 men and women than they are encouraged to say publicly - the difference is that men often being physically stronger, they do more physical damage (some violence is not physical, of course) - and women are often more vulnerable because they're often financially dependent on men and so can't just leave an abusive relationship.
What's always struck me about women's rights vs. men's rights is that it shouldn't be vs. - it should never be one at the other's expense, or a competition.
Quote from: Sparrowhawke on December 07, 2012, 06:19:30 AM
I'm so sorry you had that happen to you. It's a sad world to live in.
It was in the late 70's when it happened. Not a lot of help forth coming. I had a lot to work through,my father ended thinking I was gay, (Not knowing what really going inside me),my mom couldn't understand,my brothers and sisters thought I was nuts,the people at church ostracized me,my girlfriend at the time dumped me when I told her,the cops wouldn't do anything,and my therapist couldn't believe it. I had to work through it on my own and it set me way back on some things. For six months all I could do was take the dog outside and pace around a 150 x 50 foot garden,I was really messed up and close to insanity and feeling very very alone. Got through it though and a whole lot better now. ;)
Quote from: Sparrowhawke on December 07, 2012, 06:19:30 AM
This is why feminists annoy me so much sometimes. They only deal in women's right and ignore men's rights even thought they say they stand for equal rights. I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this.
It's looking at only part of the picture,and wanting to deal with only that which affects ones own self. It's always easier to ignore things that doesn't affect one's self personally.
Quote from: Padma on December 07, 2012, 06:33:03 AM
I've noticed that women are always shocked when they hear I was abused by my mother, but men are much less surprised. I think it's because of strong cultural conditioning to see mothers as safe and nurturing. I've also been told by someone who works in social care here in the UK that domestic violence is much closer to 50/50 men and women than they are encouraged to say publicly - the difference is that men often being physically stronger, they do more physical damage (some violence is not physical, of course) - and women are often more vulnerable because they're often financially dependent on men and so can't just leave an abusive relationship.
Women at times can be more caustic verbally,and because women can more often (Not to say all)
take pot shots on the emotional level. And think about it mom's are suppose to be the ones that nurture and protect not be the ones inflicting that kind of harm and damage to their own kids. Kind of like getting underneath the scales of the armor and being able to hit the soft underbelly. The wounds can be just as deep and longer lasting because they can't be seen from the outside.
Quote from: Sparrowhawke on December 07, 2012, 06:19:30 AM
This is why feminists annoy me so much sometimes. They only deal in women's right and ignore men's rights even thought they say they stand for equal rights. I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this.
Ah, don't hate on all feminists. I consider myself to be one, and I am for the "equality" movement, not the "men are evil and deserve to die" movement.
Things in life aren't going to get better unless we help men too. People need to realize that not all guys know how to change a tire, that men have emotions too, that men get raped and experience sexual harassment, and so on.
I think the angry feminists from the '70s gave feminism a bad name. Feminism has changed a lot since then and not many people seem to realize that.
Quote from: LearnedHand on December 07, 2012, 07:15:41 AM
I think the angry feminists from the '70s gave feminism a bad name. Feminism has changed a lot since then and not many people seem to realize that.
Agreed.
Hatred by one group of another is not the solution to any problem. Mutual respect and co-operation is the only way forward. Of course, I'm not naive enough to expect to see much of
that in my lifetime... ;)
OK, basic explanation: "privilege" is being respected more, being able to get away with more and being taken more seriously. That's a sociological concept, not the Almighty Dictionary Definition.
I can give the guys who don't know what it's about a very simple example: being able to correct people when you're misgendered, without having to worry that they'll make a scene. I get misgendered by random people sometimes, and when I correct them, they become apologetic. However, my trans-feminine friends all tell ENTIRELY different stories, having had far more negative reactions when "clocked" than I've ever done.
Quote from: LearnedHand on December 07, 2012, 07:15:41 AM
Ah, don't hate on all feminists. I consider myself to be one, and I am for the "equality" movement, not the "men are evil and deserve to die" movement.
Things in life aren't going to get better unless we help men too. People need to realize that not all guys know how to change a tire, that men have emotions too, that men get raped and experience sexual harassment, and so on.
I think the angry feminists from the '70s gave feminism a bad name. Feminism has changed a lot since then and not many people seem to realize that.
If you where reading my other post you will see that I only dislike the "men are evil and deserve to die" feminists.
QuoteSeriously thought. This is why I normally don't like feminists. They say there are for equality, but they will never focus on sexism towards males. It's just 'females have to worse than men' and nothing but that. I have nothing against people that call themselves feminists and actually care about both men and women's right, but when they don't think/care about equal rights then I have a problem.
And it's not feminists from the '70s only that have this problem. I see them all over the place. It's actually pretty rare for me to see the 'good' feminists. I normally see people in there 20's acting like they brainwashed into feminism and not thinking about facts, but just making stuff up about how oppressed women are without looking at the truth. I also feel like the name 'feminist' is wrong to use if you want equality. This is why I call myself an equalitist and not a feminist.
@ SarahM777 I guess that makes sense only thinking about your self, but how do you then explain the rest of the world? Nearly everything I see and hear is based around feminism and I'm not talking about the good one.
the "transition to get previligies" simple dosen't make sense in western sociaty.
Yeah maybe guys have more rights, gets more money and so, But being trans you got less right than a cisgender no matter if its a cisgender woman or male for the time your not registered Male.
after that time your Op and registered male you will probably has pretty much the same rights, but before that your living pretty much the lowest class, and well some transguys live like that there whole life.
---
A few notes :
The statistics on the gender wage gap are not skewed by the fact that women tend to do more low paying jobs (although this is indeed true, and one should wonder why those low-paying jobs are typically pegged as "women's jobs" and why women are encouraged or expected to choose them). When you read "women make 20% less than men", it means they make 20% less for the same job at the same level of experience or qualification.
"Women are taken seriously when they report rape" - no, they're not. They are very often told that they "asked for it" through their clothing, words or actions, that they are lying, that they probably enjoyed it, that if they are fat or considered ugly they should be thankful that someone was "attracted" to them, or that it's just no big deal and they should get over it. About 3% of rapists ever serve a day in jail.
And while it's true that it is still taken more seriously that male rape, that's because female rape is much more common - and why do you think that is? Because women's bodies are considered public property in a way that men bodies aren't, and their sexuality and consent is taken much less seriously and considered "passive" ; thus rape is considered a "women's issue", thus male rape is not believed to exist - especially woman-on-man rape, because if women's sexuality is passive how could they assault someone?
