Have any of you experienced this. If so, do tel, to what degree?
Annecdotes?
--Sasha
I don't think I ever had "male privilege", as I was considered too effeminate. I think "female privilege" is great. Guys open doors for me, carry my groceries to my vehicle for me, and treat me with respect. I much prefer a courteous "ma'am" to a rude "sir" any day. At least people don't expect me to know jack about working on cars, either. I can always get a guy to do it for me.
It's great being a woman.
If it existed I don't miss it. I never was a very manly man anyway.
I think the last time this question came up I said that I never had male privilege, that is not altogether accurate though. It was small because I had sequestered myself away for one and I never tried to be a man for another.
It's not important to me now, was not so much then either I just wasn't expecting it. Men don't really listen to me anymore or ignore me if I talk. Oh they are very attentive but they don't want my opinion on anything. That's kind of male privilege right? I have girl friends but not many, maybe I am just too different, but women will talk to me at least, I am one of them.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Sometimes I feel like I have gained my soul and lost world. 🙂 Fair trade I suppose.
I don't believe that males get different rights than females, if they do then that is just wrong. I am trans f to m and honestly if our bio genders get different rights then I would not care for the female rights since I am not female I am male just in the wrong body. If you identify as a female then why do you care about MALE rights? It seems kind of anti climatic to feel this way. Though I wish you the best of luck.
Well I have seen this in a previous topic on here. The exact same wording almost. For me I don't like the concept of "privilege" of any type for a class of people we should all be equal. Right? I get why they say that. I don't believe I ever had any male privilege of any sort. The only time I have felt that gender bias was working at my job. I worked in a garden center. A couple guys were looking at mowers. I asked if they needed help. They were like "yeah we are looking for a lawnmower. Do you know anything about these?" I answered yes, I work in this department. They were like "okay." They walked off and found one of my co-workers and asked the same thing. My co-worker was male. They also asked who was the most knowledgeable on the machines. He was like "well honestly sir, Jailyn there is the most knowledgeable on them." They looked like deer in headlights turned around and sheepishly came back to me. "So tell us about these." When they walked off I was both mad and just laughing hysterically about it!!! It was just like bam, that was for assuming a woman knows nothing on lawnmowers!!!!
I am not aware of having had any male privilege. But then, that is the nature of privilege: it is an advantage that we get without being aware of it because of some characteristic that we have no control over.
So even though I have lost it, I am not aware of that loss, so it doesn't bother me. I suppose the loss of male privilege would look like discrimination for being female. That hasn't happened to me yet.
While I'm sure some may disagree, to me personally the term "male privilege" quite honestly seems just a divisive buzzword meant to insidiously denigrate males and sow discord. Again personally, I think it have no real use outside (enter your favourite flavor of) activism. So I would have to say no...
While people who know me only as female do initially assume I don't have certain skills or knowledge, it just so happens that those particular skills are more commonly a subject of interest to men than women. This actually works both ways—e.g. my uncle was a very technically oriented macho engineer type who happened to also do all the needlework and most of the other housework in his family. I wouldn't blame anyone for assuming he knew nothing about thimbles, stitch types, thread weights or how to knead pastry dough. Once they'd see him in action, though, that preconception would evaporate very quickly...
Human brains are built to use shortcuts, so rather than make a detailed skill and knowledge survey whenever we meet someone new we tend to make assumptions based on previous experiences. I myself was once tasked to demonstrate how to putty drywall, just to learn when we actually started that the group contained a seasoned veteran. She didn't advertise her skills or experience, but after one or two strokes everyone present obviously realized she was much better than I, and turned to her for instructions instead.
In my own experience the same holds true in most situations.
Quote from: zirconia on February 27, 2018, 06:31:45 AM
While I'm sure some may disagree, to me personally the term "male privilege" quite honestly seems just a divisive buzzword meant to insidiously denigrate males and sow discord. Again personally, I think it have no real use outside (enter your favourite flavor of) activism.
Could I suggest giving a quick glance at the 'male privilege' Wiki? I think perhaps your notion of it's definition is rather at odds with the accepted version.
In a overly simple way I think the term implies the occurrence of men treating women with less respect than men.
Hi, Polly
As I mentioned, I'm sure some will disagree.
Yes, I know some men I know do treat women with less respect than men. However, in truth an equal number of women I know also treat men with less respect than women.
While the male and female societies overlap, they are also to some extent exclusive. Women tend to stop discussion of certain subjects when a man enters, and men also regulate their conversations when women are present.
As for workplace situations, I've worked with companies exclusively run by women that have not hired any males for years—but no-one has accused them of being biased, prejudiced or otherwise wrong. The fields include advertising, event organization, publishing and such. The environment is interestingly different than in a firm that comprises of mixed genders.
The fact is, these companies may and do hire men as contractors for certain jobs... but any man would probably feel very out of place as an official part of the company. Actually even one of my female friends couldn't stand the atmosphere and left. Should the employees change their behavior to accommodate the possibility of future male employees? Should they be sued for non-inclusivity? If not, then shouldn't they at least be rebuked for wielding female privilege... but really, I don't know of anyone who laments male privilege who would do that...
Anyway, I've really grown to dislike buzzwords and slogans of the day, as to me they seem to function to exclude logic and provoke negative emotion. It just feels somewhat amusing that in circumstances where they are used, staying calm seems to be frowned upon. I'd myself much rather discuss ways to make everyone feel better and work together more efficiently.
Oh there totally is male privilege. Not only do the men in my family have it, they feel entittled to it. But there is also female privilege. The thing about female privilege is that a lot of it comes from men thinking women are stupid and inferior in some ways. I never had any male privilege at all. My dad and brother both were over protective and controlling of me both before and after transition. They've also both always mansplained things to me. Some of what looks like female privilege is actually chauvinist behavior. Once when I asked my brother what he was doing on his laptop he said he was doing an E payment for his car insurance. I asked him why my dad didn't have his set up for autopay like he did mine. He said because my dad didn't pay his car insurance. I told him that wasn't fair and I asked him why he didn't pay his. He told me he wouldn't want my dad to pay his insurance and I asked him why not. He said " because I have a job and wouldn't want my dad paying my stuff as if I was a sponge or something". I asked him if that made me a sponge then and he said of course not and that it was normal for a girl's dad to pay for her stuff. Then he told me it was less stressful for my dad to just pay my insurance himself. I asked him what that meant and he said my dad just pays my insurance and that way he doesn't have to worry about me forgetting to pay it or me using all my money on shoes or something and my insurance getting canceled. So I asked him if my dad thought I was too stupid and clueless to manage to pay my own insurance but that Tyler wasn't. He told me my dad didn't think I was stupid but women can be flighty about bills. Then he said it was a male pride thing for guys to pay their bills. Then I told him I guessed women didn't have pride then. He said " of course you do. You have pride about your cooking and looking pretty, just not about business and guy stuff. aaaahhhhh!!! I love my dad and brother dearly but sometimes I could smack both of them. It's actually my grandpa that needs smacked. He's the cause of both their 1900 attitudes toward women!
Male privilege? Yuck no thanks!
Some guys hold doors for each other. I've yet to have a guy go out of his way to do something for me though. On the train I see guys offering a seat to a woman.
Growing up as a "boy" my mom and sisters berated me for not wanting to run to the convenience store to get things "like other boys do". Yet my older brother NEVER did... they were talking about the other boys in the neighborhood. I always felt miserable over that.
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
In my previous male self as a school kid, college kid, and young man in my 20's and early 30's I never felt I had male privilege... Back then before transition I always had a small, slight build, little muscle and a boyish (girlish) soft looking face. I had always felt... by personal observation... that females had the real privilege, sure, males wielded muscle, social status in sports and other male dominated interests but it was the female that could convince a male to do most things her way....
I love the old 2002 ....movie, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"... the older father of the bride and his wife were chatting with friends and HE very chauvinistically stated that the MAN is the HEAD.... his wife immediately spoke up and replied:
"The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants."
.... that is so funny, but very true for sure.
I have been full-time since Dec 2016 and lived as a female a lot of the time before that and I can tell you.... I never missed the Male Privilege thing because I never felt that I had it to start with.
I've had male privilege both help me and hurt me.
I was/am too effeminate and not manly enough to be one of the boys, and in my 28 years of big corporate life, I did not progress as far as maybe I should have, because I was not in the boys' club. At the same time, I was also not in the women's circles and networks. So an outsider when it's not good to be one in that sort of company, and I got passed over and also picked on by bullies male and female because I did not have the protection of one the networks.
But have I had male privilege? Hell, yes. I was educated in the 70s and given male expectations of my station in life. I can walk down a street at night with limited fear of rape or molestation. I have been taken seriously by banks, estate agents and car salesmen in ways that I would not have been as a woman.
has my fear of losing this privilege inhibited me from transitioning? To my shame, it has crossed my mind.
I'm now on HRT, and so I'm losing male privilege patch by patch. And it's liberating me.
It's good to feel part of a sisterhood/brotherhood for once.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: MichelleC on February 27, 2018, 10:16:32 AM
I've had male privilege both help me and hurt me.
I was/am too effeminate and not manly enough to be one of the boys, and in my 28 years of big corporate life, I did not progress as far as maybe I should have, because I was not in the boys' club. At the same time, I was also not in the women's circles and networks. So an outsider when it's not good to be one in that sort of company, and I got passed over and also picked on by bullies male and female because I did not have the protection of one the networks.
But have I had male privilege? Hell, yes. I was educated in the 70s and given male expectations of my station in life. I can walk down a street at night with limited fear of rape or molestation. I have been taken seriously by banks, estate agents and car salesmen in ways that I would not have been as a woman.
has my fear of losing this privilege inhibited me from transitioning? To my shame, it has crossed my mind.
I'm now on HRT, and so I'm losing male privilege patch by patch. And it's liberating me.
It's good to feel part of a sisterhood/brotherhood for once.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think "the boys club" is at the top of the male privilege heirarchy, so it could be reasonable to assume that male privilege is not very substantial if one is not among the ranks of "the good ole boy network."
Quote from: kitchentablepotpourri on February 27, 2018, 10:31:27 AM
I think "the boys club" is at the top of the male privilege heirarchy, so it could be reasonable to assume that male privilege is not very substantial if one is not among the ranks of "the good ole boy network."
Where I live, you can find "the good ole boys" sitting down and drinking coffee at the local gas station, with their pickup trucks right outside the doors. Yep, all 6 of them. Such a batch of self-righteous scum they are. The way they talk about women, you might think they were a tad gay. If THAT'S what male privilege is, I'll pass. They seem to be about 60 years behind the times.
This is certainly a complex topic, but I can give you a little bit of my personal experience for what it is worth. As many have indicated I always thought I did not benefit from a lot of the "male privilege" that is always being discussed in many situations and scenarios, but I can tell you that I noticed a huge difference in my career. Typically this does not happen as much with the people I directly work with, but part of my job requires me to interact with different people across the entire organization. There is a huge difference in how I am treated in these meetings than I was prior to my transition, and most of these people have little knowledge about my prior life (although I am sure many suspect). Now I get talked over, not allowed to talk at times, or as many indicate I have things explained to me that I am far more competent on than they are. This happened very infrequently prior to my transition, and now it is so noticeable that at times I purposely address it with comments such as may I please finish talking before you talk over me. My observation is that this occurs with all of the other women as well in my meetings. This is a society issue, and one that is obviously being discussed more now than in the past, but I doubt many things will change.
Is it frustrating... yes, beyond belief.... but I wouldn't trade it or who I am just for this reason.
I am very much in sympathy with zirconia's point of view. I think the subject is simply grievance looking for an outlet.
I also like Aspiringperson's reference to "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." ;D I had forgotten that one.
Very much so, to the point I don't engage in direct eye contact with males anymore, unless I'm acknowledged, since I see them as apex predators and with females, if they make direct neutral/warm eye contact good, if not, then I know to mind my own business. My therapist said, I had gotten to be a lot more wily. I have to know use, leverage, technique, timing, and strategy.
TW: Mentions of sexual violence
The problem with this question is that privilege, and the marginalization that's it's opposite side of the coin, are largely systemic. I may feel echoes in my own life, like mansplaining or sexual harassment, but the largest part is in how I relate to systems of the world.
