Male privilege?

[Silvermist]

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.

[aleon515]

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

[Silvermist]

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?

[insideontheoutside]

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?

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?

[ozoozol]

Here's a 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.

[insideontheoutside]

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).

[Silvermist]

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.

[SarahM777]

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." 

You mean the whos its that attached to the whats it that needs to be removed with the wahtcama call it?

[unknown]

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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/ I don't feel like copy pasting so I will refer to my blog.

[SarahM777]

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.

[unknown]

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.

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.

[Padma]

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.

[SarahM777]

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. 

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.

[SarahM777]

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.

[DriftingCrow]

 

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.

[FTMDiaries]

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...

[Green_Tony]

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.

[unknown]

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.

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.

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.

[Natkat]

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.
---

[Sia]

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.