The argument that women are more privileged because they get less flack for doing things traditionally considered to be the domain of the opposite gender is, again, upside down in logic. Men (and women themselves more and more as well) get more crap for doing stuff considered feminine or wearing women's clothes because womanhood and femininity are considered inherently inferior to manhood and masculinity, thus a man doing those things is seen as "degrading" himself and manhood and falling down the social ladder. When a guy in a dress is introduced as a visual joke in a TV show, people laugh for the same reason they would laugh if he were dressed up as a chicken - "omg look at how he's putting himself down in that costume, that's hilarious!" If being a woman/feminine weren't seen as "bad" or "lesser", then doing women's/feminine things wouldn't be seen as an issue.
Just try to make a list in your head of ten character traits traditionally associated with men or masculinity, and ten with women or femininity - no second guessing or forcing yourself to disprove the expected result or thinking about specific people, pick the first ones that jump on your mind. For each gender, how many of those traits were positive? How many negative?
I'd bet I know the answers, and I bet they're the same as mine, even though I consider myself feminist.
The fact is, there is no such thing as "men's rights VS women's rights". Lots of the crap men get is collateral damage from sexism towards women.
Male privilege exists.
When I'm trying to get my point across in a heated debate or assert authority over someone, I'm taken more seriously and given more attention if I'm dressed in a manly way or lower my voice to a typically "booming" masculine one - that's male privilege (and I lived in the streets as a teenager, so believe me I know all about asserting authority - that's a basic survival skill there).
When a man sucks at something or messes something up at his job or school, unlike women he doesn't have to worry that it'll make all men look bad in that area or that people will assume he sucked and will always suck at that thing because of who he inherently is - that's male privilege.
At work, men don't have to worry about not being hired or promoted because of their gender or attractiveness, being asked to "put out" or put up with sexual harassment to land a promotion or just not get fired, or being held to a much higher requirement in dress code - that's male privilege. They don't have to worry about those things because the higher you go through the company's authority ladder, the more men are represented - climbing up this ladder is much easier for men, male privilege again.
When a man publicly talks about something - anything - his voice is considered neutral and universal, whereas a woman's message will be assumed to be skewed by her gender and/or only adressed to women. Men's tastes, voices and artistic productions are considered relevant to everyone, women's are considered relevant to women only - that's male privilege.
I could go on and on with hundreds of personal anecdotes and examples, but they all lead to the same point.
@ sia
"Women are taken seriously when they report rape"
I REALLY hope that wasn't words put in to my mouth or something.
From what you say it's not sexism towards women. Nor is it female vs males rights, but in reality femininity is bad and masculinity is good.
Other than that I'm not sure what to say to your comment because I know you will not agree with me.
There are a lot of different kinds of privilege, and they are not always so easy to separate out from each other - even if that's your desire. Nor are they universal. There are lots of mitigating circumstances that alter the playing field. In other words they are not automatic. Not all males get 'male privilege'. Far from it. As someone noted they are best enjoyed by 'masculine' men - in other words 'no dorks allowed'. That short, fat kid who makes noises when he's breathing hard - he ain't never going to know any male privilege. And in order to climb the corporate ladder being male, even being a masculine male, you still have to exhibit a bunch of other stuff, the 'team player' junk, the 'go along to get along' shuck 'N jive, the expectations that you'll do an entire laundry list of 'the right things'.
And then there is what to everyone posting above me seems to conveniently ignore - which is that privilege has a corresponding cost involved. The things that are required to qualify become eternally mandatory. There are expectations that go along with them that have to be constantly met.
Quote from: tekla on December 07, 2012, 01:30:46 PM
There are a lot of different kinds of privilege, and they are not always so easy to separate out from each other - even if that's your desire. Nor are they universal. There are lots of mitigating circumstances that alter the playing field. In other words they are not automatic. Not all males get 'male privilege'. Far from it. As someone noted they are best enjoyed by 'masculine' men - in other words 'no dorks allowed'. That short, fat kid who makes noises when he's breathing hard - he ain't never going to know any male privilege. And in order to climb the corporate ladder being male, even being a masculine male, you still have to exhibit a bunch of other stuff, the 'team player' junk, the 'go along to get along' shuck 'N jive, the expectations that you'll do an entire laundry list of 'the right things'.
And then there is what to everyone posting above me seems to conveniently ignore - which is that privilege has a corresponding cost involved. The things that are required to qualify become eternally mandatory. There are expectations that go along with them that have to be constantly met.
This^^^ is also true for women, we have privilages and we pay the price; and not every woman gets the priviliges.
At the end regardless of gender, it boils to money, looks, education, expereince, self steam, political saviness, ethnicity, and yes, chance
Quote from: Sparrowhawke on December 07, 2012, 07:58:59 AM
@ SarahM777 I guess that makes sense only thinking about your self, but how do you then explain the rest of the world? Nearly everything I see and hear is based around feminism and I'm not talking about the good one.
I am not sure I am getting the gist of what you are saying,but if you are referring to Western culture trying to impose those ideas and ideals on another culture,perhaps it's because one sees one culture as being somehow better than the other.
Quote from: peky on December 07, 2012, 02:03:04 PM
This^^^ is also true for women, we have privilages and we pay the price; and not every woman gets the priviliges.
At the end regardless of gender, it boils to money, looks, education, expereince, self steam, political saviness, ethnicity, and yes, chance
There is one other and that is by force.
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 07, 2012, 03:15:34 AM
If you're a woman, and you're walking down the street or in a parking lot alone at night, you always worry about whether those footsteps that you hear behind you are from a potential rapist.
I don't know if you actually meant to but in your examples you use words like "always" and "all" and the reality is that those are not always 100% truths. They're also broad generalizations. You're implying that women, by nature, think of themselves as victims
all the time. I know a ton of women who do not think they're going to be raped every time they walk across a parking lot at night. There's plenty of studies that have been done that illustrate that it's not just a gender issue, it's a victim mindset. It's the way someone carries themselves or are aware of their surroundings. If you're an "easy mark", male or female, you're a target for crime. I think there is also a statistic that a high percentage of women are raped by people they know. I'll give you that there's still an amount of that "she asked for it" mentality going on and that definitely needs to stop.
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 07, 2012, 03:15:34 AM
Speaking of appearance, the cosmetic and fashion industries are universally understood to be geared toward women. Women are "supposed" to wear make-up, but men are not "supposed" to wear make-up. Women are "supposed" to spend a lot of time and money shopping for clothes and shoes and jewelry and cosmetics and getting manicures/pedicures....
Have you stopped to think that a lot of women actually like wearing make up and looking "pretty" and and are into fashion? You think everyone buys the crappy marketing? In this society a women can choose to not wear make up and high heels and dresses, etc. These aren't mandatory requirements. And saying that all women fall prey to this evil, male-centric marketing discredits all the women who dress and look how they're comfortable and in reality do not experience sexism because of it (and consequently ignore that sort of marketing).
