The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => General Misc. => Topic started by: Callan S. on May 02, 2013, 03:08:02 am
-
I ran across this idea of 'male privilege' recently.
The idea of calling it a 'privilege' handed out to other males (which is a fallacy anyway) that they aren't rape targets seemed utterly false to me. Indeed to call it a 'privilege' seems by common standards to legitimise the sex preditor. As much as regular law is seen as legitimate and regular law hands out privileges, to call who a sex preditor will or wont rape some distribution of 'privilege' seems to legitimise the sex preditor as some governing authority as much as regular law is legitimise.
Got my reply to it deleted in responce, of course. Hopefully the admin on that other board helped rather than hindered female liberty in enacting such intellectual dishonesty.
To me, the post I replied to (I can link if you want) seemed to have women base every activity they do in life, first and foremost, around evading sexual assault. Eg, not having a ladies night because that might be fun, but a ladies night as a kind of wagon circle. Out of fear.
Is that liberty?
Yeah, as a secondary concern women might want to set up defences. But as a secondary concern, that's not making your life revolve around such things.
But when someone treats fear of sexual assault as the normalised first and foremost way a woman should think about her life - is that liberty?
And to call it male privilege - it smacks of 'just world' bias to call it privilege, as if some system is being enacted?
Or what, when I think calling it 'privilege' is legitimising the sad twisted wrecks that the predator is, am I mistaken? Sounds kind of legitimising to me? But then neuropath has the serial killer as the new rock star, so maybe I'm behind in the times?
Anyway, it seems like it's a big word around town and I remember it from the ROH run ins a bit now - so whut up with male 'privilege'? Society, I question you through your fragments! ;D
-
While I certainly don't disagree with what the bulk of what a lot of these social justice warriors have to say, I've found that there is often a very dark undercurrent of distrust and anger churning beneath the surface of their discussion. Living in fear of some demographic of people is not only harmful to yourself, but the relationships you form with those around you. I understand that a lot of these feelings come from a place of hurt, but experience of horrible acts can just as easily close you up than open you up to towards others. I don't have any experience with abuse so I'm not gonna tell victims of abuse/bullying/ostracisation how to feel. But I can say from personal experience that feeding bitterness and resentment is no way to be happy in life. You will never find peace in fear.
-
Everything is shit.
Kudos for trying to liven up Misc. This place has potential if we become chatterboxes.
-
I think I just earned my first negative karma!
Bravo anonymous person! Speak in the binary that you think in!
Baztek, yeah, I think the anger kind of evangelicises any method they use to deal with the bad shit. Criticize the method and they read you as saying not to resist the bad shit at all.
Then again I could be like that efficiency expert in Jabberwocky, who tries to show a more efficient method and then everything collapses!
Srancy - just a few more electro shock therapy applications and we can revive misc! Though I can't say this is the most fun topic. Welcome to the new forum! :)
Mike/Madness: Actually, why do we have a karma system again? Is this part of including people?
-
I used to think that the concept of "male privilege" was a bit kooky, but, nowadays, not so much. In the future, certain practices that are now dismissed, for example, as "boys being boys" will, in retrospect, be looked at with disgust. Riling up the "extreme", outspoken feminists and then pointing out how "extreme" their viewpoints are is strawman. In any movement, there will be extremists. In this case, where we have an issue at an active locus of cultural evolution, it can be good to have more extreme voices, as it then requires a smaller shift in that direction to get to where we "should" be.
In short, our culture is moving in a direction where "male privilege" is now ready to be seen as a problem. Soon, the issue will be grasped on a larger scale.
-
I've mentioned my thoughts on the karma a couple times now, Callan. I'm personally not sure I agree with it but until enough of the members voice criticisms or I'm seriously disturbed by the treatment someone receives I'll probably leave it. Fyi, I think you just earned your first positive karma. I think the vote for Damnation was already there.
Also, I don't think the karma system is what is holding people back - I figure it an unnecessary byproduct of people waiting for the porting of the old forum content to be complete; unnecessary because I can always rearrange new topics covering the same topic matter as old and incorporate them.
By the way, for my two cents, White Male Privilege is more like a demographic than a pigment...
-
I ran across this idea of 'male privilege' recently.
The idea of calling it a 'privilege' handed out to other males (which is a fallacy anyway)
Yes, the false premise is that everyone must be identical in every measurable respect and that if this is not so then a malevolent social structure is at fault. This is typical of Leftists, though the current generation have taken it to insane depths.
that they aren't rape targets seemed utterly false to me. Indeed to call it a 'privilege' seems by common standards to legitimise the sex preditor.
No, privilege is a dirty word in our society because it implies differences in value between persons. Since mass democracy runs on envy such things cannot be allowed, it will offend the malcontents who have anointed themselves spokepersons for "tha Peepul".
Got my reply to it deleted in responce, of course. Hopefully the admin on that other board helped rather than hindered female liberty in enacting such intellectual dishonesty.
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Hugbox (http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Hugbox)
(I can link if you want)
yes pls
seemed to have women base every activity they do in life, first and foremost, around evading sexual assault. Eg, not having a ladies night because that might be fun, but a ladies night as a kind of wagon circle. Out of fear.
Is that liberty?
Of course not.
Yeah, as a secondary concern women might want to set up defences. But as a secondary concern, that's not making your life revolve around such things.
But when someone treats fear of sexual assault as the normalised first and foremost way a woman should think about her life - is that liberty?
No, but it is the inevitable result of expecting them to defend themselves when they are "liberated" from the patriarchal authority of a father, brother, or husband. Another way feminism victimizes women. At least the older generation understood that biology had to be compensated for in order to achieve equality, the current fools are convinced that biology is a hate crime and seek to suppress it, which only leaves women vulnerable before the inegalitarian reality of human nature, against which there are no longer any social and moral strictures other than threat of violent coercion by law. Shooting the messenger, turned up to 12.
And to call it male privilege - it smacks of 'just world' bias to call it privilege, as if some system is being enacted?
Again Callan, that is exactly what they think - everyone is the same until evil Alien Powers (http://amzn.com/1933859792) made us different. They are obviously wrong, and insane, but don't look for them to change anytime soon, since this is their masturbatory (http://amzn.com/0226861147) pseudo-religion. (http://amzn.com/1932236481)
Or what, when I think calling it 'privilege' is legitimising the sad twisted wrecks that the predator is, am I mistaken? Sounds kind of legitimising to me?
You seem to be unwise to the current purely derogatory use of "privilege" in contemporary America. In other times and places your interpretation would be valid.
Anyway, it seems like it's a big word around town
Move. Seriously.
and I remember it from the ROH run ins a bit now
I read little of that shit but I am not surprised.
- so whut up with male 'privilege'?
It's a propaganda term designed to stigmatize differential conditions among persons as prima facie evidence of moral trespass and social failure, regardless of any consideration for causality (never discussed, esp. when the actions of the allgeded victim might have meaningful bearing on the "injustice" in question) or for actual merit (everyone is assumed to be equally meritorious at all times, except of course for "bigots"). Thus the fact that I do not expect to be a rape target is "male privilege", the fact that I do not expect to be frisked by cops randomly is "white privilege", the fact that I expect to be able vote when Felipe the lawn care guy from the Yucatan cannot is also "white privilege", the fact that I can walk around in public without people misjudging my gender is "cis privilege", the fact that I can marry someone from the gender I find sexy is "straight privilege", etc. ad nauseum.
-
While we're no doubt in agreement of the graver faults of social justice people, let's not forget the other side of the spectrum: Men's Right Activists, who are exactly the type of hideously creepy, entitled, suburban whitebread persecution-card-waving twats that feminists rail against.
This might be construed as sexist, but I find something inherently more vile and predatory about hate speech coming out of the mouths of these neanderthals than feminists. Their condemnations of the feminist movement are so sexually charged as opposed to their counterparts that it really unsettles me in a very deep way. Instead of working on themselves as human beings and taking rejection in stride, they retreat into their little circlejerk cocoons on reddit and demonize women for not wanting to fuck them. They've also assimilated a lot of the other more vocal young male groups into themselves, so essentially reddit is becoming one gigantic atheist racist misogynist shitpile. I'm being hyperbolic of course but no one can deny these communities are growing more vocal by the day.