Before I transitioned, every single president of the US was the same gender that I was presenting. 80 percent of Congress at the time was presenting male. All but 4 of the supreme court justices. Every single CEO of the company I worked for, and the CEOs of most other companies. Most of the directors who made the movies I watched. And the heroes in those movies. The sports heroes other people talked about and the coaches of their teams. They wielded more power, more influence, and more money over the systems that make up my life. And they ran the systems in such a way that benefited thenselves and people like them, which included me until my transition.
If you want some examples, they're easy to come up with. How many of you who transitioned to female feel safer walking alone at night? I'd wager not many. That sense of safety male presenting people feel when walking alone is borne from the fact that men are much less likely to be targets of sexual violence. A systemic issue. Or look at STEM. Studies show that at early age there is no gender difference in performance on STEM related tasks. That difference only emerges when kids are raised to internalize the belief that boys are better at science and math. Women who run for office are more often confronted with questions, concerns, and assumptions that don't fall on their male counterparts. Women's reproductive rights are more constrained and debated.
And that's not even getting into intersections. Wage gaps get worse for women of color, as do rates of violence against them. I never had anyone care about where I needed to pee, much less legislate where I can, until I began to transition.
Privileges exist. And if you've transitioned to female, you've lost some of them, even if you cannot articulate exactly how on a day to day.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: Aspiringperson on February 27, 2018, 09:32:10 AM
I had always felt... by personal observation... that females had the real privilege, sure, males wielded muscle, social status in sports and other male dominated interests but it was the female that could convince a male to do most things her way....
Absolutely agree.
Quote from: Charlie Nicki on February 28, 2018, 10:46:16 AM
Absolutely agree.
Oh no, y'all, that isn't privilege or power. It's old school sexism and objectification in the guise of power. Disparities in the heights of power, inequality in pay, reproductive rights, epidemic physical and sexual violence against women... none of these are solved by using feminine wiles to entrance men. That's a squirt gun that's being passed off as a nuke.
Moreover, that line of thinking is often exploited by men to justify horrible treatment of women.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on February 28, 2018, 08:13:32 AM
TW: Mentions of sexual violence
The problem with this question is that privilege, and the marginalization that's it's opposite side of the coin, are largely systemic. I may feel echoes in my own life, like mansplaining or sexual harassment, but the largest part is in how I relate to systems of the world.
Before I transitioned, every single president of the US was the same gender that I was presenting. 80 percent of Congress at the time was presenting male. All but 4 of the supreme court justices. Every single CEO of the company I worked for, and the CEOs of most other companies. Most of the directors who made the movies I watched. And the heroes in those movies. The sports heroes other people talked about and the coaches of their teams. They wielded more power, more influence, and more money over the systems that make up my life. And they ran the systems in such a way that benefited thenselves and people like them, which included me until my transition.
If you want some examples, they're easy to come up with. How many of you who transitioned to female feel safer walking alone at night? I'd wager not many. That sense of safety male presenting people feel when walking alone is borne from the fact that men are much less likely to be targets of sexual violence. A systemic issue. Or look at STEM. Studies show that at early age there is no gender difference in performance on STEM related tasks. That difference only emerges when kids are raised to internalize the belief that boys are better at science and math. Women who run for office are more often confronted with questions, concerns, and assumptions that don't fall on their male counterparts. Women's reproductive rights are more constrained and debated.
And that's not even getting into intersections. Wage gaps get worse for women of color, as do rates of violence against them. I never had anyone care about where I needed to pee, much less legislate where I can, until I began to transition.
Privileges exist. And if you've transitioned to female, you've lost some of them, even if you cannot articulate exactly how on a day to day.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Thank you Tamika and others for acknowledging the reality of male privilege. Being able to appreciate a feminist perspective may require some introspection and perhaps an uncomfortable awareness of systemic and political reality. As a political activist and elected official and sitting on several boards it is clear to me that equitable representation is far off if changing. I can point to several personal experiences such as buying a car where I was encouraged to coax my husband (actually a male friend) into accepting my choice and helping me understand a motor. The salesmen assumed I was less knowledgable and would use my charms to persuade my less willing non spouse. We thought it was funny at the time but is a simple example of sexism and male privilege. When I lived and worked as a male anesthetist I could walk into a patient room with another female anesthetist, who was technically my supervisor, and I would often be treated with deference as the more knowledgable provider. Men clearly treat me differently with mansplaining, over speaking and interrupting me in personal conversations and meetings. This is one reason I have deliberately maintained my original voice as I use that projection and timber to keep their attention. People now feel much more comfortable commenting on my appearance and clothing and I am sometimes described as a shrill bitch rather that a passionate leader.
Transitioning started for me over 5 years ago and was accompanied by much hand wringing about my new vulnerability as a woman who surely could no longer walk alone at night to the corner store. I have indeed felt more exposure to unhealthy interests from some men and have adopted behaviors well known to women at risk. My transition was accompanied by joking from many friends who seemed to assume I was now a ->-bleeped-<- hag who should hang out in the kitchen rather than a strong queer activist.
Women are clearly the more frequent victims and survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence and for goodness sake, we of all people need to be aware of the targeting and murder of our sisters. I am a strong and capable person and do not equate physical prowess with getting real work done. Nonetheless I have definitely felt a diminishing respect for my abilities and have too often heard similar concerns from cis and trans women alike.
Yes, white male privilege is very real and was once mine and I would often be singled out as the "man" in a group of women, that I primarily worked with, to take charge and be some kind of leader for meetings with administration. I work much harder now and am very happy to see more women taking leadership roles in political and educational arenas. Empowering ourselves with equal rights, equity, diversity and inclusion will not be freely bestowed but worked for and that takes acknowledgment of where we are now. This is not a level playing field yet.
I've made it a rule not to discuss politics on-line anymore. In my experience, people's minds are rarely swayed by argument; and hurt feelings and outrage seem to be common.
This is a subject many women feel passionately about. I appreciate that; I even think I understand why, and sympathize. Nevertheless, passion and pain do not make truth; indeed, more often they make lies and chaos.
The idea of there being a "system" of male privilege is as fallacious as the idea that there is a health care "system" that can be reformed. In both cases, there simply is no "system." A true system is intentionally created to perform a set of tasks; what is being here called a system is merely a conceptual frame superimposed upon observed phenomena for which there is no demonstrable motivating force or unifying principle -- but these things are *assumed* to exist, in the act of calling them a "system." By calling them a "system," motive is *assumed* without being proven, and then the "system" is attacked on that basis.
In addition, perception is selective. In the case of people who have been wounded, it is especially selective. True objectivity is impossible to begin with; and the more emotionally involved the observer is, the more likely their observations will be tainted with confirmation bias. One of the less subtle examples of this is the fact that, in discussions of male privilege, the reality of female privilege is almost always completely ignored.
Furthermore, it is never acknowledged that "privilege" is about preference for things of value, and value is relative. Early in the history of feminism, women who agitated for equality in career potential were aghast that a number of their female contemporaries simply did not value what they were fighting for and were happy and content to stay at home and be homemakers, wives and mothers. I remember that there was some resentment toward these women, as though they were "undermining the cause." But it was simply a question of value. If you see going to work every day and slogging it out with competitors, working for an unpleasant boss or company, is not worth the money or the sacrifices you would have to make for them, then you might rather pity your husband than envy him. For such a woman, it is a non sequitur to cast her husband's preferences as "privilege." Preference for a detriment is not "privilege."
What's really going on with so-called male privilege is cultural, and is too deep to be reformed from the top-down. If you try to reform it from the top-down, you will not create: you will destroy. You do not make people better by forcing them to be good; you make people better by inspiring them to be good. Laws, rules, public disapproval -- these things merely force bad behavior underground, where it festers until it explodes and does even more damage.
There's a beautiful line in the Melanie Griffith film, "A Stranger Among Us" (1982), in which Griffith plays a policewoman who goes undercover in a Hasidic community. As you can imagine, culture shock, on both sides, is a major component of the plot. There is a conversation between Griffith's character, Emily, and Mia Sara's, Leah, the grown daughter of the community's rabbi, that ends like this:
Emily: What do you want to be when you grow up, Leah?
Leah: A wife, a mother.
Emily: That's it?
Leah: But, Emily, what could be more important?
Like it or not, convenient or not, this is a valid point of view, and it has its own beauty. To a woman with these values, discussions of male privilege are meaningless, even false. The point I'm making is, whether male privilege exists or not, is a problem or not, depends on what you value, and what you value is a subjective choice, not an objective fact.
As it is used, "male privilege" is a thought-weapon; and, like accusations of "racism," regardless of the user's individual intent, is used to cow males, to make them introspect, hesitate, yield ... all to assuage a sense of guilt imposed upon them by their accusers. Just as White people have been made afraid to act and speak in venues where Black people are concerned, now males are being made afraid to act and speak in venues where women are concerned.
This is a poisonous, destructive meme. Unfortunately, I do not think it will go away without first causing a great deal more conflict, destruction and pain.
EDIT: I just had a "Eureka!" moment. I think I saw something about the etiology of this phenomenon. I'll just throw it out there.
There's another line in the film, in a conversation between Emily and Ariel, the rabbi's son, in which he comments that the Kabbalah says that women are on a higher spiritual plane than men. Now, before the feminists start crying that I'm putting women on a pedestal ... that's not the point. The point is the relationship between form and function.
Some people believe gender is not innate; some people believe it is, but gender roles are culturally determined, artificial and relative. But if gender *is* innate, and if there is purpose to our existence, then it must follow that there are certain aspects of gender roles that are also innate and deeper than culture.
Throughout recorded history, men, the gender with political power, has found inspiration in woman. Before recorded history, women were the civilizing force for mankind. Desire for woman motivates man.
As I mentioned, you do not make people better by forcing them to be good, but by inspiring them to be good. The alternatives are force and desire: male power and female allure. We women are the inspiration, and, to be the inspiration, we must be weak, relative to males. Goodness, spiritual becoming, must be freely chosen; and, this can only occur in the absence of threat. By being weaker, we become vessels of transformation for man.
The flip-side of this are the problems mentioned in this thread: being overshadowed, feeling threatened in public venues, being disregarded and dismissed ... These things are possible because of our role in the spiritual progress of mankind. Man chooses to abuse our weakness in pursuit of power, or to use our weakness as a means of his own spiritual advancement.
This is our gift, and our burden. The two are inextricably intertwined. You cannot have one without the other. By trying to unravel this relationship, feminism is unraveling the cords that hold the human race together on its path to enlightenment.
Edit: n/m I'm allergic to Sn foil
Why do so many people on this forum write so technical, and formal; it's like reading a manual! Loosen up people, and have a little fun! 😀
Many of us are enginerds, scientists, and lawyers. Fun writing has been beaten out of us by years of study and work.
Quote from: kitchentablepotpourri on February 28, 2018, 07:57:30 PM
Why do so many people on this forum write so technical, and formal; it's like reading a manual! Loosen up people, and have a little fun! 😀
Aha, I'm Chopped Liver and I'm loose as a goose the day after Christmas!
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
I've made it a rule not to discuss politics on-line anymore. In my experience, people's minds are rarely swayed by argument; and hurt feelings and outrage seem to be common.
This is a subject many women feel passionately about. I appreciate that; I even think I understand why, and sympathize. Nevertheless, passion and pain do not make truth; indeed, more often they make lies and chaos.
The idea of there being a "system" of male privilege is as fallacious as the idea that there is a health care "system" that can be reformed. In both cases, there simply is no "system." A true system is intentionally created to perform a set of tasks; what is being here called a system is merely a conceptual frame superimposed upon observed phenomena for which there is no demonstrable motivating force or unifying principle -- but these things are *assumed* to exist, in the act of calling them a "system." By calling them a "system," motive is *assumed* without being proven, and then the "system" is attacked on that basis.
In addition, perception is selective. In the case of people who have been wounded, it is especially selective. True objectivity is impossible to begin with; and the more emotionally involved the observer is, the more likely their observations will be tainted with confirmation bias. One of the less subtle examples of this is the fact that, in discussions of male privilege, the reality of female privilege is almost always completely ignored.