Quote from: ydgmdlu on December 07, 2012, 03:15:34 AM
The inequality, and thus the male privilege, should be apparent here. How do you think popular entertainment affects popular attitudes about gender? However problematic the concept of the gender binary may be, much more problematic is what gender roles imply about the comparative value, status, and power of each gender. If we're not aware of the male privilege that comes with these gender roles, then gender inequality will perpetuate.
Entertainment is a numbers game. I worked in the entertainment industry and it absolutely caters to males because males are the highest percentage of consumers. I'm certainly not saying this is right, but nothing is going to change until production companies see the statistics. Twilight is mostly watched by women however (and they are the largest percentage of people who bought the books) ... they eat it up. Men in general think it's awful. So it's women that are perpetuating that sort of garbage. I know plenty of women though who hate it. They also hate "chick flicks" or mushy romances. But for every women that doesn't like that, there's 20 more who do. They're the ones buying romance novels and dreaming about their "soul mates" who are hot sexy hunks. So women perpetuate this just as much as "male privilege" does and saying that male privilege IS the reason why women like something or act they way they do is another discredit to the female species. It's like you're right on board saying that women can't make up their own minds about something and they've just been led along like little lambs their whole life to act, think, and look a certain way. Well plenty of women don't fit in that box at all and they know they are free to make their own choices.
I think that's the thing that upsets me the most about this. I've had to live in female society and in a mostly female body and regardless of the way my brain is wired I've never thought of myself as a victim in society, subjected to the wills of men. Luckily I had a very strong female role model with my mother (who is now 71 btw, so she lived through a lot of actual sexism).
There are female roles and there are male roles in society. Mostly because males and females are different both in body and brain. Females have attributes that males do not and vice versa. To preach about gender "equality" on some of these things is to ignore those simple differences. I think the majority of people in our society know that a women can do anything she wants to. Yes, there's still a percentage of men who don't think so. There's still sexism in advertising and in the entertainment industry and it's probably not going to change any time soon. But on an individual level it's absolutely possible for a women to go through life and, when she encounters male privilege to assert herself and not cave to the will of someone else (violent crime situations aside).
Quote from: Sia on December 07, 2012, 12:27:15 PM
Just try to make a list in your head of ten character traits traditionally associated with men or masculinity, and ten with women or femininity - no second guessing or forcing yourself to disprove the expected result or thinking about specific people, pick the first ones that jump on your mind. For each gender, how many of those traits were positive? How many negative?
I'd bet I know the answers, and I bet they're the same as mine, even though I consider myself feminist.
Once again this can totally be based on individual experience. And no I'm not second guessing or "forcing" myself to disprove this. My list for women would include: strength, intelligence, the ability to be under great stress and handle it, the ability to do multiple things, the ability to keep their cool under certain circumstances, they're able to put themselves in someone else's shoes easier or understand things at an emotional level ... These are universal things that can be applied to just about all women. I really don't know what list you were expecting ... maybe something more along the lines like femininity = weakness and sexual objectification? If so, then you're just as guilty of perpetuating the bullsh*t in our society as the males who are ignorant of their privileges.
Maybe that's just me, coming from my experience. But wouldn't things be different if all the women who had been convinced they have been made out to be victims of males wants and desires, thought this way?
Quote from: Sparrowhawke on December 07, 2012, 07:58:59 AM
And it's not feminists from the '70s only that have this problem. I see them all over the place. It's actually pretty rare for me to see the 'good' feminists. I normally see people in there 20's acting like they brainwashed into feminism and not thinking about facts, but just making stuff up about how oppressed women are without looking at the truth. I also feel like the name 'feminist' is wrong to use if you want equality. This is why I call myself an equalitist and not a feminist.
IMO all it takes it just listening to some of the feminist diatribe and examples or taking a few "women's studies" classes to turn someone into thinking that way because alternate ideas are not presented. Everything is skewed to perpetuate that women are victims. Note how most of the examples have terms like "women always" or "all women". Right there that's not speaking the truth.
But just about anything can be presented in a way that it makes women look like the victims. Here's one example – lots of women want to have children and they may leave their career, or leave for awhile and come back because of this. No one is making them do that. They are willingly choosing to do that. However, through the feminist lens they are being forced to have the children, forced to leave their jobs, forced to take a pay cut, etc. etc. There's actually laws now where when can take maternity leave and return to their jobs at the same pay rates. So most everything can be presented in whatever light necessary to show examples of how downtrodden and abused women are in society still when it
doesn't always apply to real women living in the real world.
Don't confuse my comments for denial that male privilege exists. The points I'm making is that it does not effect all women because all women have not been raised to feel they are victims or the "weaker" sex. There's plenty of women who reject the notion that the cards are not stacked in their favor and look this sort of privilege right in the face and move past it. To me, that's a lot more powerful than listing example after example of scenarios where men have more privileges and perpetuating these notions that women don't have as many rights.
Quote from: tekla on December 07, 2012, 01:30:46 PM
There are a lot of different kinds of privilege, and they are not always so easy to separate out from each other - even if that's your desire. Nor are they universal. There are lots of mitigating circumstances that alter the playing field. In other words they are not automatic. Not all males get 'male privilege'. Far from it. As someone noted they are best enjoyed by 'masculine' men - in other words 'no dorks allowed'. That short, fat kid who makes noises when he's breathing hard - he ain't never going to know any male privilege. And in order to climb the corporate ladder being male, even being a masculine male, you still have to exhibit a bunch of other stuff, the 'team player' junk, the 'go along to get along' shuck 'N jive, the expectations that you'll do an entire laundry list of 'the right things'.
And then there is what to everyone posting above me seems to conveniently ignore - which is that privilege has a corresponding cost involved. The things that are required to qualify become eternally mandatory. There are expectations that go along with them that have to be constantly met.
Exactly. Simply having a penis doesn't guarantee you "rights".
And thanks for pointing out the corporate ladder stuff and the costs of privilege. As soon as you don't meet one of those expectations, you're out. Good points.
Quote from: Sparrowhawke on December 07, 2012, 01:02:08 PM
@ sia
"Women are taken seriously when they report rape"
I REALLY hope that wasn't words put in to my mouth or something.
I didn't put them in your mouth, you said so yourself :
Quote from: Sparrowhawke on December 07, 2012, 05:41:03 AM
Also as a man you can never tell anyone about it because you know that they will not take you seriously. If you are a woman you will be taken seriously other than you you where raped by a woman of cause.
