[Callan S.]

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.

[Madness]

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.

[Callan S.]

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?

[Madness]

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

[Meyna]

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.

[Callan S.]

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?

[Meyna]

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

[Meyna]

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

[Meyna]

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