Furthermore, it is never acknowledged that "privilege" is about preference for things of value, and value is relative. Early in the history of feminism, women who agitated for equality in career potential were aghast that a number of their female contemporaries simply did not value what they were fighting for and were happy and content to stay at home and be homemakers, wives and mothers. I remember that there was some resentment toward these women, as though they were "undermining the cause." But it was simply a question of value. If you see going to work every day and slogging it out with competitors, working for an unpleasant boss or company, is not worth the money or the sacrifices you would have to make for them, then you might rather pity your husband than envy him. For such a woman, it is a non sequitur to cast her husband's preferences as "privilege." Preference for a detriment is not "privilege."
What's really going on with so-called male privilege is cultural, and is too deep to be reformed from the top-down. If you try to reform it from the top-down, you will not create: you will destroy. You do not make people better by forcing them to be good; you make people better by inspiring them to be good. Laws, rules, public disapproval -- these things merely force bad behavior underground, where it festers until it explodes and does even more damage.
There's a beautiful line in the Melanie Griffith film, "A Stranger Among Us" (1982), in which Griffith plays a policewoman who goes undercover in a Hasidic community. As you can imagine, culture shock, on both sides, is a major component of the plot. There is a conversation between Griffith's character, Emily, and Mia Sara's, Leah, the grown daughter of the community's rabbi, that ends like this:
Emily: What do you want to be when you grow up, Leah?
Leah: A wife, a mother.
Emily: That's it?
Leah: But, Emily, what could be more important?
Like it or not, convenient or not, this is a valid point of view, and it has its own beauty. To a woman with these values, discussions of male privilege are meaningless, even false. The point I'm making is, whether male privilege exists or not, is a problem or not, depends on what you value, and what you value is a subjective choice, not an objective fact.
As it is used, "male privilege" is a thought-weapon; and, like accusations of "racism," regardless of the user's individual intent, is used to cow males, to make them introspect, hesitate, yield ... all to assuage a sense of guilt imposed upon them by their accusers. Just as White people have been made afraid to act and speak in venues where Black people are concerned, now males are being made afraid to act and speak in venues where women are concerned.
This is a poisonous, destructive meme. Unfortunately, I do not think it will go away without first causing a great deal more conflict, destruction and pain.
So... as you might imagine from my previous posts, I pretty much disagree with nearly everything you've said here. The one exception being the part about arguments online rarely changing minds. That I do agree with.
So, with that in mind, I'm not going to take the mental effort needed to discuss point by point, but I'm going to make a few general arguments for those on the outside, who may wish to consider this argument.
Systems exist, and you can see their fingerprints everywhere. I've listed the hallmarks of the patriarchy in my previous posts if anyone wants to refresh. You can choose to define them out of existence in your mind, but in reality they keep chugging. Political inequality and workplace harassment are not going to be defined out of existence. They are a problem, on a societal level, without reference to personal opinions. They damage the wellbeing of the whole.
The basis of a lawful society is that certain rules and regulations serve useful purpose, even if they cannot be 100 percent effective. Creating laws against sexual harassment and enforcing these laws is not going to stop sexual harassment entirely, but it does lessen it and provide mechanisms of redress if it does happen. It informs social mores, providing even more pressure to stop the behavior. Over time those laws solidify, and become part of the fabric of a society. A few hundred years ago, it was common practice to own human beings as chattel. Then there was a war and laws were passed. Now, barring the prison system, the idea of chattel slavery is morally repugnant. If you don't believe that good can be brought about by laws, social censure, and enforcement, then I'm not sure what you believe government is in existence for.
As for the idea that discussions of misogyny and racism are used as silencing tacitics... I find the notion toxic. Those in positions of privilege should be made aware of their participation in structures of oppression. That's because they (Or we, at some of my privileged intersections) are the ones that are benefiting, and they/we are the ones with the greatest power to change. To be honest, this sounds of a mind with the belief that being called a racist is as bad as experiencing racism. As trans folx, we should see the absurdity of that notion on the face.
And again, the one point I do agree on is that internet arguments rarely change opinions. I doubt anything I've said has wedged your needle, and I'm really not interested in pursuing a path to a nonexistent middle ground. If you want to respond, feel free, but I likely won't engage with you on this subject again.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: kitchentablepotpourri on February 28, 2018, 07:57:30 PM
Why do so many people on this forum write so technical, and formal; it's like reading a manual! Loosen up people, and have a little fun! [emoji3]
Writing like I do is fun, for me at least... If it helps, this is also how I talk.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on February 28, 2018, 08:44:07 PM
Writing like I do is fun, for me at least... If it helps, this is also how I talk.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
OMG!!!!
You talk with words???????????????????????????????????/
Quote from: Cassi on February 28, 2018, 08:45:47 PM
OMG!!!!
You talk with words???????????????????????????????????/
I was thinking more of idiosyncratic turns of phrase (some of which I just make up) an expansive legalistic vocabulary, a focus on clarity and refining what i want to say before saying it, and excessive elaboration. But yes, also with words. Also gestures!
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: kitchentablepotpourri on February 28, 2018, 07:57:30 PM
Why do so many people on this forum write so technical, and formal; it's like reading a manual! Loosen up people, and have a little fun! 😀
@ kitchentablepotpourri: Hey, I am all for fun and playful writing but there is a time for clarity and precision in conveying thoughts, responses and ideas via the written word.
I am getting tired of seeing personal correspondence come my way either in snail-mail, email, or text that exhibits sloppy writing skills or no writing skills at all.
In my opinion, this problem has accelerated since the computer and cell phone age in the last two decades with the advent of email and texting.
In my recent past jobs I assisted the HR department in sorting out incoming job applications for my department and I prioritized the submitted introduction letters and essay portions of the job applications. So many of these people were writing and composing sentences and letters at what appeared to be much less than a high school level. The applications were chuck full of spelling errors, grammar errors, punctuation errors and sentence construction errors, and as a result all clarity and conveyance of pertinent information was just about lost along with a lost job opportunity.
Unfortunately this sad state of affairs is seemingly the norm in the modern cyberspace age and there are no signs of it getting any better.
***** OK, I have said my piece, now back to having fun!!! :) :D :icon_dance: :icon_hover-alien: :icon_geekdance::o ::) :-* >:-) :laugh: :icon_ballbounce: :eusa_dance:
Aspiringperson... now back in "fun" mode
Quote from: Colleen_definitely on February 28, 2018, 08:13:21 PM
Many of us are enginerds, scientists, and lawyers. Fun writing has been beaten out of us by years of study and work.
I know plenty of those types who aren't afraid to let their hair down; enginerds, scientists, and lawyers, oh my 👀
Quote from: Aspiringperson on February 28, 2018, 09:26:50 PM
@ kitchentablepotpourri: Hey, I am all for fun and playful writing but there is a time for clarity and precision in conveying thoughts, responses and ideas via the written word.
I am getting tired of seeing personal correspondence come my way either in snail-mail, email, or text that exhibits sloppy writing skills or no writing skills at all.
In my opinion, this problem has accelerated since the computer and cell phone age in the last two decades with the advent of email and texting.
In my recent past jobs I assisted the HR department in sorting out incoming job applications for my department and I prioritized the submitted introduction letters and essay portions of the job applications. So many of these people were writing and composing sentences and letters at what appeared to be much less than a high school level. The applications were chuck full of spelling errors, grammar errors, punctuation errors and sentence construction errors and as a result all clarity and conveyance of pertinent information was just about lost along with a lost job opportunity.
Unfortunately this sad state of affairs is seemingly the norm in the modern cyberspace age and there are no signs of it getting any better.
***** OK, I have said my piece, now back to having fun!!! [/b][/font] :) :D :icon_dance: :icon_hover-alien: :icon_geekdance::o ::) :-* >:-) :laugh: :icon_ballbounce: :eusa_dance:
Aspiringperson... now in "fun" mode
There are some good points made above.
I agree that there should be clarity, along with the expected accuracy, precision, civility, and formality with written communication. Expectation levels do differ, as do styles.
I have taken some time to think about how useful these forums can be and I am glad that they are here. Yes, we can and should have some fun! :) :) The clock says that it is fun time!
Chrissy
Back to the topic of this thread:
In my opinion, male privilege can be over-exaggerated to the point that if a female looking for an issue dealing with males then they will somehow find it even if it hardly exists. The same can hold true for a male dealing with a female.
For certain there are men that treat women with disdain and even violence. Since I have gone full time I have personally had to deal with some of this to a small extent.
In my small business I have male clients that respect my opinions, and other males not so much. By the same token I have dealt with females that felt that they wanted a man's opinion about certain aspects that my business handles.
There are women-haters and there are man-haters so I guess that it can go both ways.
Aspiringperson
Quote from: ChrissyRyan on February 28, 2018, 09:58:07 PM
There are some good points made above.
I agree that there should be clarity, along with the expected accuracy, precision, civility, and formality with written communication. Expectation levels do differ, as do styles.
I have taken some time to think about how useful these forums can be and I am glad that they are here. Yes, we can and should have some fun! :) :) The clock says that it is fun time!
Chrissy
And with that said, in the words of the famous Frankie Vallie "Big Girls Don't Cry"..............................
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on February 28, 2018, 08:44:07 PM
Writing like I do is fun, for me at least... If it helps, this is also how I talk.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I get that; and I wasn't thinking of your posts when I made that comment😊
Actually when I wrote that comment I was thinking about how dry and dull a lot of the threads are; I wasn't in awe of anyone's writing style.
Quote from: kitchentablepotpourri on February 28, 2018, 10:19:25 PM
I get that; and I wasn't thinking of your posts when I made that comment😊
Actually when I wrote that comment I was thinking about how dry and dull a lot of the threads are; I wasn't in awe of anyone's writing style.
What I find interesting is that the posts on this site have a special mystic about them. By that I mean some I find to be boring to me, no disrespect intended to anyone, but if the topic is of an interest or something to someone then it almost becomes magical in its helpfulness.
Now, on the brightside, you always have me coming up with weird comments too :)
Quote from: kitchentablepotpourri on February 28, 2018, 09:53:10 PM
I know plenty of those types who aren't afraid to let their hair down; enginerds, scientists, and lawyers, oh my 👀
I wish I could let my hair down. :( My wig is synthetic and reaching the end of its lifespan. The ends have been frizzed from use. I have to keep it in a ponytail to keep from looking like a cavewoman.
I never observed any male privilege. I gained female privilege and I love it. I love that society is more kind to me. Male bodied people are considered expendable by society.
Hi, AnnMarie
Wow, I'm actually amazed that there are people who seem to think somewhat similarly to me.
*･゜ﾟ･*:.｡..｡.:*･'(*ﾟ▽ﾟ*)'･*:.｡. .｡.:*･゜ﾟ･*
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
A true system is intentionally created to perform a set of tasks; what is being here called a system is merely a conceptual frame superimposed upon observed phenomena for which there is no demonstrable motivating force or unifying principle -- but these things are *assumed* to exist, in the act of calling them a "system." By calling them a "system," motive is *assumed* without being proven, and then the "system" is attacked on that basis.
Yes... it is much easier and many ways more profitable to battle against a perceived system than an individual. The former is seen as noble, and the latter vindictive. Moreover, it is much easier to gather supporters against a system than individuals.
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
In addition, perception is selective. In the case of people who have been wounded, it is especially selective. True objectivity is impossible to begin with; and the more emotionally involved the observer is, the more likely their observations will be tainted with confirmation bias.
I could not agree more. I was a child when I met my first women's rights activist, and was very I was hurt and confused by the vitriol she flung at me. I could not understand why I, just by being born male, should seem so evil and hurtful to her. I also could not understand many of the concepts I was being accused of. What I did know for certain was that I'd never seen nor encountered, let alone brought about any of the situations brought up as examples of the wrongs I supposedly was committing every day.
(Even though a child I felt I saw flaws in her logic, but had luckily learnt by then that when passion is involved trying to reason or ask questions only makes things worse.)
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
Furthermore, it is never acknowledged that "privilege" is about preference for things of value, and value is relative. Early in the history of feminism, women who agitated for equality in career potential were aghast that a number of their female contemporaries simply did not value what they were fighting for and were happy and content to stay at home and be homemakers, wives and mothers.
Yes... In my experience just about any political group tends to categorize those not willing to join as either traitors or enemies.