QuoteFrom what you say it's not sexism towards women. Nor is it female vs males rights, but in reality femininity is bad and masculinity is good.
Other than that I'm not sure what to say to your comment because I know you will not agree with me.
I said that the way femininity/womanhood
is perceived versus the way masculinity/manhood
is perceived played a role, I didn't say that it was actually true that femininity < masculinity.
Also, if you don't agree with my comment, then by all means I'd like to hear why - that's the whole point of debating :) . I'm not looking for asspats and don't take disagreeing on ideas or theories as a personal attack or anything (even though I know I can come off as blunt or rude), so as long as it doesn't go there I'm all for it.
To the two comments above (edit : 4 or 5 posts above now actually) > the whole point of privilege is that it is something you inherently profit from because of who you are (or who you're perceived to be). Yes, there are other advantages that you have to pay for, but they're not the kind of systemic privilege in society we're talking about here.
And saying that (perceived-as-)males have privilege is not saying that
any man will have it better than
any woman regardless of other factors. Of course a rich white socially-skilled woman will have it better than a poor black man with no social skills in most areas of life. Privilege means that,
all other factors considered equals, one group generally have it better than the other by virtue of being a member of that group. The short fat boy who makes noises when he breathes hard still have it better than the short fat girl who makes noises when she breathes hard. The workaholic corporate-ladder savvy woman still have less of a chance at climbing to the top than the workaholic corporate-ladder savvy man. (See : intersectionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality)).
Okay, I went off to school today, and this thread exploded with long posts, so I'm not reading them completely. I glossed over the posts and found some key topics that I'll just off my opinion on.
Rape--> Women get raped more than men; there's no question about that. However, I am confident that male rape is goes unreported quite often, which leads to the larger gap in statistics. Men would feel ashamed to be raped by a woman since they would likely be shamed.
Fitness--> The short, fat boy does not have it better than the short, fat girl. Guys are expected to be physically capable, and if you don't believe me, walk into any physical education class and you'll find that the fat guys are labeled as "pathetic" while the fat girls aren't.
Civil cases--> Juries sympathize with women more often in civil cases like divorce//custody battles. They are also more willing to believe a woman who lies about domestic violence in a divorce hearing (a tactic commonly used in California so that women get more than 50%) than if a man was to do so.
Workplace//school--> Women get harassed sexually more in male-dominated jobs by statistics. If you're the only woman in a room with a bunch of guys, one of them is bound to be an ass. For example, if a guy were to go into nursing or elementary school teaching, he would be more likely to be sexually harassed since out of the many women in his workplace, one of them is bound to be a perv.
Clothes--> Women don't have to dress very fancily (I know female office workers), and if they do, it's bound to attract attention, sort of like how some high school girls wear VERY short pants. If you show it, don't complain if guys look. Women's clothing is also not always skin-tight. Any pair of female slacks or a sweater dress will show you. Plus, I still present as male, and whenever I come to school in my bike-riding wardrobe (which is tight as heck), I get whistled at//gawked at by ladies. Harassment goes both ways.
Men can't wear dresses, but women can wear skirts//dresses//pants. The reason why male clothing is so simple and boring is because it's frowned upon for a man to be "flamboyant" and any sparkle in a man's wardrobe will most likely get him to be labelled as a "hipster" or as incompetent.
TV/Movies--> I know a lot of guys who detest the way men are portrayed in many TV shows: fat, stupid, and bald. However, you don't hear men complaining about it because they know that no one takes TV shows like Family Guy or any sitcom seriously. Honestly, what sociology major would put that in his/her bibliography? ::)
As for a TV show with a hunky husband, check out any soap opera. I personally like Desperate Housewives. Mike is so yummy! :icon_dribble: Also, Drop Dead Diva features a size 16 female protagonist. I call that progress, albeit slow progress. :)
Also, everyone loves action movies because they have explosions, guns, etc. There is a lot of action, and people find that to be stimulating. Plus, if a chick flick doesn't feature what women want, why do we watch them? ???
Emotions--> Men with emotions are teased by other men.
Conformity--> Men are expected to be "manly men" or they get chided. A man is ridiculed if he knows nothing about cars or other mechanical crap. Women, however, can like things associated with either gender. In fact, a lot of guys find girls who can do "manly" things to be hot. Nonetheless, they also have the hassle of maintaining their femininity while they're at it, so it's not all lollipops and rainbows for either side.
Both genders have their pros//cons, and saying that either is inherently better than the other in terms of lifestyle is nonsense.
@Sia
Sorry about that. I didn't mean that :-\. I know that sometimes women don't get taken seriously that was a slip up. What I meant to say was that women normally gets taken more seriously than men when it comes to rape.
In some ways I kinda do get what you mean. What I meant by the femininity<masculinity not really what you say, but what I started thinking about when I read your comment.
The part where I really didn't agree with you is the fact that it seems like you deny the female privilege (by all means correct me if I'm wrong) because there is one (as others have said). There is a privilege for being Caucasian, Asian and so on. Some of them might be better than others, but there will always be pros and coins of everything including race, gender and sex.
@SarahM777 I'm saying that the western world have many feminist views. It's kinda like the: 'it's ok to be racist against white people' thing that exist now. 'It's ok to call all men rapists' or something like that I guess.
@Insideontheoutside I totally agree with you. Men and women are different. Most women actually enjoy looking good. Why does that make them oppressed? Let's have this scenario: 'Ann likes fashion and wants to be a nurse. For some reason she gets a lot of shame for this. She doesn't get why she can't do what she likes and makes her happy.'
Quote from: Sparrowhawke on December 07, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
@SarahM777 I'm saying that the western world have many feminist views. It's kinda like the: 'it's ok to be racist against white people' thing that exist now. 'It's ok to call all men rapists' or something like that I guess.
I think I got it,part of it is the double standard that a woman that take's a traditional role of a housewife,homemaker and mother are less of a woman because they don't work outside of the home and the hard core feminists really don't want to address those needs and concerns,because when a woman does that it doesn't help promote their viewpoint.
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 07, 2012, 04:51:44 AM
You mean the whos its that attached to the whats it that needs to be removed with the wahtcama call it?
;)
You made my day! :laugh:
Quote from: DianaP on December 07, 2012, 05:44:03 PM
You made my day! :laugh:
It was a standing joke at work. They wouldn't let me play with the tools,they were afraid that someone would have to take me to the emergency room. :D
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 07, 2012, 05:51:03 PM
It was a standing joke at work. They wouldn't let me play with the tools,they were afraid that someone would have to take me to the emergency room. :D
Well, why would they hire you in what is presumably a hardware position if they don't think you can use tools? ???