The extreme views of one side fuels the extreme views of another, so I think it behooves us all as a species to take a step back from all this bullshit and take a deep breath.
-
While we're no doubt in agreement of the graver faults of social justice people, let's not forget the other side of the spectrum: Men's Right Activists, who are exactly the type of hideously creepy, entitled, suburban whitebread persecution-card-waving twats that feminists rail against.
Cheerfully granted, they are an unappealing group of people whatever the justice of their complaints.
This might be construed as sexist, but I find something inherently more vile and predatory about hate speech coming out of the mouths of these neanderthals than feminists.
It is sexist but it isn't a problem for me, MRAs are dangerous in themselves, feminists are only dangerous (as opposed to amusing) because they have men to enforce their doctrines for them. This is true for any feminist issue including abortion (kept legal because some men find it convenient for themselves and because some like to play White Knight over the matter; if only women supported abortion it wold never have been legalized).
Their condemnations of the feminist movement are so sexually charged as opposed to their counterparts that it really unsettles me in a very deep way. Instead of working on themselves as human beings and taking rejection in stride, they retreat into their little circlejerk cocoons on reddit and demonize women for not wanting to fuck them.
Yes this is very true.
They've also assimilated a lot of the other more vocal young male groups into themselves,
That's because some of their criticisms have objective merit, despite the loathsomeness of the critics in question. This is what you would expect: some people are marginal, and some are central, and when a society begins to fail system-wide the marginals will be hurt first, and thus be the first to formulate an ideology of self-defense and anger. The test of MRA ideas will come when they are appealing to men who aren't losers but who are rather merely mediocre, the sort who can't win in the sexual marketplace without some social stabilizing factors in much the same way that middle class / working class people can't win in the economic marketplace (sorry for the pleonasm there) without some stabilizing laws and institutions. In my opinion the growing popularity of the MRA narrative you are seeing is a sign that this is happening. The next 10-20 years will tell for sure.
The extreme views of one side fuels the extreme views of another, so I think it behooves us all as a species to take a step back from all this bullshit and take a deep breath.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, and I mean that since I was expecting the first response to be a hysterical flame and was pleased to get something thoughtful and honest instead, but we absolutely do not need to backoff because the issues that are being fought over are fundamental and require decision, not conciliation. Take, again, abortion: if feminists are right, then allowing abortion to be illegal everywhere is tantamount to allowing sexual slavery for the purposes of procreation; but if the pro-lifers are right, then allowing abortion anywhere is tantamount to allowing state-sanctioned baby murder. There is no room for a third position here, one can only choose. The democratic state we are used to considering normal is not good at this kind of political activity, and so the pressure to make a definitive choice keeps building, on this and on other core issues. When the pressure explodes will it be less destructive than what might have come about under other circumstances? That to me is not clear at all.
Thank you again for the thoughtful and sincere reply.
-
I'm not going to pretend like I've done any formal academic study of gender relations, so I will leave it to the people who have to continue responding. I'm only offering my two cents on these movements based on what I have gleaned of them on message boards, which obviously skews the sample size towards the extreme ends of the spectrum, but still reflects the really toxic hate and anger that seems to be fuel these issues.
I wish that every bitter feminist could realize that not all men are bad, and that every disgusting MRA redditor could take efforts to improve himself and not shame an entire gender for every instance of perceived (or actual) rejection, but that's just silly wishful thinking. The best I can do as an uneducated bystander and spiritual layperson, is to be mindful of how I am influenced by the biases of either side, and to wish peace for those who continue to suffer.
Your post really made me think, so I will continue to follow this thread. Cheers.
-
I used to think that the concept of "male privilege" was a bit kooky, but, nowadays, not so much. In the future, certain practices that are now dismissed, for example, as "boys being boys" will, in retrospect, be looked at with disgust. Riling up the "extreme", outspoken feminists and then pointing out how "extreme" their viewpoints are is strawman. In any movement, there will be extremists. In this case, where we have an issue at an active locus of cultural evolution, it can be good to have more extreme voices, as it then requires a smaller shift in that direction to get to where we "should" be.
In short, our culture is moving in a direction where "male privilege" is now ready to be seen as a problem. Soon, the issue will be grasped on a larger scale.
To me calling it 'Privilege' is like if the mafia demanded protection money from business A but not from business B and business A went on to say business B is 'priviledged'! No, they aren't - it's crime!! Not privilege!
Indeed I would even say calling it 'privilege' is the new 'boys will be boys'. It's still advocating for it, just to a lesser extent than 'boys will be boys' does.
Maybe it's a mid phase term. Eventually 'male privilege' will be looked upon with disgust as well. And I'm on the suck end of 'ahead of their time'.
Anyway, here's the list (http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/412839#Comment_412839) someone gave in the thread I'm talking about, which just seems to propergate the idea that women's first thoughts about anything aught to be fear. Rather than having fun and enjoying life (with perhaps the secondary or even tertiary concern of self defence against broken brained people).
-
It is sexist but it isn't a problem for me, MRAs are dangerous in themselves, feminists are only dangerous (as opposed to amusing) because they have men to enforce their doctrines for them.
How so? Are you refering to the police force being mostly male?
It almost seems like you're painting a necessary position for males? I'm sure an entirely female police force could enforce the doctrines just as much. Violence is that easy (that's why we have child soldiers in various parts of the world - it's easy)
This is true for any feminist issue including abortion (kept legal because some men find it convenient for themselves and because some like to play White Knight over the matter; if only women supported abortion it wold never have been legalized).
You seem to have painted men who support abortion as only coming in two stripes - selfish convenients and white knights?
And here I am shooting myself in the foot a second time by questioning both camps...
Baztek: I'm not sure all MRA members must be bad (just as much as I'm sure alot of ROH people are just concerned people). I see some court systems act as if were about a hundred years ago where if the woman was divorced she'd have to go become a washerwoman, even when the woman is currently employed in a job at much the same level as the man she was previously married to.
I know a story of a woman, aggrieved at her boyfriend, chasing him through the house with a pair of scissors in her hands. He locked his bedroom door then jumped out the window.
Now I laugh at that. And so did the woman who told me.
But that's not actually right, is it? I wasn't right to laugh, really. Because if a man was chasing a woman with scissors we'd all have deadly serious faces on.
There are issues. But we have movies where it's still just funny when a man is kicked in the balls, etc.
I totally pay it's not as big an issue as sexism toward women (in my estimate) is. But I think if men aren't treated as having rights, then they will be less inclined to treat anyone else as having rights (definately less inclined to treat someone else as having more rights than them). Males not seeing themselves as being worth protecting might be a big issue - if we only care about it because how they will latter act toward women, because of their self esteem problems.
-
Face it Callan, violent offenders are predominantly male. I worked security at a club and, guess what, 99% of the fights were started by dudebros. Anecdotal might not count for much but I think you're being willfully ignorant if you think hypermasculinity and the entitlement it comes with has not contributed to this violence-saturated culture. We're reading a fantasy series where even the author repeatedly muses about how his fictional rape monsters are only one evolutionary rung down from men, for goodness' sakes. My point is, while I don't think every white guy whose had it easy is some demonic taskmaster for the patriarchy, it is ridiculous to assume that there isn't an abyssal disparity in the way women are perceived compared to men (not saying you are, but there are who do).
Despite how infuriating I might find the attitude of some feminists, I still am a member of the gender that by an enormous margin has produced the most child molesters, serial killers, mass murderers, sick bastards etc. I'm not kidding when I say TSA had a lot to do with it, since Bakker's view of male sexuality is so fucking dark. I mean shit, look at bronies, who sexualize characters created for little girls. Little girls. The worst of these guys masturbate to completion over ponies stylized as young girls. Let that sink in. There's something so loathsome and foul about that that the only thing I can do is denounce extreme feminists for their venom, because while I may not agree with everything they say, I never want to have my statements misconstrued as a defense of MRAs.
I'm probably wrong about some of the figures I stated, but I do know that I'm not alone in my feelings. I've stared too long into the abyss to not agree with guys like Bakker and feminists who believe some men can be manipulative and spiteful little creatures, but their tone is entirely the wrong way to go about it because it paints an entire gender with one brushstroke.
I know a story of a woman, aggrieved at her boyfriend, chasing him through the house with a pair of scissors in her hands. He locked his bedroom door then jumped out the window.