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
What's really going on with so-called male privilege is cultural, and is too deep to be reformed from the top-down. If you try to reform it from the top-down, you will not create: you will destroy. You do not make people better by forcing them to be good; you make people better by inspiring them to be good. Laws, rules, public disapproval -- these things merely force bad behavior underground, where it festers until it explodes and does even more damage.
Moreover, not all of it may be just cultural. I've also heard it argued that for example the extreme risk-taking by young males may even have some biological roots. According to the theory, since all species are perpetuated by females, it is advantageous in the wild to cull the slowest, weakest and least agile males.
If so, couldn't other parts of male behavior also be affected by instinct?
I myself could not understand much of what the boys my age reveled in. But then, I'm transgender—and that difference in itself seems significant to me. If what makes me different is a result of biology rather than choice, then doesn't that suggest that some male behavior and thought patterns are also governed by biology rather than choice? To me personally, denial of the possibility would feel very uncomfortable, since it would also suggest that I could stop being transgender just by choosing to do so.
With this in mind, could it not be that when men engage in risk-taking, they are competing against other males? Given that we live in various civilizations, rather than battles to death this may be sublimated into other forms. If so, might not including women in these competitions feel instinctually wrong to them?
So—I wonder. Where
is the system? What is it's definition? If it does exist, who engineered it, and when? What is it's purpose?
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
As it is used, "male privilege" is a thought-weapon; and, like accusations of "racism," regardless of the user's individual intent, is used to cow males, to make them introspect, hesitate, yield ... all to assuage a sense of guilt imposed upon them by their accusers. Just as White people have been made afraid to act and speak in venues where Black people are concerned, now males are being made afraid to act and speak in venues where women are concerned.
This is a poisonous, destructive meme. Unfortunately, I do not think it will go away without first causing a great deal more conflict, destruction and pain.
Yes. That hurts. I myself did not give a thought about skin color until I was put in a school run by American missionaries. Until then, it was like:
I get dark in the summer.
Some of my friends get darker.
Some just burn.
Some are dark all year around.
Then, all of as sudden my new teachers were telling me that "Our ancestors mistreated the really dark ones. They were our slaves, and we were their masters. Thus we must now atone those ancestors' sins."
When I asked my parents about it, they calmly told me that none of my ancestors had ever owned slaves. Judging from history, some of my ancestors probably
were slaves, and were only emancipated about four years before their counterparts in America were. Even so, the teachers succeeded in installing a bias in me that I've never been able to completely shed.
That is one of the things that taught me to distrust any agenda, especially if it is presented in a way that provokes emotion.
Anyway, as you also mentioned, online discussion is rather unlikely to change anyone's established opinion. Actually any discussion anywhere is unlikely to do so. This is why I feel it pays to be very cautious before accepting anything as absolute, incontrovertible truth.
After all, once we've decided something is
right, and something else is
wrong, we tend to dismiss any other possibilities. The longer we've held our beliefs the greater the cost for changing our minds becomes. When they are challenged we feel like we stand to lose all the time, passion and effort we've put into bolstering whatever it is that we believe in.
That's probably also why the Jesuits could so confidently claim that once they'd taught someone you could take the child away from the church, but never the church away from the child.
I'm with you on it.
Are there some who are just plain old jerks to women? Absolutely! But that doesn't mean it's some grand conspiracy against women that affects everyone everywhere.
As for the mansplaining thing, that is a cultural protective instinct sort of thing. I think it's cute, and then I typically stomp the guy doing it by showing that I know far more than he does in most cases. (gun shops and auto parts stores are a wonderful place to do this)
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
I've made it a rule not to discuss politics on-line anymore. In my experience, people's minds are rarely swayed by argument; and hurt feelings and outrage seem to be common.
This is a subject many women feel passionately about. I appreciate that; I even think I understand why, and sympathize. Nevertheless, passion and pain do not make truth; indeed, more often they make lies and chaos.
The idea of there being a "system" of male privilege is as fallacious as the idea that there is a health care "system" that can be reformed. In both cases, there simply is no "system." A true system is intentionally created to perform a set of tasks; what is being here called a system is merely a conceptual frame superimposed upon observed phenomena for which there is no demonstrable motivating force or unifying principle -- but these things are *assumed* to exist, in the act of calling them a "system." By calling them a "system," motive is *assumed* without being proven, and then the "system" is attacked on that basis.
In addition, perception is selective. In the case of people who have been wounded, it is especially selective. True objectivity is impossible to begin with; and the more emotionally involved the observer is, the more likely their observations will be tainted with confirmation bias. One of the less subtle examples of this is the fact that, in discussions of male privilege, the reality of female privilege is almost always completely ignored.
Furthermore, it is never acknowledged that "privilege" is about preference for things of value, and value is relative. Early in the history of feminism, women who agitated for equality in career potential were aghast that a number of their female contemporaries simply did not value what they were fighting for and were happy and content to stay at home and be homemakers, wives and mothers. I remember that there was some resentment toward these women, as though they were "undermining the cause." But it was simply a question of value. If you see going to work every day and slogging it out with competitors, working for an unpleasant boss or company, is not worth the money or the sacrifices you would have to make for them, then you might rather pity your husband than envy him. For such a woman, it is a non sequitur to cast her husband's preferences as "privilege." Preference for a detriment is not "privilege."
What's really going on with so-called male privilege is cultural, and is too deep to be reformed from the top-down. If you try to reform it from the top-down, you will not create: you will destroy. You do not make people better by forcing them to be good; you make people better by inspiring them to be good. Laws, rules, public disapproval -- these things merely force bad behavior underground, where it festers until it explodes and does even more damage.
There's a beautiful line in the Melanie Griffith film, "A Stranger Among Us" (1982), in which Griffith plays a policewoman who goes undercover in a Hasidic community. As you can imagine, culture shock, on both sides, is a major component of the plot. There is a conversation between Griffith's character, Emily, and Mia Sara's, Leah, the grown daughter of the community's rabbi, that ends like this:
Emily: What do you want to be when you grow up, Leah?
Leah: A wife, a mother.
Emily: That's it?
Leah: But, Emily, what could be more important?
Like it or not, convenient or not, this is a valid point of view, and it has its own beauty. To a woman with these values, discussions of male privilege are meaningless, even false. The point I'm making is, whether male privilege exists or not, is a problem or not, depends on what you value, and what you value is a subjective choice, not an objective fact.
As it is used, "male privilege" is a thought-weapon; and, like accusations of "racism," regardless of the user's individual intent, is used to cow males, to make them introspect, hesitate, yield ... all to assuage a sense of guilt imposed upon them by their accusers. Just as White people have been made afraid to act and speak in venues where Black people are concerned, now males are being made afraid to act and speak in venues where women are concerned.
This is a poisonous, destructive meme. Unfortunately, I do not think it will go away without first causing a great deal more conflict, destruction and pain.
EDIT: I just had a "Eureka!" moment. I think I saw something about the etiology of this phenomenon. I'll just throw it out there.
There's another line in the film, in a conversation between Emily and Ariel, the rabbi's son, in which he comments that the Kabbalah says that women are on a higher spiritual plane than men. Now, before the feminists start crying that I'm putting women on a pedestal ... that's not the point. The point is the relationship between form and function.
Some people believe gender is not innate; some people believe it is, but gender roles are culturally determined, artificial and relative. But if gender *is* innate, and if there is purpose to our existence, then it must follow that there are certain aspects of gender roles that are also innate and deeper than culture.
Throughout recorded history, men, the gender with political power, has found inspiration in woman. Before recorded history, women were the civilizing force for mankind. Desire for woman motivates man.
As I mentioned, you do not make people better by forcing them to be good, but by inspiring them to be good. The alternatives are force and desire: male power and female allure. We women are the inspiration, and, to be the inspiration, we must be weak, relative to males. Goodness, spiritual becoming, must be freely chosen; and, this can only occur in the absence of threat. By being weaker, we become vessels of transformation for man.
The flip-side of this are the problems mentioned in this thread: being overshadowed, feeling threatened in public venues, being disregarded and dismissed ... These things are possible because of our role in the spiritual progress of mankind. Man chooses to abuse our weakness in pursuit of power, or to use our weakness as a means of his own spiritual advancement.
This is our gift, and our burden. The two are inextricably intertwined. You cannot have one without the other. By trying to unravel this relationship, feminism is unraveling the cords that hold the human race together on its path to enlightenment.
While it is clear to me that men and women enjoy different advantages in our society, and that they end up as a whole much more positive for the safety of men (to the point where men hardly ever consider safety in most places),
I think this is a brilliant take-down of what appear to me as many flaws in modern social thought. Thanks for sharing AnnMarie.
Quote from: Colleen_definitely on March 01, 2018, 07:44:57 AM
I'm with you on it.
Are there some who are just plain old jerks to women? Absolutely! But that doesn't mean it's some grand conspiracy against women that affects everyone everywhere.
As for the mansplaining thing, that is a cultural protective instinct sort of thing. I think it's cute, and then I typically stomp the guy doing it by showing that I know far more than he does in most cases. (gun shops and auto parts stores are a wonderful place to do this)
I gotta be clear. The patriarchy is not a conspiracy. It's a long calcified series of social systems. There is no shadowy cabal or Council of Patriarchs running it. It's just people, most of whom are unaware of what they're perpetuating.
Take rape culture. It's not a mandate. It's a thousand small messages telling men they are entitled to sex, and just as many to women telling us this is how it is. It's locker room talk and boys will be boys. It's Han Solo "stealing" a kiss from Leia. It's telling girls that minor acts of violence means a boy likes her. It's a culture of silence surrounding abusers in power. It's asking what she was wearing and what signals she was giving off. These are all small bits of cultural detritus, garbage memes, that have stuck around because they are advantageous to a group that has been in, and continues to be in, social power. And up it goes, rape culture as a whole is one fragment of the thing that is the patriarchy.
This all goes for white supremacy, cissexism, heteronormativity, enculturated Christianity. There are bad actors that want all of these systems in place, but they are kept in place largely by unaware beneficiaries.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on March 01, 2018, 08:56:57 AM
I gotta be clear. The patriarchy is not a conspiracy. It's a long calcified series of social systems. There is no shadowy cabal or Council of Patriarchs running it. It's just people, most of whom are unaware of what they're perpetuating.
Awesome description!
And what of the women who actually prefer forward and dominant men? Plenty of them on these boards too. Are you one of those who likes to tell other women what they should and shouldn't like because you know best? Good luck with that. . .
Don't forget the rise of black supremacy (yes, it exists and it's just as grotesque where you find it), and that of Islam, which when all is said and done makes Christianity look like a picnic for women compared.
Quote from: Kylo on March 01, 2018, 10:42:37 PM
And what of the women who actually prefer forward and dominant men? Plenty of them on these boards too. Are you one of those who likes to tell other women what they should and shouldn't like because you know best? Good luck with that. . .
Don't forget the rise of black supremacy (yes, it exists and it's just as grotesque where you find it), and that of Islam, which when all is said and done makes Christianity look like a picnic for women compared.
There! Another "Male" telling us this and that, Ha!
In inverted commas, eh?
I haven't experienced this yet do to i am still coming out...
But friends i have had whether they be L.G.B.T. or Q
Have had issues in general.
I mean we live in such a close minded world there is prejudice to every degree...
I mean someone can literally clock you as negative for sharing a harmless
post on facebook involving animal crossing bridges....
As for "male" privledge i am sure some people do deal with its loss.
If only the world realized that we are all capable of the same things!
And that inherently we have the same core desires and insecurities.
Best of luck though to anyone going through this... :(
Quote from: Kylo on March 01, 2018, 10:42:37 PM
And what of the women who actually prefer forward and dominant men? Plenty of them on these boards too. Are you one of those who likes to tell other women what they should and shouldn't like because you know best? Good luck with that. . .
Don't forget the rise of black supremacy (yes, it exists and it's just as grotesque where you find it), and that of Islam, which when all is said and done makes Christianity look like a picnic for women compared.
I'm honestly not sure what your points are. Preference in partners is such small beans. I could be the subbiest sub that ever needed a dom, and I could still look out and see that the patriarchy is a problem. Both for me and for women who don't want dominant and forward partners.