Quote from: DianaP on December 07, 2012, 05:53:00 PM
Well, why would they hire you in what is presumably a hardware position if they don't think you can use tools? ???
It was at a factory and from time to time some minor thing would needed to be adjusted or changed on the machine (usually saw blades because they got dull) and we usually worked in crews of 4. The job itself was mostly lifting and stacking off the back of the machines.
As someone who works in a highly skilled environment that involves using a wide array of tools (mechanical, carpentry and electronic) I certainty don't think that it's a male/female thing. Most of the people I've known in my life are not very good with them, and if you were giving them a 5 1/2 circular saw you might as well give them directions and a map to the closest emergency room too - that's male and female. It might be a stereotype/expectation that men can do that better than women, but no one who has ever had to work in the real world in that environment thinks it's true. What is true that more little boys grow up working along side dad, like sis is in the kitchen with mom, and by the time they hit high school it should not be remarkable that Jr. can do tools stuff and Sis can cook, but not the reverse. It's all about practice and aptitude more than anything else. And I'm pretty sure that the two most critical components of that a) physical - hand to eye coordination and reflexes and b) mental - the ability to transfer two-dimensional drawings and representations into 3-D mental images. The second - stuff like blueprints, mechanical drawings and schematics - people seem to intrinsically grasp or fail to comprehend from the get-to and I've never seen much improvement even after teaching and coaching. You either get it or you don't
The weird thing is that I've always known how to use tools, but I know nothing about cars, just bicycles. I get a lot of grief for that. :-\
Bikes are external, if you know and understand bikes 90% of what goes wrong with them can be visually observed almost instantly. Like the chain is not sitting on the gears, or the brakes lack pads. (though they are getting far more complex, my hydraulic disc breaks required me learning a whole new system (though luckily they are just scaled down versions of auto hydraulic disc brakes). So you can't instantly see problems in the hydraulic system, or the disc system on the newer bikes like you could on the old rim brakes.
But cars are one of the most complex mechanical creations in history. You have several different systems working in synergy all of which have to be running close to 100% for the damn things to work in the first place, and not all of those systems are mechanical. There are several different hydraulic systems, and a very complex electrical system, and cooling systems, and transmission systems, and braking systems, fuel systems, exhaust systems - yeesh, it's a nightmare. It's also pretty much all hidden, which makes diagnostics much harder. And to add to that the tolerances are mind-blowingly small and are subjected to lots of heat and pressure and that too makes it harder to deal with. A friend of mine who does lots of auto work and is pretty much the best auto mechanic I know is lost when it gets to the electric system so he calls me. And auto electric systems require a ton of patience, as it's going to take a long time to just track down the problem, the the majority of wires run in highly unreachable places does not help either. Very few professional mechanics know all of it, electrical and transmission work in particular seem like specialties.
I don't know that any trans guy "wants male privilege". We do get accused, unfairly, of transitioning for that reason by certain radfem sectors, but that's the only place I've ever heard it.
For my own personal experience, before I transitioned dudes (one assumes cis) would yell things at me from cars or make inappropriate comments about my person, or stand way too close or get in my face while talking to me (in that smilingly intimidating way) in all sorts of situations. And all this stuff stopped immediately after I started passing.
It seems like a privilege to me to no longer be on the radar of creepy dudes.
Also, irt what at least one person said about holding doors and stuff, and men getting treated worse because of that. I always noticed lots of guys seem to make this big show of like, holding the door and waving their arm like they are fricking Lancelot saving you from something. Frankly, I prefer they let the door close in my face. At least then they are treating me like an equal and not a helpless child.
Okay, I just imagined someone doing a courtsey after holding the door. :laugh:
However, I think that most guys hold doors open to be polite, only waving their arm back to indicate that they are doing just that: holding a door. Don't take it as patronization. Just my $0.02.
Quote from: DianaP on December 07, 2012, 07:40:34 PM
Okay, I just imagined someone doing a courtsey after holding the door. :laugh:
However, I think that most guys hold doors open to be polite, only waving their arm back to indicate that they are doing just that: holding a door. Don't take it as patronization. Just my $0.02.
I don't take it as patronization, only that they think of me as female, which is sort of bad enough.
--Jay
Quote from: aleon515 on December 07, 2012, 11:39:33 PM
I don't take it as patronization, only that they think of me as female, which is sort of bad enough.
--Jay
Maybe it's different in the South but here we hold the door open for anyone behind us. It's just a common courtesy and nothing to do with gender.
I have noticed since I pass most of the time younger guys don't hold the door open as much but I'm thinking that is more of a generation gap than a gender thing....kids are just getting less polite.
In SF people hold the door open for other people, some might make some elaborate display out of it, but that's just part of the local color where we seem to have more than our fair share of overly dramatic people. But I've seen lots of women hold doors for delivery guys, or anyone with arms full - it's just common courtesy.
Quote from: Simon on December 07, 2012, 11:49:22 PM
It's just a common courtesy and nothing to do with gender.
I must admit I've noticed that consistently, too. Guys holding doors for girls, girls holding doors for guys, guys for other guys, girls for other girls.
Like... it's a door, someone else wants to come through it. Who you are doesn't seem to be as important as the overriding need to get through the door and the desire by the person in front to hold it for you.
Okay, as interesting as the door talk had been ::), I think that neither gender is really all too privileged. Women have some things good or bad and so do men. Now whether a woman's idea of bad outweighs a man's bad is still in question.
What's funny is that some of the oppression women say occurs to them at the hands of men is actually brought on themselves. For example, someone here said that women have some sort of expectation to dress a certain way. I volunteer at my school's science department (an office), and the assistant principal told me, "I'd rather have a competent teacher than a pretty face." I don't think that most employers care about attire as long as it's appropriate. If anything, women comment each other on their outfits more than men. :laugh:
Quote from: girl you look fierce on December 08, 2012, 11:24:53 AM
if they had to hire 2 women of equal competence and one was prettier they would probably hire the prettier woman.
At the very top of the list for the most common forms of discrimination are attractiveness and height, for both men and women. They both far outweigh discrimination on any other factor statistically. I would immediately concede that's it's probably a little worse for women, but it's still a huge factor for everyone. How you dress is a big part of that but a lot of that at an interview is mostly about looking like you care. It reflects your attitude. That women have a lot more decisions to make in that dept is probably something that is perpetuated more by women than by men, and I think that's something feminists need to accept if they want things to change. There are lots of women out there who prefer the status quo and are contributing significantly to perpetuating it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241333/Checking-competition-Women-spend-time-ogling-females-male-partners-do.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241333/Checking-competition-Women-spend-time-ogling-females-male-partners-do.html)
I know there are men out there who will just like seeing more skin and respond inappropriately to that, but as far as judging outfits... they're mostly pretty clueless. The cliche of a man who doesn't notice when his gf has new shoes or has changed her hair and how she gets offended comes to mind. Who notices it? Her lady friends or her gay male friends, the ones who aren't eyeing her sexually.