Not to get personal, but I was in a very brief relationship with a woman prone to extremely violent outbursts. I only got a few slaps and loogies in my face for my trouble, but her next boyfriend she stabbed. The difference here is if I laid a hand on her I could have probably very seriously injured her, while that might not have been the case in reverse. Men can physically overpower women, so I'm not so inclined to start the waterworks for some poor 200 lb. guy who got chased around the house by a girl half his size. There are definitely outliers but we're not talking outliers here.
I totally pay it's not as big an issue as sexism toward women (in my estimate) is. But I think if men aren't treated as having rights, then they will be less inclined to treat anyone else as having rights (definately less inclined to treat someone else as having more rights than them). Males not seeing themselves as being worth protecting might be a big issue - if we only care about it because how they will latter act toward women, because of their self esteem problems.
I absolutely totally agree that if you subconsciously operate on the assumption every man you meet is out to get you, it will show, and that will turn people off from you, thereby feeding that hateful world view and fostering a very vicious cycle.
-
Baztek, you're telling me to face up to something, then you're telling me a lesson about painting an entire gender with one brushstroke. When I said MRA probably aren't all bad/don't all need the one brush stroke (though I'd pay that likely the moderate ones might quit being a member after being put off by the extremists, thus making MRA have more extremists, so if you want to argue that, I'll take that on the chin)
I suspect nature uses males as the research and development sex - badly put together (particularly mentally), on the off chance a badly put together combination is effective in the environment.
But I think self esteem issues underly alot of male problems. But maybe you're right and it's all hard wired and there's not a jot to be done about 90% of it. I really hope not, but maybe you're right on that. However, I'm putting my chips on self esteem issues for 90% (the other 10% seems to slide into sociopathy)
Not to get personal, but I was in a very brief relationship with a woman prone to extremely violent outbursts. I only got a few slaps and loogies in my face for my trouble, but her next boyfriend she stabbed. The difference here is if I laid a hand on her I could have probably very seriously injured her, while that might not have been the case in reverse. Men can physically overpower women, so I'm not so inclined to start the waterworks for some poor 200 lb. guy who got chased around the house by a girl half his size.
This is your story, your life. But to me, you were a victim of domestic violence - and you covered it up. Normalised it. Maybe because you feel your supposed to be tough - not sensitive, not able to be hurt, not soft. Ie, none of the attributes we often associate with women. Because it'd be bad to sensitive...or something.
You talk about guys at a club causing fights - with my hypothesis, what if they were allowed to nuture a sensitive side, a soft side to themselves during their formative years? If they could develop such a side to themselves, would we see the number of fights plummet?
Or is it the role of men to be tough? To be spat upon and slapped and take it like a man? To take it like we don't deserve better than that (unless we become powerful, of course. Who spits in a kings face, eh? Or a CEO's?)?
Has mother nature set out to make us empty inside? And to keep each other empty as well?
I'd tackle 'men can overcome women' (and say it's merely a question of who is more psychotic, rather than some sort of formal test of strength. A bread knife between the ribs is enough - if the woman gives you the chance to wrestle, it's because she did not really intend to kill you, not because men can overcome women. A child with a breadknife could kill an adult, for petes sake!), but I feel I've been pretty controversial already.
I absolutely totally agree that if you subconsciously operate on the assumption every man you meet is out to get you, it will show, and that will turn people off from you, thereby feeding that hateful world view and fostering a very vicious cycle.
I'm not really talking about a womans POV, but a mans point of view, in regards as to whether he's worth something. Past all the jokes and posturing, I think if a survey looked into it, a terrible amount of men don't feel they have much self worth. The worst cases tend towards violence as a way of taking self worth by force.
I say this in a slightly misandrist way though, because raising mens self esteem is more like just a means to an end rather than the end itself. The end being a more liberated society for women, by making a society that has fewer men driven psychotic by self worth issues.
-
Lol. Baztek, this is what formal academic seminars of gender studies in literature, politics, or history are like, or worse.
The minority of individuals are privileged and intelligent. Few people in the world actually use the internet (10%?). Fewer people use the internet to (mostly) generously debate their favorite topics with an intellectual and authentic disposition.
The fact that you even understand the word spectrum and use it in this context is representative of salient communication, unavailable to the majority, for a variety of reasons (diet, upbringing, genetics, etc).
White Male Privilege is just the dominant narrative of the times... a moment or a history, it's been different and it will be again. Unless we engage we're simply those who narrate.
Callan, not intending to further Baztek's descriptive point, per say, how do you respond to the simple statistic that most violent offenders are male?
-
Callan, not intending to further Baztek's descriptive point, per say, how do you respond to the simple statistic that most violent offenders are male?
Weve kind of cross posted. Does my reply to Baztek give some responces on that matter?
I know it seems counter intuitive to speak of working on male self esteem. Why put effort into bad apples and all that.
I'm not sure what you think the statistic means to me, Mike? I mean, I can't honestly work on the idea of locking up all men. So some sort of management program is needed - but I don't know what you're saying with that stat, in regard to management programs?
-
Callan, your response helped me refine my own ideas. Let me put my position in less stark, misandrist terms: I have a problem with exaggerated masculinity, and low self-esteem coupled with what masculinity demands from a male in distress (aggression, control, claiming what's yours) can turn a tractable problem into a disaster. Throw some booze in there and you know the rest. It can get ugly, brutish, and primitive. But as it stands, despite being denied the luxury of exploring their inner lives without the threat of being called a "faggot", men are still positioned above women in hypermasculine subcultures.
Look at rap. I dare you to find one young up and coming rapper who has a nice thing to say about his girl. Women are "bitches", status symbols, and just like the bigger the engine in your ride, the more physically endowed your fanclub is the more respect - or hate - you get from the guys around you. I'm not some pasty white nerd on the outside looking in: I've listened to so much rap it's amazing I'm not like that myself.
The point is, while in relation to other men, men are at a disadvantage because "womanly" feelings like compassion and empathy are discouraged, men are still in a position above women. And it's that disgusting, entitled attitude of one disenfranchised male taking it out on an entire gender because his dick isn't getting wet that repulses me to the pith. I will agree the problem isn't necessarily inherent, but with how ingrained these modes of behavior are in our culture, they might as well be.
-
I don't understand. I know you want it acknowledged that 'men are still in a position above women'. In terms of the workforce I'd probably agree. But in terms of sexaul objectification and sexaul assault, I would no more say men are above women than I would say a bully is above his victims.
men are still positioned above women in hypermasculine subcultures.
Do you want to say that if we can just get women respected in these hypermasculine subcultures, then these hypermasculine subcultures would be fine?
To me, it seems 'hypermasculine subculture' == 'bully subculture'. It wouldn't validate them if you got them to respect women (or they'd cease to be a bully subculture)
The point is, while in relation to other men, men are at a disadvantage because "womanly" feelings like compassion and empathy are discouraged, men are still in a position above women.
I'm trying to understand the crux of the conversation here - I'm almost reading a subtext here that men are always in a position above women? And men have to 'stay their hand' or something in regards to that?
Might not be what you're saying, but I'd disagree with it - men are more psychotic. I don't treat this as being 'above' anything. Chaos is chaotic, not some sort of order of above and below, some sort of structure. It's more like being a hacker who wrecks structure for their own selfish benefit. The hacker isn't above anyone in the structure as he wrecks that very structure.
I'm just guessing because I think were kinda talking past each other or something, just missing each other, and I'm trying to guess what the gap is?
-
In our culture, as it stands having evolved to the point it is now, we still see an ingrained superiority of men over women. Granted, it has evolved past, for example, women not being able to vote or hold positions of responsibility because of made-up reasons, but what remains is a subtle dominance/submission dynamic. Women are expected to respond a certain way in the face of the initiation of this dynamic. There is a lack of empathy towards the submissive, and because the expected roles are different "just because", they become unempathizeable. Women can't be respected until this area of culture evolves past the point of this dynamic.
Your comparison to bullying is apt, I think, Callan, at least in some respects. That is another area that is changing.
-
Meyna said it better than I could. I want to add though that hip hop culture respecting women would not somehow excuse the violence and self-destruction it glorifies. I was just trying to point out a part of popular culture today where men being dominant over women is still prevalent and very much visible.