Black supremacy is a smokescreen that white people use to scare each other. Simply because there is no there there. There are no power structures keeping "black supremacy" endemic to the system, and no power brokers with the power to put such a system in place. It's like comparing the threat of vampires to that of assault weapons. White supremacy is endemic to the system and is what needs to be dismantled.
And honestly, same with Islam. There is no serious power to Islam in the global West. Even if it was as scary as you say, and it largely ain't, there's no power to it here. It's a boogeyman.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
You need to open your eyes and look a little closer at these things. Sounds like you're well and truly entrenched and invested in a belief that men, being white, and being of the West is the absolute root of all other problems out there. You're wrong. Not only wrong, but misinforming others.
I suppose by your standards, what's happening to whites in South Africa right now isn't terrible or somehow "deserved". A racist is a racist, no matter what color they come in - you don't get to excuse them because they're not white and keep your moral high ground. And I suppose women being treated like chattel in Islamic countries isn't a greater problem for them than anything women face over here, is it. Or that the west isn't turning a blind eye to the culture clash in Sweden and Germany that means thousands of women recently sexually assaulted by migrants from countries with Islamic cultures is largely ignored (or western women encouraged to cover up like Islamic women) because those authorities are afraid of being seen as "racist" rather than defending the freedom and rights of their own women not to be molested.
I am sick of hearing how "whiteness is the problem" or the "west is evil" from people who will conveniently omit the other problems and other sources of trouble facing us at this time. If you think Islam isn't a problem you probably live quite sheltered from it - I don't expect you'd want to live in an Islamic country as a woman, either, would you? Or perhaps the Democratic Republic of the Congo would suit you better? White people blaming their own countries and color for all the ills of the world appears to be currently fashionable, but obviously misplaced, when those countries are so much better than some and people are literally dying to get into them. They are not the Congo where supposedly forty-eight women get raped every hour, they are not Saudi Arabia where a woman can't the leave the country without a man's permission, they are not Yemen where there's no age of consent, they are not Egypt where FGM is hugely popular, they aren't Honduras where women's protection is abysmal. But I suppose these countries all do what they do right now because The White Man is somehow making them do it, and they have no agency of their own to control their own affairs? This is known as the soft bigotry of low expectations: anyone but white or western people can be excused from their actions because a certain type of white person actually believes non-whites "can't help it", or that by some magic the existence of white people has removed every drop of the agency of non-white countries to improve their situation (despite the fact there are plenty of non-white countries that have). This is arrogance of the highest order.
Tell me: if "white supremacy is endemic to the system and needs to be dismantled" why it is that comparably insular cultures and countries like China, Korea and Japan face the same issues socially regards gender roles and sexism, and China faces the same issues regards their Islamic communities when "white supremacy" has practically nothing whatsoever to do with their internal affairs presently. If anything, they have their own forms of racial supremacy which are alive and well in their societies. Could it possibly be that sexism has its roots in biological realities and isn't some invention of the White Devil, and that Islam generally finds it difficult to live peacefully alongside other cultures wherever it finds itself compared to the other major religions? Because there's certainly plenty of evidence of the latter in places with minimal western influence.
But do explain. I'd love to know how whiteness and white supremacy is responsible for China's similar problems, both historically and presently. Or Japan's, who remained consistently closed off to white influence until the early part of last century, and even then only took practical western knowledge rather than cultural onboard, and remains somewhat xenophobic and isolationist in cultural outlook to this day.
Don't give me that nonsense about claiming black supremacy doesn't exist or is made up by white people. There are plenty of black commentators and white commentators alike online spewing hate for each other, plain as day - you can go and find them any time you like to verify. And the black ones are just as awful. There are indeed black organizations run by black people that are supremacist, but I don't suppose you've bothered to look into them? And the white ones have more power by default? No, they don't, because currently there is plenty of vilification and censorship and outrage aimed toward the white ones, but almost none toward the black ones. You can be a racist (in public) and get away with it if you're not white in this current climate of fashionable "white guilt".
If you lived where I do you'd be well aware that the authorities in the UK and Europe consider Muslims something of a protected class, and have slowly but surely been allowing Islam more and more accommodation and leverage and are terrified of offending them while the press tends to inform as little about the culture clash or religiously and culturally motivated crimes taking place as it possibly can. Since I don't particularly want women to need male guardians to go out when anywhere near an Islamic "area", or to cover themselves up like Islamic women to avoid harassment or rape (Google it in relation to Germany, the authorities there have now started telling German women and girls to cover up to avoid being attacked by refugees), I consider what's happening here in Europe to be a little more than a "bogeyman". I know women personally who've been affected and harmed by these things, and I can see the problems and tensions developing in my own country year by year with my own eyes. To see you dismiss them so flippantly and presumptuously is infuriating.
So, like, my mouth hurts from having all those words put into it. I need to go to work, so I don't have time for a point by point discussion right now, but I will address once I have time tonight.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I look forward to it.
So for me it looks like men in general are problem. If you leave men without proper moral, respect training and education they behave like animals toward women. You can see it in some cultures like Islamic countries. So is it pure maleness which is a problem, does it mean that men have no inherent sense of compassion and respect, so they have to be trained like in western countries?
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on February 28, 2018, 11:12:07 AM
Oh no, y'all, that isn't privilege or power. It's old school sexism and objectification in the guise of power. Disparities in the heights of power, inequality in pay, reproductive rights, epidemic physical and sexual violence against women... none of these are solved by using feminine wiles to entrance men. That's a squirt gun that's being passed off as a nuke.
Moreover, that line of thinking is often exploited by men to justify horrible treatment of women.
I find this line of thought at least within the context of my own marriage to be completely inaccurate. My wife got just about whatever she wanted. I loved and respected her and truly wanted for her to be happy and if there was something I could do to facilitate that, then I would.
Sometimes I would get my way, but I always considered her point of view even if I disagreed with it. When I did wind up getting my way (not so often) she might complain that I wasn't validating her and valuing her opinion. My thought here is that valuing her opinion doesn't mean simply agreeing to it, but in listening to it and giving it the opportunity to influence me (which it usually did). If it didn't sway my opinion it didn't mean that I didn't value it, just that after weighing all of the issues I still held to my original conviction.
Julie
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on February 28, 2018, 08:40:47 PM
As for the idea that discussions of misogyny and racism are used as silencing tacitics... I find the notion toxic. Those in positions of privilege should be made aware of their participation in structures of oppression.
I recently saw an interview where Morgan Freeman said that the way to get rid of racism was to stop talking about it. Drawing attention to it just encourages group think and is itself divisive There is a whole generation of young people that believe there is racism because it has been sold to them.
So, if privilege (of whatever sort you want to talk about) is indeed a system, who runs it? Who is the leader? Who makes the rules and arbitrates any conflicts? Doesn't it make more sense that it is an emergent phenomena based on societal values and stereotypes? If the stereotypes and values are changed the phenomena would as well. Don't forget that stereotypes don't happen in a vacuum, there has to be some statistically relevant behavior upon which they are based even if they are generally untrue.
I also agree with Zirconia about how we as humans make shortcuts about how we interact with people (probably a big part of the synthesis of sterotypes). I am sure women are as guilty as men of this in many regards. It is the responsibility of each of us to interact with other humans on an individual vs group basis if we want to move away from the ravages of the effects of privilege in whatever form they may take.
Julie
Any doubt I may have had about male priveledge, or the loss of, went out the window the first time a guy thought it was ok to put his hands on me and physically move me out of his way. Not shoving, he was being "polite" by moving me, by placing his hands on my shoulders and "guiding" me to where HE wanted me. I was so stunned, I didn't have words.
IKR?
I'm usually pretty neutral and even keeled, but seriously in the world we live in this type of behavior is not considered harassment or generally frowned upon. He moved me as if I was an object. Because that's what I was. And this was someone who knew me well before I transitioned. I have had similar incidents with perfect strangers. Just seems odd. Why don't you pinch my butt while you're at it?
Now i am 5-10 and have gained a bit of weight since switching to injections (damn cravings!!!!!) and am now 155-160#. Certainly not heavy at a size 8 but also not a tiny little thing either.
I have also been talked over though I am usually the most senior person in the room by title (upper middle management), so the title prevents a lot of that, and at a company that is highly regarded for its support of women and minorities including LGBT.
Meanwhile my best male friend now orders for me because of his man-sense about how to treat a lady. I think some of what is perceived as male privilege is really the intersection of attempted or poorly executed chivalry meeting 2018 expectations of equality meeting women's lib and not quite yet finding the exact right landing spot. But some of it is absolutely a feeling of power and superiority. I am weaker therefore I am less is how I feel like I am perceived and treated in these circumstances.
Quote from: Kylo on March 02, 2018, 06:23:14 AM
You need to open your eyes and look a little closer at these things. Sounds like you're well and truly entrenched and invested in a belief that men, being white, and being of the West is the absolute root of all other problems out there. You're wrong. Not only wrong, but misinforming others.
I suppose by your standards, what's happening to whites in South Africa right now isn't terrible or somehow "deserved". A racist is a racist, no matter what color they come in - you don't get to excuse them because they're not white and keep your moral high ground. And I suppose women being treated like chattel in Islamic countries isn't a greater problem for them than anything women face over here, is it. Or that the west isn't turning a blind eye to the culture clash in Sweden and Germany that means thousands of women recently sexually assaulted by migrants from countries with Islamic cultures is largely ignored (or western women encouraged to cover up like Islamic women) because those authorities are afraid of being seen as "racist" rather than defending the freedom and rights of their own women not to be molested.
I am sick of hearing how "whiteness is the problem" or the "west is evil" from people who will conveniently omit the other problems and other sources of trouble facing us at this time. If you think Islam isn't a problem you probably live quite sheltered from it - I don't expect you'd want to live in an Islamic country as a woman, either, would you? Or perhaps the Democratic Republic of the Congo would suit you better? White people blaming their own countries and color for all the ills of the world appears to be currently fashionable, but obviously misplaced, when those countries are so much better than some and people are literally dying to get into them. They are not the Congo where supposedly forty-eight women get raped every hour, they are not Saudi Arabia where a woman can't the leave the country without a man's permission, they are not Yemen where there's no age of consent, they are not Egypt where FGM is hugely popular, they aren't Honduras where women's protection is abysmal. But I suppose these countries all do what they do right now because The White Man is somehow making them do it, and they have no agency of their own to control their own affairs? This is known as the soft bigotry of low expectations: anyone but white or western people can be excused from their actions because a certain type of white person actually believes non-whites "can't help it", or that by some magic the existence of white people has removed every drop of the agency of non-white countries to improve their situation (despite the fact there are plenty of non-white countries that have). This is arrogance of the highest order.
Tell me: if "white supremacy is endemic to the system and needs to be dismantled" why it is that comparably insular cultures and countries like China, Korea and Japan face the same issues socially regards gender roles and sexism, and China faces the same issues regards their Islamic communities when "white supremacy" has practically nothing whatsoever to do with their internal affairs presently. If anything, they have their own forms of racial supremacy which are alive and well in their societies. Could it possibly be that sexism has its roots in biological realities and isn't some invention of the White Devil, and that Islam generally finds it difficult to live peacefully alongside other cultures wherever it finds itself compared to the other major religions? Because there's certainly plenty of evidence of the latter in places with minimal western influence.
But do explain. I'd love to know how whiteness and white supremacy is responsible for China's similar problems, both historically and presently. Or Japan's, who remained consistently closed off to white influence until the early part of last century, and even then only took practical western knowledge rather than cultural onboard, and remains somewhat xenophobic and isolationist in cultural outlook to this day.
Don't give me that nonsense about claiming black supremacy doesn't exist or is made up by white people. There are plenty of black commentators and white commentators alike online spewing hate for each other, plain as day - you can go and find them any time you like to verify. And the black ones are just as awful. There are indeed black organizations run by black people that are supremacist, but I don't suppose you've bothered to look into them? And the white ones have more power by default? No, they don't, because currently there is plenty of vilification and censorship and outrage aimed toward the white ones, but almost none toward the black ones. You can be a racist (in public) and get away with it if you're not white in this current climate of fashionable "white guilt".