Quote from: dalebert on December 08, 2012, 11:39:13 AM
At the very top of the list for the most common forms of discrimination are attractiveness and height, for both men and women. They both far outweigh discrimination on any other factor statistically. I would immediately concede that's it's probably a little worse for women, but it's still a huge factor for everyone. How you dress is a big part of that but a lot of that at an interview is mostly about looking like you care. It reflects your attitude. That women have a lot more decisions to make in that dept is probably something that is perpetuated more by women than by men, and I think that's something feminists need to accept if they want things to change. There are lots of women out there who prefer the status quo and are contributing significantly to perpetuating it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241333/Checking-competition-Women-spend-time-ogling-females-male-partners-do.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241333/Checking-competition-Women-spend-time-ogling-females-male-partners-do.html)
I know there are men out there who will just like seeing more skin and respond inappropriately to that, but as far as judging outfits... they're mostly pretty clueless. The cliche of a man who doesn't notice when his gf has new shoes or has changed her hair and how she gets offended comes to mind. Who notices it? Her lady friends or her gay male friends, the ones who aren't eyeing her sexually.
I love all the directions this thread has gone in. Makes for interesting conversation.
dalebert brings up some good points here (and so did DianaP). I truly feel that women are the harshest critics on other women's appearance. Outside of some harassment I received in middle school from immature males making fun of me because (gotta love this) I looked like a boy rather than a girl, all the other harassment, snooty remarks, evil looks I've received on my appearance have been from women. Women can brutal in that department. "God she's so ugly! Look at her clothes! She's got no make up!" blah blah blah.
I think a large number of guys don't take any particular notice to all the "results" from all the time females spend (other than noticing that some of them spend a hell of a lot more time in the bathroom in the morning) on their appearances. Now we can debate that the reason this particular segment of the female population is so concerned about their appearance is because of tv/movies/fashion/marketing, etc. all reinforcing the fact that women should look a certain way. But at any time, women have the option to opt out of that b.s. and plenty do. But plenty more opt for wearing makeup ect because they like it and they like the way it makes them look.
And there certainly are tons of things directed towards men to look a certain way. There's even marketing that alludes to concepts like, "women will like you more if you get rid of all that yucky chest hair!" (just recently saw some "personal groomer" thing on a commercial and that was totally what was going on).
So I think in a lot of cases like that it's not privilege or patriarchy or anything like that going on ... it's more just playing into human vanity.
Quote from: insideontheoutside on December 08, 2012, 02:19:34 PM
I think a large number of guys don't take any particular notice to all the "results" from all the time females spend (other than noticing that some of them spend a hell of a lot more time in the bathroom in the morning) on their appearances.
They definitely don't. One of the benefits of being raised male is that I know how they think and I also get to see from the other side all of the annoying things women do, such as spending an hour on makeup only to look 0.000415% better. ::)
I'm just going to swoop in to say that having privilege as a male doesn't mean you don't have other problems, including problems some women don't have. Like to respond to the OP, one of the things there was that the safety thing might be negated in many aspects by being trans. But how safe are you if you're a cis Black man living in a poor urban neighborhood or or a cis Gaza fisherman (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6047764.stm) living in occupied Palestine.
Obviously some women do try to use the idea of male privilage or the idea of feminism in general to act like this stuff doesn't count, but I think a lot of the time they're just trying to cover for their own privileges. Not "female privilege," but, say, being White, being a US citizen, being middle class, etc. Women like this end up being as alienating to other women as they are to men because not women have these advantages (this is also why White feminists aren't very popular with nonWhite women a lot of the time, who often actually identify primarily with their ethnic/cultural group).
The idea that trans men transition because they want male privilege is just stupid though. Sometimes cis women even criticize trans women by saying things like "Wait, why you would want to be a woman? I'd much rather be a man, being a woman is so hard!" It's like okay sweetie, the testosterone is an internet order away. But of course they don't do that because it's not who they are.
Quote from: Simon on December 07, 2012, 11:49:22 PM
Maybe it's different in the South but here we hold the door open for anyone behind us. It's just a common courtesy and nothing to do with gender.
I was surprised when I moved a little north to a university city and women actually held doors for me sometimes. ::) Growing up (in the south) I always held doors for both genders, men would be thankful but would be really confused and have that moment where they're like "Wait, why is he just
standing there" whereas women would just smile, say thank you, and be on their on their way, not thinking much of it. It's definitely a "thing" in certain parts of the country.
so after much discussion about the privileges of each gender -or lack thereof- the question arises...
where are we left standing???? Do we benefit from having walk both sides of the fence?
is there a MTF vs FTM difference??? How about the "in-between"?
Quote from: Venus-Castina on December 09, 2012, 09:28:23 AM
I have also got this male privilege talk, mostly from other MtF's.
I am an airline pilot, and some (rather bitter) transwomen say I have misused my male privilege to accomplish this before starting transition.
Above all, I think this privilege talk is being misused far too much to portray ones discontempt instead of of used for a constructive argument.
Fully agree, I sit at a table with CTO's and CEO's and have to deliver. I have been told by various people that I am where I am because my race, gender, and/or looks.
I say: maybe but I did pay my dues going to school and applying "thought management" and developing "emotional and political intelligence.
So, yeah I use anything I can to improve my situation and I think it helps me tremendously the fact that I speak both languages and understand both cultures -at least in the western civilization-
Quote from: Venus-Castina on December 09, 2012, 09:28:23 AM
Above all, I think this privilege talk is being misused far too much to portray ones discontempt instead of of used for a constructive argument.
That I agree with. Especially when one is dissatisfied with their life, they want to come up with reasons that don't put any of the blame on themselves.
Quote from: silly by the seashore on December 09, 2012, 09:47:41 AM
That I agree with. Especially when one is dissatisfied with their life, they want to come up with reasons that don't put any of the blame on themselves.
I think there's kind of two problems here on.
One is that "male privilege" (or "white privilege," etc) in the sense that feminists, academics, etc means something more specific than "a privilege that men have." So there are endless debates between people using the more abstract definition and people using the dictionary definition, like obviously there are specific situations where women tend to have certain privileges but a lot of the time this isn't relevant to what academic types and such are saying. Sometimes I think there's some willful ignorance from "privileged people" who want to shut down discussions, but a lot of the confusion is probably genuine and it's more people bludgeoning each other over the head with different ideological constructs rather than engaging each other.