Your bully comparison is apt, because misogyny does stem from some inner insecurity, whatever that may be. Just because the bully feels bad inside or that he introduces chaos into the system doesn't mean that, as far as those who suffer from his outbursts are concerned, he is not above them in the hierarchy they occupy.
-
In our culture, as it stands having evolved to the point it is now, we still see an ingrained superiority of men over women.
If it's ingrained in our culture, and you are in that culture, why aren't you cowtowing to the concept right now and saying men are just so the boss of women, Meyna?
You know you're outside of that, otherwise clearly you'd be enacting it at all times.
Two big, difficult to chew over IF's coming up:
I'd suspect you don't want to be so outside that you've abandoned the tribe utterly? That terms like 'privilege' are used as a diplomatic...concession....so as to stay within the group? So as to not discard - well, not to avoid discarding the mysogynist male, but to avoid discarding the group he is embedded in? Your group? A concession so as to not throw out the baby with the shitty bathwater.
Going all the way up to the line - but not being prepared to cross it. If I know mysogynistic males (by consulting my inner bastard), they know how to play that and will call the bluff, since it's a bluff and no ones going to abandon the tribe they are embeded in. So they'll just continue, maybe be indulgent for awhile to stop sharp voices, then continue on as usual. No change.
The ability to walk away is the crux of all bargaining power.
A couple of big IF's there. But regardless I see a conflict in a statement of something being ingrained in the culture the speaker of it says they are part of - there's a conflict in the statement, at the very least.
Women are expected to respond a certain way in the face of the initiation of this dynamic. There is a lack of empathy towards the submissive, and because the expected roles are different "just because", they become unempathizeable. Women can't be respected until this area of culture evolves past the point of this dynamic.
Why not just NOT respond a certain way?
Is it out of a desire to submit? But wanting to submit AND be respected?
That's hard ground - frankly it seems something mostly only achievable in a romantic relationship context.
The ground men find themselves on most of the time is kinda similar, but viciously different - the only thing there is to submit to is something they know wants to kill them. Ie, the natural world.
Potentially there's a threshold to cross - feminism involves facing the world where submission == death. While with men (or women, even) submission has the chance of being respected, in this world submission always equals death.
Again I'm running on the smell of an oily rag with my IF's. But - have you ever seen those documentaries where penguins cluster on a glacier in a blizzard, forming a big circle to try and hedge out the cold? How the ones in the middle are crushed but warmer, while the ones on the edge have more freedom, but face the biting cold?
Is the desire to submit and be respected kinda like wanting to be in the middle without the crush? Yet that always involves someone being on the outside, freezing their ass off (even as they are more free?)
Or if that all seems something completely different: Well, why not just NOT respond a certain way? I'm left guessing as to the reason and as you can see, my imagination starts wirring away when denied an answer?
-
Just because the bully feels bad inside or that he introduces chaos into the system doesn't mean that, as far as those who suffer from his outbursts are concerned, he is not above them in the hierarchy they occupy.
Just because someone is a victim, does not mean that their first thought and every thought that comes into their head about their victimisation is accurate.
I can't say I'm going to humour any idea that there is some ordered, intended system where they are now below the bully in rank. It sounds like self inflicted just word bias.
What the hell can you do if you accomidate that lower rank idea? - if you're really lower rank, then suck it up and try and get a higher rank via the system (the system that wont allow you to because you've made the bully the system).
I can't even reconcile the idea of both complaining about ones supposed rank, yet also a supposed acceptance of being in that rank. Which is it, complaining or acceptance?
To me it seems like trying to work at an instinctual level - the urge to make complaint and...how does that work? How it works (or doesn't) seems hidden, rather than explicit like the rules of chess are explicit and visible. In chess like terms, can you explain how the victim thinking he is lower on the heirachy somehow helps him?
-
Yes, abandoning the tribe is a big step for nearly anyone -- I would venture to say that for most, it would go against their very nature. In the end, we all have things we don't like about our tribes/cultures; but, we put up with it in most cases. What else is there to do? We raise our voices, and, if we're lucky, the change isn't too drastic as to shock the system. All tribes will resist large change, after all. Culture is like a river. To divert it, one must do it incrementally, rather than trying to make it do a u-turn in one fell swoop.
Individual attitudes about this issue run the gamut. Some don't see it as an issue one way or the other. Some recognize it, but think it's a good thing. Some don't know what to do to change it, and still others push against it violently. The "privilege" meme is being applied by this latter group in a pretty abrasive way, true. Males have it, it's bad that they have it, and they must accept this badness, but even if they do their opinion about women's rights carries no weight.
The "male advantage," whatever that may be, is still being realized. The "privilege" part, to me, resides in the fact that so many people, male and female alike, participate in it without even realizing it.
Like most of the issues that I see, I don't know exactly what my stance on it is, nor would I know how to react in order to efficiently catalyze a cultural change in perspective (if, in fact, I decide that changing so many minds is the "right" thing to do).
-
As I said, I think the mysogynistic male knows that you're not prepared to walk away, and they'll call that bluff. When haggling, why lower the price when you know the other person wont walk (as I said before - in a romantic context, yeah, then maybe you'd lower the price - but you obviously can't love all men into peaceful submission)? It's possibly the key stone to patriarchal society existing for so long.
I also wonder if crackedmoon and the requires only hate crew are essentially supporting the patriarchal by calling it privilege - not only do the mysoginistic males use ROH and such as a rally cry, it's also ultimately an advocation for their hating. A concession, like 'boys will be boys' is a concession.
I think it's interesting how the suffragettes would stand in the gutter to hand out their pamphlets (after laws were written to stop them handing out information on the footpath! FFS!) - they were willing to step outside of the tribe, in order to further their cause (tie it into my penguin analogy, they were willing to walk a bit further into the blizzard for their cause. They were willing to walk away)
I dunno - I think about it like a big chess game...and I think 'male privilege' is simply a bluff move that will be circumvented readily by the opposing player and even weaponised by them. It's my tactical estimate, for what it's worth, anyway.
Males have it, it's bad that they have it, and they must accept this badness, but even if they do their opinion about women's rights carries no weight.
Like 'Mansplaining'? Such a hypocritical term - because some men demand to be heard but wont listen, this abhorent term advocates for women demanding to be heard, but women not listening at all to men (not even a little bit). Two wrongs making a right, all wraped up into one stupid made up word. Of course it started with some men being belligerant and not listening, I totally grant. I guess I should blame the most those who started the fire, rather than those who fan it. I guess that the term will potentially lock me out from putting out fires shits me as well.
The "male advantage," whatever that may be, is still being realized. The "privilege" part, to me, resides in the fact that so many people, male and female alike, participate in it without even realizing it.
For me, as I read it, it doesn't tie down to nitty gritty practicalities. If you were to ask women what they want, described in physical terms, I see a gap between the notion that extinguishment of this 'privilege' is good and how what women want (in physical terms) is achieved. It's like one of those "1. Do X, 2. ????, 3. Profit!" jokes. There's some gap between the notion that it's just this privilege thing that needs to be sorted out (and then women who are carrying barrels of water for X kilometers each day will be fine, will they?)
Are there documents by feminists that tie down this dislike of privilege down to nitty gritty day to day practicality? Such that it refers to the water carriers, for example?
If the water carries would happen to want not to carry each day and it helps with getting to that goal, cool. Otherwise for myself I don't really care what people do without realising it.
-
As I said, I think the mysogynistic male knows that you're not prepared to walk away, and they'll call that bluff. When haggling, why lower the price when you know the other person wont walk (as I said before - in a romantic context, yeah, then maybe you'd lower the price - but you obviously can't love all men into peaceful submission)? It's possibly the key stone to patriarchal society existing for so long.
Probably. Once reduced, this narrative seems no different from any other play for rights throughout history.
I also wonder if crackedmoon and the requires only hate crew are essentially supporting the patriarchal by calling it privilege - not only do the mysoginistic males use ROH and such as a rally cry, it's also ultimately an advocation for their hating. A concession, like 'boys will be boys' is a concession.
Indeed, the most efficient way to change opinions on a mass scale includes a coolness and subtlety not found with some proponents of progressive thought, and, indeed, the "wildness" does provide fodder for the opposition to construct their strawmen. The "inefficient" passion has other effects, though. Everyone needs an outlet to vent, sometimes, even if it hinders somewhat their main goal of change opinions. We are rarely capable of taking the shortest path to any singular purpose, a concept we here think about.