If you lived where I do you'd be well aware that the authorities in the UK and Europe consider Muslims something of a protected class, and have slowly but surely been allowing Islam more and more accommodation and leverage and are terrified of offending them while the press tends to inform as little about the culture clash as possible. Since I don't particularly want women to need male guardians to go out when anywhere near an Islamic "area", or to cover themselves up like Islamic women to avoid harassment or rape, I consider what's happening here in Europe to be a little more than a "bogeyman". I know women personally who've been affected and harmed by these things, and I can see the problems and tensions developing in my own country year by year with my own eyes. To see you dismiss them so flippantly and presumptuously is infuriating.
Alright, so I'm going to do this, but let's get some preliminaries out of the way first. One, I'm going to assume any mistakes or misrepresentations of my opinions were non-malicious. I say what I mean, and there is no license granted to extrapolate other positions beyond what I've said. I extend this courtesy once, so if you misstate my positions again, I'll assume malice and discontinue the discussion. Second, I'm writing on a phone. This means that I'm going back and forth between your post and my response. I'll try to keep roughly to the flow of your post, but please forgive any deviation or grammar errors. Third, I am an American. I will largely be arguing about how these structures manifest in the US. I simply do not have the grounding to discuss these structures as they may exist outside of the US, but when possible I will try to respond to points you've raised. I believe those are the necessary caveats.
The first paragraph contains the largest misconception. I do not believe that white, Western, men are the root of all problems. That position is asinine on the face. I do believe that structures such as patriarchy and white supremacy do cause problems, but that is distinct from the idea that men or white people are causing all the problems. These are structures that exist beyond any one person or group of people. Any given man is no more to blame for the patriarchy existing than a single car is to blame for global warming. The patriarchy is a societal level problem, and both men and women can be responsible for it's continued existence. All of us are required to dismantle it. My one concession to the point of view mentioned, is to say that men, as the primary beneficiaries under patriarchy, are in the best position to help dismantle it. This is a nuanced position, so please let me know if I've been unclear. This is also a theme that you return to multiple times throughout your response, so I won't respond to each instance. Every time you reduce my position to something like Whiteness is evil or white devil, return here for the nuance.
The second and third paragraphs contain arguments in response to literally nothing I've said, so I feel no need to respond to them. If you wish to argue with a bad facsimile of me, do so, but I'm not interested in it. You do seem to focus on the plight of women in majority Muslim nations. I too worry about these women, but I think the optimal solution is to dismantle the patriarchy. Islam doesn't cause these things, the patriarchy is these things.
The fourth paragraph kinda showcases a misunderstanding of how these systems work. White supremacy is not a cultural force in the nations listed, because white people are not in power in them. These power structures tend to solidify at the national level, because nations are the highest level governments. America has to deal with white supremacy because in its history white people have historically made up the ruling class, and the structures that benefit us have calcified as a result. White supremacy didn't form in Japan, because there is no historical white ruling class for it to benefit, and thus no mechanisms to preserve it in the high levels of power. The patriarchy is a separate structure, and promulgated in more nations, because men are everywhere, and have acted as the ruling class in most nation's through history. By the way, this is likely due to biology. Men, with their generally superior strength, gained prominence due to physical dominance in the earliest eras of human history.
Fifth paragraph is asking about the impact of white supremacy, or lack thereof in nations like China and Japan. As explained, those nations don't have that structure. So, moving on.
Paragraph six requires some work. Specifically, I need to explain what I mean when I say white supremacy. It's not a hate group, it's a series of interlocking social systems that benefit people who are racialized as white. It's made up of things like the school to prison pipeline, the lack of representation of people of color in media, the drug war, racist policing practices, and so on. These are evident. They are entrenched in the system of the US, and they advantage white people, and predominantly harm black people. These are white supremacy, and that's why I say black supremacy isn't a thing. There is no comparable series of social structures that benefit black people at the expense of other people. And there is no power to institutionalize such such systems. I know there are black people that hold prejudice against white people, but that isn't the same as a system of supremacy.
Finally, Islam is just a religion. Without the patriarchy, it's no more harmful to women than anything else. Dismantling the patriarchy will do more to protect women in your country, and everywhere, than falling to Islamophobia.
And wow, I've been writing this all day whenever I have had a free minute. Glad it's done! I'll probably take a break tonight.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
:icon_userfriendly: :icon_userfriendly: :icon_userfriendly:
Viva Trans-lution!!!!!!!
>:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-)
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on March 02, 2018, 09:40:37 PM
Alright, so I'm going to do this, but let's get some preliminaries out of the way first. One ...
I love the way you think and express yourself. We do not agree on this issue in any way, shape or form; but that's a separate matter.
Not long ago, I would have engaged you in argument with the greatest of pleasure; I might even have lost. :) But I don't do that anymore.
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on March 03, 2018, 10:36:51 AM
I love the way you think and express yourself. We do not agree on this issue in any way, shape or form; but that's a separate matter.
Not long ago, I would have engaged you in argument with the greatest of pleasure; I might even have lost. :) But I don't do that anymore.
@
AnnMarie and
Tamika Olivia:
YES, sometimes it is best to end a debate that can not be won be either party with "Let's agree to disagree" and then move on.
Aspiringperson
I never experienced male privilige.
I transitioned at age 19 and looked very childish and effeminate my whole life, even before HRT.
I was always sort of treated like " not a male ". Before I transitioned I was treated as a third sex and after transition I pass quite well so don't get clocked and get treated like any other girl.
I think it would be different for trans women who had a life as adult men with responsibilities behind them before they transitioned.
Age of transition significantly affects your experiences I think.
Just like there is a difference between kids who got put on blockers at 12 and me, who never got blockers and went straight on HRT at 19.
Quote from: Transfused on March 03, 2018, 10:59:07 AM
I never experienced male privilige.
I transitioned at age 19 and looked very childish and effeminate my whole life, even before HRT.
I was always sort of treated like " not a male ". Before I transitioned I was treated as a third sex and after transition I pass quite well so don't get clocked and get treated like any other girl.
I think it would be different for trans women who had a life as adult men with responsibilities behind them before they transitioned.
Age of transition significantly affects your experiences I think.
Just like there is a difference between kids who got put on blockers at 12 and me, who never got blockers and went straight on HRT at 19.
@ Transfused:
So very true as you stated:
"Age of transition significantly affects your experiences I think".Aspiringperson
Quote from: Aspiringperson on March 03, 2018, 10:52:31 AM
@ AnnMarie and Tamika Olivia:
YES, sometimes it is best to end a debate that can not be won be either party with "Let's agree to disagree" and then move on.
Aspiringperson
Heavens, you are
such a positive person. ;D
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on March 02, 2018, 09:40:37 PM
I do not believe that white, Western, men are the root of all problems. That position is asinine on the face. I do believe that structures such as patriarchy and white supremacy do cause problems, but that is distinct from the idea that men or white people are causing all the problems.
Then indeed you should probably have stated "white supremacy" isn't the only kind of calcified supremacy out there that affects anything or anyone significantly negatively. You dismissed black supremacy as powerless or invented, and you ignored the example I gave of South Africa presently in which black supremacy is now on the verge of confiscating the legal assets of white people living there because the (black) power structures there have decreed it, through violence as well as legal means - violence which has already taken place in Zimbabwe under similar sentiment. There's plenty of other examples as well. How about Arab supremacy? Did you know in countries like Qatar and Saudi there's plenty of present day slavery going on and a fairly open belief in racial supremacy, held in place by power structures endemic to their system? You're going to find "white supremacy" has significantly blunter teeth over here than other kinds of supremacy elsewhere and is less of a humanitarian threat to the average American or Canadian of any color, than these other kinds of supremacy to people living under them.
So that said, to bring up "white supremacy" when some truly horrific things are going on in the world in the name of other racial biases and calcified systems needs an appendix.
QuoteThe patriarchy is a societal level problem, and both men and women can be responsible for it's continued existence.
Let me hear your concise and precise definition of exactly what "The Patriarchy" is first, and I will figure whether or not your accusation of it in the present is based on something plucked from a feminist manifesto or something that reflects the unideal reality of the male-female power dynamic.
Quote
All of us are required to dismantle it. My one concession to the point of view mentioned, is to say that men, as the primary beneficiaries under patriarchy, are in the best position to help dismantle it.
Please do explain how are men the primary beneficiaries of "The Patriarchy", when it is women for whom the civilized state will invariably provision for over and above men when the two in need are compared, will excuse from warfare and backbreaking labor in most first world nations, has granted reproductive rights to in most first world nations, has granted the vote and the right of divorce to in most first world nations, will devote more medical resources and testing to, generally abhors and prosecutes violence and rape upon in most first world nations, and where women have begun to outnumber men in academia attendance and school performance, and so on and so on. If you mean nations less developed, then by all means you have a point. In which case you really ought to be critiquing those and not the ones afflicted by the old "white supremacy", because these happen to have the best conditions and opportunities in the world thus far for women at this time. Patriarchal systems of control certainly exist in places like Pakistan. You'd do well to criticize those more harshly because they actually deserve dismantling.
But yes, tell me what exactly we need to dismantle here in the West? An example, may be in order... how about "rape culture"? We don't have a rape culture. A rape
culture - to be precise - is a
culture in which nobody, including the law, will bat an eyelid if someone is raped, because it's considered normal or just. We do not have a rape culture because nobody here thinks rape is "normal" or just. We have a few morons on social media who insult women or laugh at them if they happen to be raped, and places like frats exposed where it's happened in frequency. But when it happens, rapists are more often than not punished by law if it can be proven that they raped. We don't have an institutionalized rape culture like Pakistan or Yemen where young boys get raped and young girls get married off to old men. Much of the Middle East has a culture in which is a woman walks down the street improperly dressed, being raped is expected, and furthermore if you are raped, you will probably be punished for having been raped.
That is a rape culture. Over here, it is not considered legally or culturally acceptable to rape someone for what they wear, nor are you going to be punished by law specifically for having been raped.
What we have here is the odd comment by people: "oh look what she was wearing, she was asking for it." But
most people will be horrified when a rape happens, and will want the rapist jailed. This is nothing like the real rape cultures that exist on this planet and anyone with sense can see it. In some of those other countries and cultures mentioned most people will not be on the side of the victim. But what do I see day in day out? People over here complaining "The Patriarchy" of the West is a full-blown rape culture and it's all men's fault. These people need a spell in certain parts of Africa or the ME for some perspective on what a culture that doesn't give a damn about women being raped really looks like.
The Patriarchal system of the West is so effectively oppressive toward women you very nearly had a female president of the USA. In a real misogynist Patriarchy, not only would the word
misogynist not be a bad one (but probably a badge of honor), but they wouldn't let a woman have a sniff of a back seat of power. Like in most of the Middle East.
Patriarchal systems exist, but if someone's of the mind the ones of the West are a bigger problem and worthy of greater criticism and dismantling than these others I'm afraid they need their bloody head checked. They
are being dismantled. You can see it year by year as more women enter politics, academia, managerial positions and traditionally male-dominated fields here. They are NOT being dismantled in the Congo, the Yemen, et al. Priorities.
QuoteYou do seem to focus on the plight of women in majority Muslim nations. I too worry about these women, but I think the optimal solution is to dismantle the patriarchy. Islam doesn't cause these things, the patriarchy is these things.
You need to learn about Islam. Islam is not "just" a religion, it is often also an entire political and cultural system designed to propagate itself. Why do you think nations that become majority Islamic always end up under Islamic laws? Or why Muslims who turn from the faith are so commonly ostracized by their families and friends? Non-political Muslims exist, but if you look carefully you will see many, many of them are highly political and they consider themselves Muslim before anything else, and become considered Muslims by birth, not choice. I know lots of Muslims. I grew up around them and I know how it works. Sunni/Shia Islam is the near-perfect definition of a Patriarchal system, and it rarely comes without demanding its ummah adopt the belief that men do x and women do y. Why is it that "Muslim feminists" only seem to get a platform in non-majority Muslim nations to even speak about their situation? Because that system where found in its purest forms will not accept women leaders and women imams. The fact you find liberated Muslim women over here is no reflection whatsoever on the reality for women in a majority-Muslim nation. That you seem to think Islam doesn't subscribe to and perpetuate Patriarchal systems in and of itself is frankly surprising. Read the Koran. Visit a Muslim forum and hang around on it for a while.