The second is that the more abstract concept is still very limited. It's useful for talking about certain things or explaining certain kinds of systematic advantages, but it ultimately doesn't really explain how society works because it ends up focusing in one facet in a way that isn't realistic. Academic types are starting to respond to this by talking about "intersectionality" where they combine multiple facets, but this is only slightly better. So the discussion sometimes becomes not so relevant when talking about individual people, but since this is a very individualistic culture people try to do it anyway (including when that individual is the person himself) and it stops making any sense.
There are other problems too but I think these are the biggest things.
Something I found:
"Everything Men's Rights Activists label as "female privilege" is really patriarchy backfiring against men.
The gender-specific rule that men shouldn't hit women is caused by the misogynistic belief that women are fragile.
The belief that men can't be raped is caused by the belief that men always want sex and the belief that men must always be strong, which are the same gender norms that enable men to sexually harass women.
The belief that all men are rapists is caused by the misogynistic belief that a woman who is quick to trust a man is asking for it.
The belief that statutory rape is worse with an older man and a younger woman than with an older woman and a younger man is caused by the misogynistic belief that society must protect female virginity.
Custody favoring the mother is caused by the misogynistic belief that taking care of the kids is a woman's job.
The fact that only men can be drafted is caused by the misogynistic belief that women are too weak for combat. Also, most feminists are against the draft.
The belief that the man must pay for the date is caused by the misogynistic belief that women are helpless and need men to do everything for them, and it's often used as a way to guilt-trip her into having sex.
Feminists don't support any of those. All of those are caused by patriarchy. Men's Rights Activists can stop blaming feminists for the problems that patriarchy causes.."
Pretty much. I honestly can't believe people think "female privilege" exists. It can't. It's similar to "POC privilege". (lulz) POC are often oppressed by white people. Women are oppressed by men. Not the other way around. Western society caters to men and their needs. Don't think so? Open your eyes. There are many good examples here. This thread is basically rubbish from what I've read with a few good points sprinkled in. I've never seen so many people in denial of what's actually going on.
Here's what I know: My girlfriend is often ignored in public when we go out together. Cashiers and clerks talk to me, even if she is paying for something. They assume I know better and am the "leader" (aka man) in the relationship and call the shots. That's not the way our relationship is structured at all.
My girlfriend also went into a hardware store one time looking for a kitchen item. When she asked where it is they took her to the asile and explained how it worked and said she should know about said item because ya know, all women should be in the kitchen, (*rolls eyes*) I should also mention my girlfriend worked in a hardware store for 4 years.
These are just 2 examples.
There is a lot of misinformation here. I really think people aren't doing their homework.
Quote from: Darrin Scott on December 09, 2012, 05:24:44 PM
Pretty much. I honestly can't believe people think "female privilege" exists. It can't.
Well, then anyone can easily say that they can't believe that you don't believe it exists.
-Gender norms don't allow for sexual harassment. That's why it's illegal.
-No one believes that any rape victim, regardless of gender was "asking for it."
-It's actually caused by the false label of all men wanting sex. Men are not taken seriously when they are raped.
-No one forces a woman to take her kids. She does it out of her own will and is often favored when she does so.
-Actually, females not being allowed in combat is because we know that in many less-developed countries, female POWs would be more likely to be raped, killed, or put into involuntary servitude. I can guarantee that no woman would complain to have an out for a draft when the men are being called away.
-Actually, that belief is a bit old-fashioned. The current model is "if you asked the person out, you pay." No one thinks that money would make a woman have sex with you unless she's a gold digger or a prostitute.
The point is that there is neither a skew towards males nor females. We could all exchange personal examples all day, but there really are sexists to both men and women.
Quote from: Darrin Scott on December 09, 2012, 05:24:44 PM
1) The gender-specific rule that men shouldn't hit women is caused by the misogynistic belief that women are fragile.
2) The belief that all men are rapists is caused by the misogynistic belief that a woman who is quick to trust a man is asking for it.
3) Custody favoring the mother is caused by the misogynistic belief that taking care of the kids is a woman's job.
4) The fact that only men can be drafted is caused by the misogynistic belief that women are too weak for combat.
5) The belief that the man must pay for the date is caused by the misogynistic belief that women are helpless and need men to do everything for them, and it's often used as a way to guilt-trip her into having sex.
Beg to disagree:
1) Giving the same height and weight women are biological more fragile. Bones less dense, skin less thick, and less muscle. Sorry but this is a biological fact.
2) Rape is a violent crime not driven by sex, but by a need to dominate.
3) The female of the specie is the one who invest a great deal of energy on her children,
evolutionary her brain is wired for teaching and protecting her children, so yeah it is the mother's job. Fathering is not a as a high priority for the average Joe as mothering is for the average Jane. Again, all of this is biologically-based
4) While you can come up with the Amazons and the Russians female snipers of WWII, and etc, etc. Because issue of strength, yeah, bad idea to make the bulk of your infantry out of females. An average Marine or Special Ops dude has to carry between 70 to 90 lbs of gear for 12 to 16 h. Very few females can muster that. Do not take me wrong, the girls want to go to special forces school, yeah let them in but do not lower the bar for them, let the ones who can perform at the level of a man stay, otherwise you will be putting the team at jeopardy.
5) As the human specie evolved the female of the specie had to spend more time rearing the children and become lees capable of securing her own food. One way to solve this problem was to exchange sex for food for her and her children. This evolutionary transaction survive to this day in many ways, say the famous engagement ring, what it is this all about??? Is not the male buying the female? Now you and me can agree that his transactions are not right and that the female should stand in her own two feet in an even plain field, right? Well, maybe in a couple of hundred of years in the future.
In regards to the military thing. For a long time it wasn't just that women are physically not the same as men but also that they would be a "distraction" to men (plenty of things to have a go at with that one!), and they would be "too emotional". They couldn't be trained to kill like the men could. I disagree with that one. Some very good assassins over the ages were women. There were women warriors in ancient times as well. The Scythian women are said to be the origin story for the Amazons. So I certainly think women could be cut out for combat, but not all women.
I still say a lot of these things being brought up simply don't apply to a lot of the people in everyday life, especially not as a general rule as some proponents like to claim.
As for females being ignored while with a perceived male ... I think many customer service people (clerks, waiters/waitresses, etc.) go by who talks first, or who approaches them first, if it's a couple. For a women to walk up with a man and address someone and for them to answer the man would be rude. So if they're doing that, they may be sexiest, but above all, they're just simply rude to ignore the person who asked the question.
So much of this stuff doesn't come into play if you carry yourself a certain way. If you exude authority and confidence other people will pick up on that. Granted, a lot of FTM guys take a while to develop those traits because so many are so insecure with themselves.