I think it's interesting how the suffragettes would stand in the gutter to hand out their pamphlets (after laws were written to stop them handing out information on the footpath! FFS!) - they were willing to step outside of the tribe, in order to further their cause (tie it into my penguin analogy, they were willing to walk a bit further into the blizzard for their cause. They were willing to walk away)
I dunno - I think about it like a big chess game...and I think 'male privilege' is simply a bluff move that will be circumvented readily by the opposing player and even weaponised by them. It's my tactical estimate, for what it's worth, anyway.
It's more like the bishops are unhappy that the rooks are treated as more valuable simply because the subjective rules have given the rooks a move-set that, all other variables constrained, is objectively more advantageous to "chess-tern" society. The revelation is this: having a rook is more advantageous to a player in real-world chess than having a bishop -- but most people who know the rules of chess don't know that. Only those who are interested in the game and have looked into chess theory and want to approach the game with a serious and humble demeanor will learn that fact. And, only those who show an even greater interest will go beyond just knowing that fact; they will actually comprehend it and see it for themselves.
Ask someone who knows the rules of chess but doesn't really care which is better to have, a rook or a bishop, and they might say, "Well, the rook can move any number of spaces up / down or left / right, and the bishop can move any number of spaces on a diagonal, so they're basically equal. Whatever." Insist that the rook has an objective advantage, and they might challenge you, especially if they've already taken a stance on it.
"But what matters is the player using the pieces," you might say. "A bit of effort will allow a successful bishop." The point, though, is that the rook advantage exists. The fact that a bishop can still be successful is only a testament to how subtle the advantage is. That shouldn't be good enough, though.
Males have it, it's bad that they have it, and they must accept this badness, but even if they do their opinion about women's rights carries no weight.
Like 'Mansplaining'? Such a hypocritical term - because some men demand to be heard but wont listen, this abhorent term advocates for women demanding to be heard, but women not listening at all to men (not even a little bit). Two wrongs making a right, all wraped up into one stupid made up word. Of course it started with some men being belligerant and not listening, I totally grant. I guess I should blame the most those who started the fire, rather than those who fan it. I guess that the term will potentially lock me out from putting out fires shits me as well.
"Mansplaining" follows the same basic script of rationalization that humans as a whole love to partake in, again, especially if they've already taken a stance.
But it seems to me that once you begin a gesture it's fatal not to go through with it.
It's a buzzword, sure, meant to appeal to the logical fallacy of "it's witty so it must be true." It serves its use as part of venting, as I mentioned above.
The "male advantage," whatever that may be, is still being realized. The "privilege" part, to me, resides in the fact that so many people, male and female alike, participate in it without even realizing it.
For me, as I read it, it doesn't tie down to nitty gritty practicalities. If you were to ask women what they want, described in physical terms, I see a gap between the notion that extinguishment of this 'privilege' is good and how what women want (in physical terms) is achieved. It's like one of those "1. Do X, 2. ????, 3. Profit!" jokes. There's some gap between the notion that it's just this privilege thing that needs to be sorted out (and then women who are carrying barrels of water for X kilometers each day will be fine, will they?)
Are there documents by feminists that tie down this dislike of privilege down to nitty gritty day to day practicality? Such that it refers to the water carriers, for example?
If the water carries would happen to want not to carry each day and it helps with getting to that goal, cool. Otherwise for myself I don't really care what people do without realising it.
Ah, well, pinning down details of cultural concepts is exceedingly difficult, especially when it's your own. This whole issue is still in its infancy, relatively speaking, so it'll all resolve eventually. I know this sounds like a cop-out, but it is indeed a complex thing you've brought up just now and I don't have an answer at the moment; I've just been playing chess and have seen some things 8)
-
It's more like the bishops are unhappy that the rooks are treated as more valuable simply because the subjective rules have given the rooks a move-set that, all other variables constrained, is objectively more advantageous to "chess-tern" society. The revelation is this: having a rook is more advantageous to a player in real-world chess than having a bishop -- but most people who know the rules of chess don't know that. Only those who are interested in the game and have looked into chess theory and want to approach the game with a serious and humble demeanor will learn that fact. And, only those who show an even greater interest will go beyond just knowing that fact; they will actually comprehend it and see it for themselves.
Yeah, but what good does comprehending it do if the rules of the game then go on being the exact same as before?
Surely were talking about the game of writing new games? How we negotiate writing a new rule set?
Comprehend it? Well I'd kind of agree it's comprehending it from within the framework of chess - the rook is 'objectively better'.
But that's like saying males are objectively better - the comprehension of such a claim is from within a certain framework. Saying there's male privilege again can only engage a comprehension from within a framework that treats men as having a better position as much as the rook does.
I mean in chess, there's nothing wrong with the rook being a better piece. So brining up that it's a better piece isn't exactly a call for making it balanced with the bishop. Saying rooks are better than bishops merely reinforces the idea of chess as it is. Saying men have privileges, as I estimate it, merely reinforces the patriarchal society as it is. Unless we start to redefine the word privilege and equate it with a heavy negativity like we do the words 'bullying' or 'crime'. Perhaps part of the notion of this from a demographic sometime refered to as working class, who generally resent any idea of 'privilege' as something toffs have, and so in this context it is used as a negative word?
Anyway, it's my concern that use of the term 'male privilege' (which really refers to male bullying and near criminal acts (as well as legally criminal acts)) simply supports the patriarchal system. So I'll keep being concerned. It would actually be nice to be wrong on the matter, because then I could stop being concerned about it.
Maybe it's all just semantic nuance on my part, no more important than whether you put an apostrophe before the s in 'grocers'.
Also I get venting. Frighteningly though, I think some people don't actually understand that they are venting and instead think that everything that comes out of their mouth is gospel (like acrackedmoon... (or Vox for that matter, but that's another subject kinda)).
-
I perhaps took the chess analogy a bit far, but I was on a roll ;D
I guess the main point is that the rooks are only objectively better because of the subjective rules that were developed, with balance being the intent. Society's "rules" came into play over time -- some by design, and some unwittingly -- to achieve a sort of balance, too. In some cases during this process, fairness wasn't seen as paramount. Now we have an instance where there is a demand to re-tune society with fairness in mind without upsetting the balance.
I agree that "privilege" invokes a rather inflammatory connotation. Though, I'd wager that the objection to the word in this context comes not from the word itself, but from the mirror that is held up to the "patriarchal society" when it is used. The terms with which this issue is described would be attacked to some degree no matter what. The message is attacked rather than the aspects of society that are being examined. Again, perhaps it is a poor choice of words, and the goal will be achieved more efficiently through other semantic channels, but, meh.
You are right regarding the venting being treated as gospel. Any action that does not follow what is consciously or subconsciously known not to be the most efficient path towards a defined goal is a form of venting. It's emotional satiation. We are all prone to such things. Admitting that we are engaging in a way that only satisfies our "illogical" emotional needs itself runs contrary to our "illogical" emotional needs, so our subconscious will be loathe to admit it 8)
Anyway, this TEDx Talk has been making the rounds on Facebook over the past day or so, so I will post it here. The most important thing the speaker tries to do is extend what are seen as "women's issues" into the realm of "societal issues". He focuses mainly on active abuse, though passive abuse surely is an issue as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTvSfeCRxe8
-
Perhaps I should have pitched the notion like he does. His diplomacy skill is higher than mine. He probably gets a CHR bonus.
-
Yes, each word a weapon and all of that.
-
each word a weapon and all of that.
Hope not. There are weapons and there are scalpels.
-
Confessions of a Former Misogynist (http://noodlemaz.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/confessions-of-a-former-misogynist/)
"When I realised how my behaviour must have made my girlfriends feel, I felt sick. There wasn’t a feminist conspiracy to deprive nice men from getting sex and girlfriends. The girls I’d been out with hadn’t dumped me because I was ‘too nice’ or because I was depressed, but because I was an emotionally abusive arsehole. That’s not an easy thing to admit, but it’s a lot easier to fix once you’ve done it."
-
Saajan, I'm left guessing why you posted, because you've done a link, quote and run?