QuoteThe fourth paragraph kinda showcases a misunderstanding of how these systems work. White supremacy is not a cultural force in the nations listed, because white people are not in power in them. These power structures tend to solidify at the national level, because nations are the highest level governments. America has to deal with white supremacy because in its history white people have historically made up the ruling class, and the structures that benefit us have calcified as a result. White supremacy didn't form in Japan, because there is no historical white ruling class for it to benefit, and thus no mechanisms to preserve it in the high levels of power. The patriarchy is a separate structure, and promulgated in more nations, because men are everywhere, and have acted as the ruling class in most nation's through history. By the way, this is likely due to biology. Men, with their generally superior strength, gained prominence due to physical dominance in the earliest eras of human history.
Looks like you missed my point - that was the point. Whiteness has nothing to do with Patriarchal systems, which is why I asked you what "white supremacy" had to do with anything in the first place, because I sure am sick of hearing "white men" being chucked as ringleaders into discussions about biological "evilness of men" as feminists tend to see it. If you are talking about America specifically, perhaps. But "The Patriarchy" as you call it - if invented by men for men - should be ubiquitous and therefore little to do with white supremacy. You should find it in every nation of every color. And yes, I was the one who stated it was biology. So next comes the billion-dollar question - how do
you propose to "dismantle" Patriarchal systems rooted in biology? You are suggesting we dismantle human biological traits, brain wiring and instinct, are you not? And how will this be accomplished?
QuoteParagraph six requires some work. Specifically, I need to explain what I mean when I say white supremacy. It's not a hate group, it's a series of interlocking social systems that benefit people who are racialized as white. It's made up of things like the school to prison pipeline, the lack of representation of people of color in media, the drug war, racist policing practices, and so on. These are evident. They are entrenched in the system of the US, and they advantage white people, and predominantly harm black people. These are white supremacy, and that's why I say black supremacy isn't a thing. There is no comparable series of social structures that benefit black people at the expense of other people. And there is no power to institutionalize such such systems. I know there are black people that hold prejudice against white people, but that isn't the same as a system of supremacy.
Ah yes. But you are forgetting that it's recently becoming very fashionable to hate white people and demand reparations from them, isn't it. White guilt has become "a thing", as had the natural backlash from it. While a situation similar to South Africa or Zimbabwe is not likely given that blacks will remain minorities in America for some time or perhaps permanently, it's certainly going to lead to something. One thing is for sure, recent US identity politics has focused so much on color and entitlement instead of treating race as the thing we should
not be obsessing over, it has absolutely failed to bring people together. Martin Luther King is likely revolving in his grave at this point.
QuoteFinally, Islam is just a religion. Without the patriarchy, it's no more harmful to women than anything else. Dismantling the patriarchy will do more to protect women in your country, and everywhere, than falling to Islamophobia.
Islam will not dismantle its Patriarchy any time soon. It is built on it. If Islamic countries and Islamic people wish to do away with Patriarchy, they are going to have to do away with following the rule book itself, which if you know anything about Islam is a little more tricky that being a lapsed Catholic or something like. And as I said it's not "just" a religion like the others. There is more going on than people being free to play around with Islam when they are born into Islamic families, Islamic communities or Islamic countries. They cannot easily just walk out of them if they see fit to. Again, where you find 'liberated' Islamic women wearing and doing whatever they want is typically not in the hardcore heartlands of Islam because it's not permitted. If there's to be a place for them to practice Islam how they see fit over here then this also needs to be a place where Islam is not permitted to take over. Ask any Muslim that's fled a country of Muslim law and custom and come here to escape it, and whether they think we should embrace more Islam.
To namedrop Christianity at this point as a calcified system of oppression and then claim Islam is somehow the lesser or more impotent of these two "evils" when compared is ridiculous. For one thing Christianity has largely lost its teeth in the West, socially, politically and culturally, when directly compared to Islam which still appears to be going through some evolution into myriad dangerous and oppressive factions in dozens of countries, with violence on the rise within them. Obviously it's not the majority religion in the US, but even among Muslim communities in the US Muslims are less free to leave and pursue other lifestyles (including LGBT ones) without danger, and you ought to know it. People on these boards have attested to persecution and fear under Islam as well. Honor killings and arranged marriages are hugely prevalent in Muslim communities compared to Christian ones, including in Western countries. Christianity has its problems but it's nowhere near as problematic as Islam. You seem to simply be shrugging off the problem because Muslims happen to be an American minority. I hardly need to say more but you will not be welcome in Saudi Arabia for what you are, and you might even be jailed for setting foot there. In Iran if you were gay you'd be required to transition or face severe penalties and possibly death for pursuing a gay relationship. You certainly wouldn't be culturally accepted as an open transsexual in most Muslim communities or cultures. Christians generally don't love us either, but they also don't tend to have cultural/legal permission to throw us from rooftops, imprison, beat or hang us, do they.
I'm interested to know just how humanity will overcome biological gender roles and the associated programming. Because I've talked with a lot of people on the subject, a lot of them thinkers and philosophers, and nobody as yet as a tangible solution for the problem, short of abusing the human body and mind itself or reducing us to living in a system of equal poverty of finance and opportunity. As most of us here are well aware, men and women are different and they do have different modes of life and thinking often enough. You can't "fix" the "wage gap" if the problem is that women prioritize their work-life balance or children in favor of less work hours in a first world free market system, unless you force companies to pay for women to not work, which they won't. Or force the state to do it, but I'm not sure that's a good idea either because people can and do abuse concessions. You can't "fix" the fact that women are less competitive in general than men and therefore tend to avoid the high-paid risk based jobs or those that require assertive haggling for pay, unless you start dosing them up with testosterone, or else ruin the competitive system we live under that rewards effort and merit. It's certainly true that most of the building of society has been and is still being done by men. How will you get more women raising skyscrapers, fighting wars, cleaning sewers, working oil pipelines if they just don't want to? And so on.
Personally I think that's doomed to failure.
Quote from: Kylo on March 03, 2018, 05:04:29 PM
Then indeed you should probably have stated "white supremacy" isn't the only kind of calcified supremacy out there that affects anything or anyone significantly negatively. You dismissed black supremacy as powerless or invented, and you ignored the example I gave of South Africa presently in which black supremacy is now on the verge of confiscating the legal assets of white people living there because the (black) power structures there have decreed it, through violence as well as legal means - violence which has already taken place in Zimbabwe under similar sentiment. There's plenty of other examples as well. How about Arab supremacy? Did you know in countries like Qatar and Saudi there's plenty of present day slavery going on and a fairly open belief in racial supremacy, held in place by power structures endemic to their system? You're going to find "white supremacy" has significantly blunter teeth over here than other kinds of supremacy elsewhere and is less of a humanitarian threat to the average American or Canadian of any color, than these other kinds of supremacy to people living under them.
So that said, to bring up "white supremacy" when some truly horrific things are going on in the world in the name of other racial biases and calcified systems needs an appendix.
Let me hear your concise and precise definition of exactly what "The Patriarchy" is first, and I will figure whether or not your accusation of it in the present is based on something plucked from a feminist manifesto or something that reflects the unideal reality of the male-female power dynamic.
Please do explain how are men the primary beneficiaries of "The Patriarchy", when it is women for whom the civilized state will invariably provision for over and above men when the two in need are compared, will excuse from warfare and backbreaking labor in most first world nations, has granted reproductive rights to in most first world nations, has granted the vote and the right of divorce to in most first world nations, will devote more medical resources and testing to, generally abhors and prosecutes violence and rape upon in most first world nations, and where women have begun to outnumber men in academia attendance and school performance, and so on and so on. If you mean nations less developed, then by all means you have a point. In which case you really ought to be critiquing those and not the ones afflicted by the old "white supremacy", because these happen to have the best conditions and opportunities in the world thus far for women at this time. Patriarchal systems of control certainly exist in places like Pakistan. You'd do well to criticize those more harshly because they actually deserve dismantling.
But yes, tell me what exactly we need to dismantle here in the West? An example, may be in order... how about "rape culture"? We don't have a rape culture. A rape culture - to be precise - is a culture in which nobody, including the law, will bat an eyelid if someone is raped, because it's considered normal or just. We do not have a rape culture because nobody here thinks rape is "normal" or just. We have a few morons on social media who insult women or laugh at them if they happen to be raped, and places like frats exposed where it's happened in frequency. But when it happens, rapists are more often than not punished by law if it can be proven that they raped. We don't have an institutionalized rape culture like Pakistan or Yemen where young boys get raped and young girls get married off to old men. Much of the Middle East has a culture in which is a woman walks down the street improperly dressed, being raped is expected, and furthermore if you are raped, you will probably be punished for having been raped. That is a rape culture. Over here, it is not considered legally or culturally acceptable to rape someone for what they wear, nor are you going to be punished by law specifically for having been raped.
What we have here is the odd comment by people: "oh look what she was wearing, she was asking for it." But most people will be horrified when a rape happens, and will want the rapist jailed. This is nothing like the real rape cultures that exist on this planet and anyone with sense can see it. In some of those other countries and cultures mentioned most people will not be on the side of the victim. But what do I see day in day out? People over here complaining "The Patriarchy" of the West is a full-blown rape culture and it's all men's fault. These people need a spell in certain parts of Africa or the ME for some perspective on what a culture that doesn't give a damn about women being raped really looks like.
The Patriarchal system of the West is so effectively oppressive toward women you very nearly had a female president of the USA. In a real misogynist Patriarchy, not only would the word misogynist not be a bad one (but probably a badge of honor), but they wouldn't let a woman have a sniff of a back seat of power. Like in most of the Middle East.
Patriarchal systems exist, but if someone's of the mind the ones of the West are a bigger problem and worthy of greater criticism and dismantling than these others I'm afraid they need their bloody head checked. They are being dismantled. You can see it year by year as more women enter politics, academia, managerial positions and traditionally male-dominated fields here. They are NOT being dismantled in the Congo, the Yemen, et al. Priorities.
You need to learn about Islam. Islam is not "just" a religion, it is often also an entire political and cultural system designed to propagate itself. Why do you think nations that become majority Islamic always end up under Islamic laws? Or why Muslims who turn from the faith are so commonly ostracized by their families and friends? Non-political Muslims exist, but if you look carefully you will see many, many of them are highly political and they consider themselves Muslim before anything else, and become considered Muslims by birth, not choice. I know lots of Muslims. I grew up around them and I know how it works. Sunni/Shia Islam is the near-perfect definition of a Patriarchal system, and it rarely comes without demanding its ummah adopt the belief that men do x and women do y. Why is it that "Muslim feminists" only seem to get a platform in non-majority Muslim nations to even speak about their situation? Because that system where found in its purest forms will not accept women leaders and women imams. The fact you find liberated Muslim women over here is no reflection whatsoever on the reality for women in a majority-Muslim nation. That you seem to think Islam doesn't subscribe to and perpetuate Patriarchal systems in and of itself is frankly surprising. Read the Koran. Visit a Muslim forum and hang around on it for a while.
Looks like you missed my point - that was the point. Whiteness has nothing to do with Patriarchal systems, which is why I asked you what "white supremacy" had to do with anything in the first place, because I sure am sick of hearing "white men" being chucked as ringleaders into discussions about biological "evilness of men" as feminists tend to see it. If you are talking about America specifically, perhaps. But "The Patriarchy" as you call it - if invented by men for men - should be ubiquitous and therefore little to do with white supremacy. You should find it in every nation of every color. And yes, I was the one who stated it was biology. So next comes the billion-dollar question - how do you propose to "dismantle" Patriarchal systems rooted in biology? You are suggesting we dismantle human biological traits, brain wiring and instinct, are you not? And how will this be accomplished?
Ah yes. But you are forgetting that it's recently becoming very fashionable to hate white people and demand reparations from them, isn't it. White guilt has become "a thing", as had the natural backlash from it. While a situation similar to South Africa or Zimbabwe is not likely given that blacks will remain minorities in America for some time or perhaps permanently, it's certainly going to lead to something. One thing is for sure, recent US identity politics has focused so much on color and entitlement instead of treating race as the thing we should not be obsessing over, it has absolutely failed to bring people together. Martin Luther King is likely revolving in his grave at this point.