I was reading the first couple pages of posts and this discussion is pretty interesting. I'd say I've been passing and living as a stealth male for the past year now and I've really noticed that both genders have privilege in their own ways. So far living as male I've noticed that I am not judged by what I say as much and people take me a little more seriously. Other than that I can't really think of anything else that's changed for the better. The way men and women interact with me is different but it's neither negative or positive, just more fitting for me. I must say though that male privilege is not for all men. I am a shorter guy and I can say that in a lot of cases there is a lot of prejudice against short men. Even with some of the advantages of male privilege there are many disadvantages such as having to live up to a masculine persona at all times, strangers won't help you, people think you might be a criminal more often than a woman, you are expected to hold yourself together at all times, certain remarks made as a man can be taken as offensive or strange but the same words by a woman are fine. I'm not saying I have any problem with these, it's just what I've noticed. Both sexes has it's advantages and disadvantages and I think that depending on who you are as a person you can see them as negative or positive.
Quote from: MikeyG500 on December 09, 2012, 11:57:28 PM
you are expected to hold yourself together at all times
I can attest to this on a personal level. I can't tell you as a cancer patient how many times I have wanted to flip out or cry when faced with the mountains of tests and surgeries that I have dealt with in the past almost 6 years. No matter what is happening as a man I suck up my feelings and just get on with it.
Having emotions be universally accepted socially is a female privilege. An emotional man isn't accepted.
A few things.
Regarding women in the military:
70 pounds of gear is not a lot. It sounds like a lot, but the weight of military gear is designed to be very well distributed and much more comfortable to carry across long distances than civilian gear. That's about the weight of your flak, your kevlar, a light pack, an M16, water, and few magazines. So if you're moving any significant distance in the field, you will be carrying at least that. That's not a weight applied to special forces. Even marine recruits in boot camp carry that much on their first military hikes. And female recruits go through almost identical training. The only difference is raw strength tests. In terms of tests of military proficiency, like hiking, marksmanship, etc., women have to rate just as high as men. And last time I heard, roughly 1/6th of the marine corps is female, so there's a significant number of gals doing that and succeeding.
That's actually one really frustrating thing. People think of the military as super conservative. In reality, the brass is, but the people on the ground are usually way ahead of American society. The brass were still bitching about how gays and women were bad for combat efficiency probably 10-15 years after the average enlisted person stopped giving a >-bleeped-<. I knew this obviously gay guy in boot camp, who happened to also have the worst name possible for a gay recruit in boot camp. Recruit Cox. Guess who gave a >-bleeped-<, out of any of the recruits or drill instructors? Nobody. That was the norm even then. The military itself, with the exception of a few generals born in the year 1900, and a few homophobic >-bleeped-<s who made a nightmare out of the policy, had basically thrown out don't ask, don't tell 10 years before the civilian world was kind enough to save us from it. Hard conditions force you to forget about a lot of your bull>-bleeped-< bias and respect raw ability.
Most countries which allow females to serve as infantry haven't seen any huge decrease in combat effectiveness or any enormous logistic concerns. Canada does it. And before you write off the Canadians as a military force, their troops have seen heavy combat in almost all major wars in the United States has participated in during the 20th and 21st century. They had their own beach to storm on D-Day, and it was almost as bad as Omaha.
Even the US military already has women trained specifically for combat roles. They're not technically grunts, but they have similar training. For example, military chaplains of various stripes are not allowed to carry or use weapons. This is to preserve their noncombatant status. They usually have a theater appropriate escort when traveling, but beyond this, they are assigned one specific staff member whose job it is to follow them and protect them at all times (even in the US). I've met women in this role. It's straight-up combat training. They have all kinds of close quarters training, as well as proficiency in a dozen weapon systems. And they do those jobs just fine.
Regarding the "biological basis" of female behavior, particularly parental instinct:
We don't know every factor that drives that, so researchers typically focus on a few. A good example is the hormone oxytocin. This is typically a considered a female hormone, and it's considered to be a strong driver of "maternal instinct." In women, its production is triggered by things like childbirth and breast feeding, so it was simply assumed that men did not have any significant quantity of it. This was an incorrect assumption. Recent research has shown that the mere act of playing with and having direct contact with their children dramatically increases the level of this hormone in men, to the point that some men who interact frequently with their children have higher levels than their wives who have recently given birth.
Recent human sexuality researched has shown that many of the things we assumed to be biologically sex-based were really just a mild gender disposition for that behavior which was reinforced by social norms.
Even aggression. We assumed higher testosterone equals higher aggression. Not we see things differently. We know testosterone acts in concert with other hormones, that it alone doesn't lead to higher measured ratings of aggression. We also know that the link between testosterone and aggression is as much cause as effect. Women measured after highly competitive activities (athletes in sport) or after receiving a provocation in a controlled setting show levels of testosterone above their own normal level. And those who also have elevated levels of certain other hormones typically measure high on ratings of aggression. So sometimes competitive or provocative activity itself causes elevated levels high enough to cause aggressive behavior, so baseline levels are less important. And we also see that it's less about raw quantity and more about the percentage increase above the baseline for that biological sex. Highly aggressive women can get there with a lot less of an increase in testosterone.
Quote from: Simon on December 10, 2012, 12:11:02 AM
I can attest to this on a personal level. I can't tell you as a cancer patient how many times I have wanted to flip out or cry when faced with the mountains of tests and surgeries that I have dealt with in the past almost 6 years. No matter what is happening as a man I suck up my feelings and just get on with it.
Having emotions be universally accepted socially is a female privilege. An emotional man isn't accepted.
An emotional woman isn't really accepted either, it's just seen as something that's "natural" or that she can't help. But it can and will be used to dismiss and insult her, to ignore her needs, and to justify harm and discrimination towards her.
At the end of the day I would still rather be seen this way since I would rather be criticized for being innately weak than seen as personally faulty for failing to live up to "male power." I mean obviously I'd rather neither, but if that's not an option it's an easy choice for me.
I still think there definitely is a certain level of privilege for men that isn't there for women though. The assumption that,
of course you're powerful, of course you're dominant, what's so wrong with you that you'd act like you're not? The assumption that men are naturally entitled to power is a kind of privilege and in itself makes men more powerful relative to women. I think this is a fact. The fact that I don't
want that power, that being weaker could actually feel safer and more comfortable for me than that, doesn't change that the power is there.
So I think we need to separate what's existentially preferable to systematic privileges... the more powerful person isn't always happier, more fulfilled, etc. Money is power but we mostly all say it can't buy you happiness (even if it often helps). Power isn't always money but the tendencies remain the same.