At best the guy has Maya's observation of unconcious acceptance of his sort of behaviour. I'm not sure I call unconcious acceptance a 'privilege' being handed out. It could be a new definition of privilege, but I don't think it's the old definition.
Though skimming the link, I'll go off topic briefly on the 'it's my body' part - it reminds me of an old example I've given before of how male sea horses carry the baby. If humans were the same, it'd be the mans body - so it'd just be the man's choice in that case?
-
Seemed relevant to the topic. I think most people suffer from confirmation bias, and it's a good idea to explore why men are so resistant to feminism.
I'll also say I find the EkyannusIII references to accepting biology to be dubious, as there's no reference to any peer reviewed journals to clarify/support his points.
I am glad to see Meyna here, as I believe that makes at least one actual female who is interested in discussing such issues around these parts. I know Three Pound Brain largely reads as biased figures all agreeing with each other, so it would be good to have some female perspectives here.
eta: If you're interested I'd link this thread to Westeros as I'm curious to see the reactions.
-
I apologize for bailing on a thread I contributed two lengthy messages too, I have been otherwise occupied lately. For now, let me post this to sciborg2:
I'll also say I find the EkyannusIII references to accepting biology to be dubious, as there's no reference to any peer reviewed journals to clarify/support his points.
I find only two references to biology in my posts:
1.) It is sexist but it isn't a problem for me, MRAs are dangerous in themselves, feminists are only dangerous (as opposed to amusing) because they have men to enforce their doctrines for them. This is true for any feminist issue including abortion (kept legal because some men find it convenient for themselves and because some like to play White Knight over the matter; if only women supported abortion it wold never have been legalized).
and
2.)
Yeah, as a secondary concern women might want to set up defences. But as a secondary concern, that's not making your life revolve around such things.
But when someone treats fear of sexual assault as the normalised first and foremost way a woman should think about her life - is that liberty?
No, but it is the inevitable result of expecting them to defend themselves when they are "liberated" from the patriarchal authority of a father, brother, or husband. Another way feminism victimizes women. At least the older generation understood that biology had to be compensated for in order to achieve equality, the current fools are convinced that biology is a hate crime and seek to suppress it, which only leaves women vulnerable before the inegalitarian reality of human nature, against which there are no longer any social and moral strictures other than threat of violent coercion by law. Shooting the messenger, turned up to 12.
Unless I have forgotten something else in my posts (entirely possible, it has been a few days and my mind has been elsewhere) you appear to be asking me for peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that men are bigger and stronger than women. Am I misreading you?
-
"demonstrating that men are bigger and stronger than women."
You mean on average right? And what does this have to do with feminism?
-
Seemed relevant to the topic. I think most people suffer from confirmation bias, and it's a good idea to explore why men are so resistant to feminism.
Depends if one side forgets it's also vulnerable to confirmation bias as it focuses entirely on the other side?
I'll also say I find the EkyannusIII references to accepting biology to be dubious, as there's no reference to any peer reviewed journals to clarify/support his points.
I think he's trying to say men are more physically powerful, so women can't fight them off and feminism is hiding that gender strength disparity/that women can't fight them off and so leaving them vulnerable. I don't really agree a bit of upper body strength is a defining issue myself (as I partly noted with my comments about a bread knife between male ribs). Nor do I agree that some "men defending women or women can only move around in groups of two or three" culture is a solution. Though, rather than upper body strength, it might do well to look into male psychosis. You can't treat upper body strength (if it somehow mattered), but you can (self) treat psychosis.
I am glad to see Meyna here, as I believe that makes at least one actual female who is interested in discussing such issues around these parts. I know Three Pound Brain largely reads as biased figures all agreeing with each other, so it would be good to have some female perspectives here.
I'm stuck in two camps, wanting a less skewed demographic, but at the same time people are just people here.
eta: If you're interested I'd link this thread to Westeros as I'm curious to see the reactions.
Depends on whether you can describe the argument I'm putting forward (you don't have to agree with it, just be able to describe the idea of it correctly). Otherwise I'd be giving permission to link a missinterpretation of my argument, which would be all sorts of train wreck.
-
"Depends on whether you can describe the argument I'm putting forward (you don't have to agree with it, just be able to describe the idea of it correctly). Otherwise I'd be giving permission to link a missinterpretation of my argument, which would be all sorts of train wreck."
Wait, don't you have a Westeros account? You can just ask your question in the feminism thread. (http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/84550-repurposed-feminism-why-we-still-need-it/)
-
I've spoken about a claim I've overheard that "Men not having to think about sexual objectification or sexual assault when they go out* == men have been given a privilege"
They don't seem to be claiming that in that thread you linked, Saajan?
If they don't seem to be claiming that - I'm inclined to read charitably that they aren't. Am I supposed to try and draw out that claim from them?
Though I'll grant I titled this thread 'male privilege', which is probably too broad a title. Male privilege as in men being promoted in the work force ahead of women, yes, thats one type of male privilege that seems to exist and in disgusting amounts. Though perhaps it still shouldn't be called privilege. I like the word privilege - I don't think it's negative to have privileges, per se (if were playing dodge ball I have the privilege of trying to hit you with the ball, for example)
* Which isn't all that true anyway.
-
My point is if you want a discussion of this, you're better off finding a place that has a larger percentage of women posting.
It's up to you.
-
I think were talking past each other. Not much point talking to a high female demographic forum about 'men not having to think about being sexually assaulted==male privilege' to debunk it, if none of them claim it to begin with.
-
And now it's locked! Did get to be a pretty long thread though.
-
It's only locked because it hit twenty-something pages.
If you want an answer to your query, you can make a new feminism thread and repost your OP from here over there.
Topic seems dead here anyway.
-
They just don't love the seahorses, is all, is all.
-
Huh?
Do you want a discussion about your question or not? [I saw you posted, but not your question about male privilege? If you want I'll do it for you.]
-
How about you leave me to do my own thing, Saajan? I took your post before to be a suggestion - but now you're acting like you have to be given an answer?
-
Seems odd to make some comment about seahorses and then bow out.
I thought you might be interested in engaging some larger amount of females who might disagree with you, rather than Bakker fans who are more likely to support your initial conclusions.
eta: Apologies if my tone seems harsher than necessary. I find I come across as more of a dick than intend to.
-
eta: Apologies if my tone seems harsher than necessary. I find I come across as more of a dick than intend to.
I constantly worry about this on the internet, so I end up overusing the exclamation mark to avert it!
-
eta: Apologies if my tone seems harsher than necessary. I find I come across as more of a dick than intend to.
I constantly worry about this on the internet, so I end up overusing the exclamation mark to avert it!
Well, I am the resident Contrarian Wanker, so some of my dickishness is intentional. :-)
In the case of this topic I think low probability of sexual assault is pretty much a privilege of being male. I find it to be self-evident, so I cannot really fathom what the counterpoint is.
-
Looking at the word privilege for now, if you're a teenager and your parents bestow upon you the privilege of taking their car out for the night...are rapists bestowing privilege upon men in general by not targeting them as well(/as much), just like mum and dad bestowed a privilege?
It stinks of just world fallacy to me. When someone doesn't have something bad happen to them, another mind inventing the idea of a marvelous system of justice in place that made it so (just as much as 'oh, she got raped because she did X' is just world fallacy inventive thinking). It stinks of people in safe places projecting their patch of safety, like the patch of safety mum and dad give, across a whole world. Anything in it, any bad act withheld (like mum and dad withholding grounding you), must be an extension of a system of justice - a privilege.
Makes me think of an experiment - have a scientist stand over a series of test subjects, who have an apparatus attached to their hands that can apply an electric shock.
Afterward ask them if they felt some people were more privileged by the white coated scientist standing in front of them than others.
When really all the shocks were randomly assigned.
I bet there will be hypothesies of privilege expouted by the test subjects.
Run it again, but this time gender biased, yet still random since it'll randomly decide either males or females will get more shocks, for a given test.
Oh, you'll definately get hypothesies of privilege expouted then.
Oh, sure, it's someone handing out a privilege. Not just shit happening, of course! Bad things are only met out by a system of justice, aren't they? A system of privilege!
I'm waiting for someone to shift the goal posts on the word and say when a casino one armed bandit pays out, that's privilege as well (ie, as if the usage of the word 'privilege' was synonymous with 'random' all along)
-
Did someone say Contrarian Wanker?