Islam will not dismantle its Patriarchy any time soon. It is built on it. If Islamic countries and Islamic people wish to do away with Patriarchy, they are going to have to do away with following the rule book itself, which if you know anything about Islam is a little more tricky that being a lapsed Catholic or something like. And as I said it's not "just" a religion like the others. There is more going on than people being free to play around with Islam when they are born into Islamic families, Islamic communities or Islamic countries. They cannot easily just walk out of them if they see fit to. Again, where you find 'liberated' Islamic women wearing and doing whatever they want is typically not in the hardcore heartlands of Islam because it's not permitted. If there's to be a place for them to practice Islam how they see fit over here then this also needs to be a place where Islam is not permitted to take over. Ask any Muslim that's fled a country of Muslim law and custom and come here to escape it, and whether they think we should embrace more Islam.
To namedrop Christianity at this point as a calcified system of oppression and then claim Islam is somehow the lesser or more impotent of these two "evils" when compared is ridiculous. For one thing Christianity has largely lost its teeth in the West, socially, politically and culturally, when directly compared to Islam which still appears to be going through some evolution into myriad dangerous and oppressive factions in dozens of countries, with violence on the rise within them. Obviously it's not the majority religion in the US, but even among Muslim communities in the US Muslims are less free to leave and pursue other lifestyles (including LGBT ones) without danger, and you ought to know it. People on these boards have attested to persecution and fear under Islam as well. Honor killings and arranged marriages are hugely prevalent in Muslim communities compared to Christian ones, including in Western countries. Christianity has its problems but it's nowhere near as problematic as Islam. You seem to simply be shrugging off the problem because Muslims happen to be an American minority. I hardly need to say more but you will not be welcome in Saudi Arabia for what you are, and you might even be jailed for setting foot there. In Iran if you were gay you'd be required to transition or face severe penalties and possibly death for pursuing a gay relationship. You certainly wouldn't be culturally accepted as an open transsexual in most Muslim communities or cultures. Christians generally don't love us either, but they also don't tend to have cultural/legal permission to throw us from rooftops, imprison, beat or hang us, do they.
I'm interested to know just how humanity will overcome biological gender roles and the associated programming. Because I've talked with a lot of people on the subject, a lot of them thinkers and philosophers, and nobody as yet as a tangible solution for the problem, short of abusing the human body and mind itself or reducing us to living in a system of equal poverty of finance and opportunity. As most of us here are well aware, men and women are different and they do have different modes of life and thinking often enough. You can't "fix" the "wage gap" if the problem is that women prioritize their work-life balance or children in favor of less work hours in a first world free market system, unless you force companies to pay for women to not work, which they won't. Or force the state to do it, but I'm not sure that's a good idea either because people can and do abuse concessions. You can't "fix" the fact that women are less competitive in general than men and therefore tend to avoid the high-paid risk based jobs or those that require assertive haggling for pay, unless you start dosing them up with testosterone, or else ruin the competitive system we live under that rewards effort and merit. It's certainly true that most of the building of society has been and is still being done by men. How will you get more women raising skyscrapers, fighting wars, cleaning sewers, working oil pipelines if they just don't want to? And so on.
Personally I think that's doomed to failure.
First paragraph, no. Sorry, but no. You're setting an unreasonable standard to which I won't submit. I don't need to give you a read out of other problems in the world, or even acknowledge their existence, to discuss one problem. That's some appeal to greater problems nonsense, and I'm not down.
And the demand for my concise definition of the Patriarchy? Nah, it's somewhere in here, go read it if you want. Your aggro demanding thing is old at this point, and I think I'm done. Go make your weird demands elsewhere.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Not surprising in the slightest. The internet is full of ideologues who claim to know what needs tearing down and know who's guilty of the wrongs but the moment you request a real discussion they're suddenly not interested. Lol.
Dude, you didn't ask for a discussion. You made a bunch of presumptive demands for my time and energy, after spending the previous post strawmanning me. I owe you nothing, and being rude to me is the quickest way to end any interaction. Now, since I don't wanna worry the mods with vinegar, I'm literally done talking to you.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I for one would be interested to know the definition of "The Patriarchy"? I grew up in a family with a matriarch and she pretty much ruled the roost within my family and she had a fair bit of clout in the community as well.
Julie
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on March 03, 2018, 11:18:00 PM
Dude, you didn't ask for a discussion. You made a bunch of presumptive demands for my time and energy, after spending the previous post strawmanning me. I owe you nothing, and being rude to me is the quickest way to end any interaction. Now, since I don't wanna worry the mods with vinegar, I'm literally done talking to you.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
There's nothing I've done or said here worthy of the attention of the mods. If anyone's been rude thus far, it is yourself.
I don't care if you discuss with me or not. Just know that if you're going to make posts in a thread of this sort and drag subjects like white supremacy and Christianity into the mix as chief causes, don't expect to go unchallenged.
Quote from: JulieAllana on March 03, 2018, 11:27:28 PM
I for one would be interested to know the definition of "The Patriarchy"? I group up in a family with a matriarch and she pretty much ruled the roost within my family and she had a fair bit of clout in the community as well.
Julie
I put it somewhere in this thread, but the patriarchy is what we call the interlocking set of social structures that benefit men and detriment women (And other non-men).
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Except these interlocking set of social structures don't just benefit men. And they aren't just to women's detriment:
Quotewhen it is women for whom the civilized state will invariably provision for over and above men when the two in need are compared, will excuse from warfare and backbreaking labor in most first world nations, has granted reproductive rights to in most first world nations, has granted the vote and the right of divorce to in most first world nations, will devote more medical resources and testing to, generally abhors and prosecutes violence and rape upon in most first world nations, and where women have begun to outnumber men in academia attendance and school performance, and so on and so on.
Where I live (also a land of "white supremacy" and Christianity) we have a female prime minister, it is illegal to pay women less per hour in the same job as a man for the reason they are a woman. There are equal opportunity employment laws. Women are favored for child custody if they want it, and allowed to put a child to adoption if they don't. When called to a domestic violence situation, police are obligated to operate under the Duluth model which assumes the guilt of a man first for any violence done, even if, as it quite often can be, was perpetrated by a woman. Until recently a woman couldn't even be accused of committing a sexual crime here to the same degree because the definition for rape has to include the possession of a penis, even though women can and do rape and commit serious sexual crimes. Judges also look more leniently on women criminals and give them shorter and less harsher sentences on the whole for the same crimes - to the point of farce, in fact (see: Lavinia Woodward). There are plenty of shelters, homeless help programs and counseling services for women and almost none for men here. Women here have the legal right to bodily integrity - men don't, since they can be routinely subject to circumcision as children if their parents give the right excuse (and in America they don't even need an excuse). Women can opt out of parenthood through abortion or adoption here if they want - a man doesn't have that choice because it's her choice also whether or not to make him a parent. Women get far more allocation for healthcare and screening programs, particularly for cancers - men do not. And on and on and on and on and on. Yes, I could go on for another 1000 words but hopefully the thread gets the point. And let's not forget, if you're going to talk about women's problems in society today, that's a noble and admirable thing...
please do, the more the merrier, isn't it. But talk about men's problems and you're probably just a misogynist. Or a moaner.
Men don't have problems! This is a Patriarchy! I live in the absolute worst Patriarchy ever, because it is hilariously inept. If this is currently kept in place by men for men only to benefit men only, I am beside myself with laughter.
N.B. Yes, I don't care if you read or answer this or not, it's being added to the thread. These things need to be added to threads about "male privilege" for a wider perspective on the topic. There are privileges in western society that benefit both men AND women, and these days there are indeed more legal benefits specifically drawn up for "the benefit and protection of women" than there are for men.
The only male privilege I lost at work was the excuse for not being able to make beds perfectly, and not getting all the complaints that should go to management, lifting heavy things also. At home I still have to do the same stuff any way the only real male privilege is now if I lived the life I did before I would be called a slut and could go out looking bummy and not care other than that everything else stayed the same.
" Male Privilege" A fun subject. No I do not miss it. In fact, I am glad that it is gone. I do not like the whole ideology behind "male PRIVILEGE" Because women have just as much if not more privilege than men in my opinion.
For far too long, women have been degraded, mistreated, and just treated unfairly by men... as it is a male driven world.
I consider myself a feminist... and a misandrist to a point because of that whole ideology of "I am a man... I am the alpha, I am the dominant sex, I am stronger."
Thats not to say ALL men are bad! I love my father in law to pieces, and respect so many other men. But they are kind, they dont show the SLIGHTEST sense of "male privilege" and will be the FIRST to stand up in defense of womens rights (cis or trans) and march to demand equality.
No I do not miss my "male privilege" because in my opinion, I never had it... well never exercised it.
I've been thinking about this subject quite a bit for the past few days. As I mentioned, my experiences with women's activists have been rather traumatic, which probably colors my views to some degree. However, on the other hand, I believe they've also made me a bit more analytical than I otherwise might have been.
I'm adding some of these thoughts here just so I won't forget them.
I think Kylo brings up very good points. Really, assuming that some male thought patterns and behavior have biological roots, trying to eradicate them is probably as futile as trying to make someone who is transgender to be happy and comfortable living as assigned. My father's attempts to via punishment train a rooster to not raise its cry at dawn certainly accomplished nothing outside of waking up all the rest of the family.
In fact, judging from my experience with racial indoctrination in an American school that was meant to weed out racism but actually fostered it, what I see happening these days may likely even make things worse.
Yes, we can all of course be equal in the eyes of law. In fact we should. However, courts not only where Kylo lives, but here as well are much more lenient toward women. And even if the laws actually were completely impartial and imposed complete equality, that would still not make men and women entirely equal in any non-legal sense.
Since no law will make the average woman as strong as the average man, workplaces where brute strength is the prime requirement will probably always prefer to to hire the strongest candidates—most of whom will be men. Also, as long as more men than women keep working after they get children, employers will naturally feel they are likely to get more return on their investment by giving men rather than women specialized training.
There of course are opposite examples as well. One of my friends is a midwife. She is very good at her job, and loved and trusted by her clients. I feel that they'd be much less likely to select someone who is male regardless of his qualifications. While one could argue that sufficiently thorough indoctrination would result in a new generation of children growing up without any such preferences, the fact that the Soviet Union reverted to being Russia would suggest that all indoctrination also has its limits.
The only current way to ensure equal representation in all jobs would be to make laws that absolutely mandate it, with sufficiently stiff penalties to guarantee compliance. However, to me that would feel rather wrong in many ways. Among other things I've worked as an interpreter. Fluency and expertise can make or break a meeting, a deal and even a company so the clients I work with obviously select whom to use based on what they need. In my circles there are about four or five female interpreters to every male. Thus, if they were forced to select a male just to adhere to a legal quota, it would either be wasteful (since they would have to hire two and more than likely just use the female) or risky and foolish since they would have to use a male just because he is male.
I've also seen excessive sensitivity result in other undesired results. To cite an example, a male manager at a company I know was disciplined for telling a female worker she looked nice. After that the men there felt that any conversation with women was risky—and also knew that had it been she who complimented him nothing would have happened—so they started to shun the female workers when possible. Rather than increase equality, such lopsided protection is likely to just breed resentment and increase segregation elsewhere as well.
The only true male privilege I'm certain that absolutely exists is inclusion in male circles that involve talk and activities suppressed in the presence of women. As to whether I lost it, frankly I felt neither included nor even interested in that kind of thing from the beginning. In contrast, to me feeling included by female friends feels warm, precious and comfortable.
I personally find this thread thoroughly interesting, and hope that it will keep civil enough to not be locked like many others have been (⌒-⌒；)
Viva La Trans-Lution!!!!!!
Yeah, sometimes I notice it missing. Like when I talk, people don't listen respectfully quite as much. But really, most of the trappings of male privelaged were a burden for me. I had it, but I had to fight so hard to protect it. I've let it go and I am much more at peace for having done so.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Danielle834 on March 07, 2018, 04:48:13 AM
Yeah, sometimes I notice it missing. Like when I talk, people don't listen respectfully quite as much. But really, most of the trappings of male privelaged were a burden for me. I had it, but I had to fight so hard to protect it. I've let it go and I am much more at peace for having done so.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Yeah I think that's where I'm at. While I acknowledge men are privileged in certain ways, I can easily let them go. There must be some benefit to being a woman ;)