I don't think its appropriate to use rape targets here.
If you look in prison society you will see that male rape victims are also selected to a criteria of percieved weakness or vulnerability. It's a predatory act.
In public, more culturally motivated displays of violence men will generally target other men - here it is a display of prowess and agression.
Can this be defined as male privilege?
-
I'll just add: If the word 'privilege' was being redefined into something utterly negative, I think that'd be a small injustice. But atleast it'd be assigned an utterly negative term to the issue of sexual assault.
But while the word 'privilege' has connotations of being a possitive thing (like in the phrase 'it's a privilege, not a right' it's a possitive word), to me people who talk about male privilege in regard to the lower number of sexual assaults on males are assigning a possitive element to the issue of sexual assault! Affirming sexual assault!? All the while looking at me like I'm the one not acknowledging the slanted statistics because I don't support their wording/affirmations.
Perhaps it was just co-opted from the idea of men being promoted ahead of women in the workforce and that being male privilege - though even there, given I think the biased promotion is a bad thing, I'd be inclined not to call it privilege (yet another crime, as laws atleast give lip service to these issues now)
-
As much as regular law is seen as legitimate and regular law hands out privileges, to call who a sex preditor will or wont rape some distribution of 'privilege' seems to legitimise the sex preditor as some governing authority as much as regular law is legitimise.
I have to say that I'm surprised by the use of privilege in this way.
Maybe it's just the natural next step from "Men get certain benefits purely because they are male, including rationalizations for their sexual assault" but I don't think I've ever seen it used in the situation you're describing.
Not to get personal, but I was in a very brief relationship with a woman prone to extremely violent outbursts. I only got a few slaps and loogies in my face for my trouble, but her next boyfriend she stabbed. The difference here is if I laid a hand on her I could have probably very seriously injured her, while that might not have been the case in reverse.
Which it's why that has been put forth as the reason women pick up knives and scissors. They feel inadequate so they try to even the field.
Men can physically overpower women, so I'm not so inclined to start the waterworks for some poor 200 lb. guy who got chased around the house by a girl half his size. There are definitely outliers but we're not talking outliers here.
So...he should just have controlled her or it's his fault?And he was 200 lb.? When faced with someone with a sharp object who seems angry enough to actually hurt you the real problem here is that you're the weakling who cannot stop her.
-
As much as regular law is seen as legitimate and regular law hands out privileges, to call who a sex preditor will or wont rape some distribution of 'privilege' seems to legitimise the sex preditor as some governing authority as much as regular law is legitimise.
I have to say that I'm surprised by the use of privilege in this way.
Maybe it's just the natural next step from "Men get certain benefits purely because they are male, including rationalizations for their sexual assault" but I don't think I've ever seen it used in the situation you're describing.
I asked my partner about it and she asked how were they using the word 'privilege' and I said it was in regards to how men are less victimised by sexual assault. She just asked why would they use that word? I laughed as I felt a rug pulled out from under me, in terms of being primed to intellectually argue but then having no intellectual responce to how she took the issue, so I just dumbly replied "I dunno?"
I kinda fear it's actually sex preditors winning - actually fostering a culture where even their victims ascribe the sex preditors as 'privileged'.
Like one might call an overbearing tyrant a 'warlord' which is more legitimising and is still calling someone 'lord', thus legitimising their position.
-
'Privilege' just means benefit, it doesn't confer intrinsic worth over someone else.
Here, low probability of sexual assault is, in most situations, an advantage of being male.
For example, my friend and I was once carjacked and then put in the back seat so the thieves could find an ATM so we could withdraw cash for them. They also demanded they go to the house my friend was staying at (his aunt's), and robbed the place.
Now there were times I thought we'd be killed, but I never feared we'd be sexually assaulted. I suspect if we were women we'd at least have been groped/fingered, if not raped.
This is actually one of the few times I think there is a clear cut privilege, most other examples I see used in social justice circles don't IMO take into account factors besides gender/race/sexuality.
-
You attribute the car jackers as granting you a privilege, Saajan?
Or are you using the word privilege as in just how things turn out, in a shit happens sense - if I find a lump of gold on the ground by chance, I'm privileged over those who didn't find such? Birds are privileged over men, because they can fly? Which isn't, as far as I know, granted by anyone?
What I fear is that how the word 'privilege' is being used is alined with the idea that the car jackers were 'looking after you' when they did not inflict any sexual assault.
In other words, something worthy of a kind of respect, like maybe if you were in an accident, in pain and a paramedic gave you some pain killers, they'd be looking after you. The carjackers gaining some of the same legitimacy as the paramedic example.
The pain killer from the paramedic is a privilege? The lack of sexual assault from the car jackers is a privilege?
That equal naming is what scares some shit out of me.
-
You do posit a good question on the car jackers doing me a favor by not raping me. I suspect it didn't occur to them, which I guess is more good fortune than some respect they accorded me.
I don't know if there's any big reason to worry about the word having different meanings, but that example does better illustrate the concern you have.
Scalzi may have the right of it at a theoretical level, with bonuses being accorded depending on intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics. Where I veer from Scalzi is his belief that such bonuses can be summed up without accounting for region, class, etc.
That said, I do think the usual lack of concern about sexual assault is a male privilege, though it would also be fair to ask if those men who are victims of sexual assault face equal, lower, or steeper barriers than women do in trying to make their voices heard.
-
which I guess is more good fortune than some respect they accorded me.
Aye. I in no way want to associate 'respect' with rapists and who they happen to attack or not attack.
In the end, if I'm walking a quiet street at night and a woman happens to come out on the path in front of me, I tend to cross the road to the other side so I don't appear to be following (and what's embaressing is if she then crosses to that same side and if I cross again I look really stupid! But then I do anyway!)
-
Oh, in regard to males being heard, one thing I'll note is how the system forces you to agree the asshole did anything to you, in order to do anything? If anything the system compounds the assailants actions by reinforcing 'oh, he got you! Admit it - or we'll do fuck all!'.
Well, that's in regard to an in company investigation - but I'm guessing that the legal system does the same thing.
It's a pretty fucked up concept - it's like if someone called you a fuckwit, that you have to admit to now being a fuckwit before the authority will do something about the person who called you that.
I don't know about female culture and whether they don't share any parralel with this idea of 'well, he did the physical actions, but he was just trying to get at me and he never did' or if they just want to accept any physical assault as being succesful at affecting their mind/soul/will/part that matters.
But to me the systems fucked up when you have to say the fucker did get to what matters, for them to do shit all.
And even then, atleast with the in company stuff, they don't admit they can't find a conclusion (because of, say, a camera blind spot), they instead say the person did not do it! They don't even know that, yet they pull conclusions out of their ass (I bet so the status quo can just blunder on). Fuck, even call up about it and the women spoken to might complain that you were just making the call during lunch to make her skip lunch. Oh, poor darling!
So there's a tip - if you're thinking of just using an company internal investigation, ask what they print when they can't come to a conclusion. If they utterly disrespect your position and say not that they can't come to a conclusion but instead act as if the other person did nothing, just go to the cops. I know it'll seem like a big hassle - either take the big hassle, or take the fact they'll exonerate a pervert just to so they don't have to think.
Oh, and if you're reticent on talking about anyone, they will keep grilling you. Tell them to fuck off or you'll go to the cops.
Amen.
-
Male privilege? It has to be a Bakker-related board.
-
To be fair, this is one of the better discussions of male privilege I've seen on the internet. Everywhere else devolves into either invective ALL WOMEN ARE WHORES bullshit or hysterical claims that by simply having a pair of testes your every thought and action is an endorsement of rape culture.
-
I was thinking about this thread again - I think I would agree with the notion that men often act AS IF they are priviledged - as if they don't have to think about certain issues.
Certainly they might think AS IF that is the case.
It just seems the side stating that also thinks those males actually are priviledged (taking the word 'priviledge' to mean a dispensing of allowances by some respected authority - in this case that'd be calling rapists a respected authority. Fuck no they aren't!!!!).
The idea that men seemingly often act AS IF (important qualifier!) they are priviledged - I can see that as an important point to make.
I still don't think they actually actually are 'priviledged' in regard to sexual assault. If a fireman (or woman) rescues you from a blaze, they grant you a priviledge (which I think is awesome). Firemen/women desere to be respected as authorities in their area! If a rapist doesn't happen to target you - that isn't a dispensation of priviledge.
-
So I've followed along for five pages; I feel like this is all being analyzed a little out of context.
Male Privilege seems to be a title, which denotes a demographic. The longer version, as far as I've encountered it, goes White Male Privilege but one has to be neither white nor male to experience its dividends.
Also, its effects are borne of accumulated history, despite being humanly (not humanely) embodied and, thus, culturally then socially manifested (or in other cases, vice versa: socially then culturally manifested). Both/All genders are complicit, partaking in the existence of WMP because it takes all kinds to embody and manifest such a complex, circumstantial crux.
-
Eh, how are we complicit?
I voted for rapists or something?
It kinda sounds like 'There must be someone to blame for this!'
Okay, I've certainly refuted there - so now, although I can't think of any particular ways that some sort of sexual predation targeting is happening because of complicitness, I'm trying to keep a blank page open to how it could be the case? What will you write on my page, Mike?
-
There is a rare chance that you, personally, do absolutely nothing to further ingrain the set of manifest behaviours we've called WMP. I'm certainly not innocent. But I enjoy breaking apart moments of circumstance like this so indulge me while I bullet-point some abstractions:
- Every time I'm sitting around with buddies and we allow, through our inaction or laziness, demeaning or derogatory jokes or comments to linger unchallenged.
- Every time we, as people in the world, make unwanted compliments or comments concerning/towards/about members of another gender.
- Every time we thoughtlessly allow our selves and our children to consume and reproduce gender stereotypes and actions portrayed in the media.
- Every time we meet stereotypes of these representions in our lives or (re)enact stereotypical actions or situations.
I could probably think of more and definitely include a bunch of common heuristic and bias errors that seem to take place over a wide sample of a skewed population (WEIRD studies - cheers to whomever on TPB got me hooked on that acronym. Though, I think many practicing scientists understand that demographic and its various socioeconomic reasons). But this is the messy arena in which human behavior, of word or action, manifests these thoughtlessly embodied societal and cultural norms.
-
I think you've broadened the notion, Mike - at the start I said I was focusing on sexual predation. In terms of something like, say, men being promoted ahead of equally qualified (or better!) women at work, I'd agree to a notion of male privilege (though given I think this is wrong, again I'm tempted to say it's something else, a bad thing. I prefer to keep privilege as a good notion - all of us rely on privileges of various types every single day of our lives)
Though I think the 'unwanted compliments' is problematic. Oh I know what is being refered to - but it also has it's own sort of 'you aught to be able to read my mind or your a bad person' hypocracy. Of course we mock victorian etiquette, but it was precisely set up to enact rules for this sort of situation? If a woman (who has consumed and reproduced the idea of 'unwanted compliments') (or a man, for that matter) who looks exactly the same to any eye in A: and B:, but in A: she accepts the compliment and in B: she reacts with a nasty condemnation, that's really just bullshit. How the hell can anyone tell those things apart? It's just encouraging someone to be an unpredictable landmine.
You'd think there could be a social contract sort of thing in culture where there are certain beginner compliments that are generally accepted - very light ones and non judgemental. The other person can decline the compliment (thus blocking any further, more elaborate stage of compliment), but not think the other person is bad for giving one without asking (because they used the very faint compliments).
Otherwise it's just a movement pushing women to consume the idea that if they find the person handsome, they can accept it, but if they find the person ugly, they can treat that person as a bad person for giving the very same compliment.
No, that's not good enough. Unless we want to encourage people acting like children.
-
I think you've broadened the notion, Mike - at the start I said I was focusing on sexual predation. In terms of something like, say, men being promoted ahead of equally qualified (or better!) women at work, I'd agree to a notion of male privilege
I posit that the examples that Mike illustrated above are manifestations of the kind of cultural memes/attitudes/subconscious processes that also result in the kind of issues that you are focusing on, Callan. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I also understand your desire to keep the connotations of the word "privilege" in the positive realm.
-
I think you've broadened the notion, Mike - at the start I said I was focusing on sexual predation. In terms of something like, say, men being promoted ahead of equally qualified (or better!) women at work, I'd agree to a notion of male privilege
I posit that the examples that Mike illustrated above are manifestations of the kind of cultural memes/attitudes/subconscious processes that also result in the kind of issues that you are focusing on, Callan. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
This seems to be saying 'They only do it because we said it was okay'
Or more explicitly 'They care about what we say is or isn't okay - they act or withhold their actions, based on what we think is okay or isn't okay'.
That's the best I can get from reading you, Meyna? Otherwise I don't know what point you're trying to outline?
-
Both "they" and "we" -- our culture as a whole -- still has to tackle this flavor of cognitive dissonance (just like with every oppressed group who has struggled to be seen as equals) in order for these negativities to disappear. "We" are part of this machine. All of the small cultural memes that we tolerate add up to a view of females as subordinate. From young boys chasing after girls on the playground (and being made to feel embarrassed for failure in this quest), to jokes about the "proper place" of women, what we allow to flourish becomes cultural truth. It's a subtle, memetic version of the old "repeat a lie enough and it becomes fact".
My point (or rather, opinion) is simply that this dominant / subordinate dynamic between men and women still exists in our culture, that it leads to the types of active / passive sexual predation discussed here, and that this dynamic is being spearheaded by near-subconscious enabling on a society-wide level, which makes it hard to comprehend and perhaps even harder to admit.
At this point I am venturing too far into the realm of conjecture, and so I am tempted to leave this conversation where it is.
-
Equally I'm drawn to elaborate some kind of test - a fairly non ethical test, though, sadly. But, if you had two groups with those known to sex offend in each as well as a bunch of regular folk all on an island (one island for each group) for a year, but in one group all the regular folk have been trained to be very careful in how they treat gender and equality --- do you think the number of sex offenses would be zero in that group?
If you want to argue it would be somewhat lower than in the control group, I could probably agree on that. But you're saying zero?
I think your discounting how anarchistic a sex preditor is - how...well, genuinely individual they are, in how they simply (and clearly) don't cow tow to the general culture.
I mean, I'm drawing a line between the guy who can't keep his eyes on her face Vs the guy who enacts a physical attack - the former, I would agree with you, Meyna, might very well behave much better if we didn't have a bunch of broken jokes about gender around and instead alot of talk that gives insight about being in the other persons shoes (for both sides - what's it like to be in that guys shoes, too. But mostly/70% the female pov). I think that's a valid cause to be pursued.
I just think it doesn't actually affect the latter case.
-
There is certainly a lot more to it when it comes to the physical attacks (it would tap into the general patterns of abuse that those with power inevitably fall into), though I can't imagine that there wouldn't be improvements that come with the increased capacity for empathy in a culture that holds a more critical lens to the above mentioned memes.
-
Would it drop to zero?
Given that I'm obliquely accused of supporting sexual assault patterns (along with many, many others), I'm not really interested in adopting 'well, you say there's lots of variables so...I'll just give up and take the accusation on the chin'.
Were you in my shoes, how would you handle such an accusation? If you are told such applies to you, you'd just accept it at its word?
If I were being accused of eating the last chocolate biscuit, I wouldn't press so much or use such straight to the point language (and besides, I probably did eat the last chocolate biscuit!). But this strikes me as serious stuff.
-
It would not drop to zero, of course.
It's not a black and white thing (nothing ever is, really), this notion of "supporting" or "opposing". It's not even something that can be thought of on an individual level, so "you" or "I" cannot be accused of anything; we are parts of the greater whole of the real culprit: the mob (which cannot simply be told to do something). Patterns of social behavior will result in culture-wide practices. We can posit that, for example, the toleration of gender-stereotypes will lead to a higher likelihood of passive and active sexual predation. It's up to us to investigate that hypothesized relationship and then to decide whether it's worth it to pursue a different course as a culture.
What sort of social dynamic are we supposed to pursue? There is, of course, no right answer. How we are supposed to act as a species is not written into the laws of the universe. The golden rule may sound good to some, but it doesn't make it "right"
I apologize for myself not using straight-to-the-point language, but I believe all straightforward talk has to be thrown away when talking about human nature 8)