Male Privilege, Part II
May. 20th, 2006 09:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarahmichiganI copied this over from some comments I made on another journal:
I think it is ironic that in a discussion of the *Male* privilege checklist written *by a man* that a man was accused of derailing discussion of *women's concerns*.
The thing about the checklist: what is it's purpose?
If it was for Mr. Deutsch to examine his own privilege, well bully for him. But, it seems to me the purpose of making it public is to point out the privileges that men, collectively have.
The reaction of men is going to fall into three main categories:
1. Sexist pig. He's going to dismiss it as not reflecting reality or he's going to say, "So what? This is just life."
2. The sensitive feminist man. He's already going to be aware of most of these privileges. He's going to feel terrible about them. He's going to be doing everything in his power to address the areas that he can. Other issues are institutional, and not something the individual man can *do* anything about.
3. The average guy. He's already got some feminist awareness and generally agrees with the idea of equality. Maybe he feels that women were given a raw deal in the past, but he thinks we've come a long way and things are a lot closer to equal than they've ever been. He's going to see this huge list as an attack against him. He's going to look at every item that doesn't apply to him (say, if he's gay) or every item that's overstated or overgeneralized, and he's going to want to pick the list apart.
In none of those cases have you started a meaningful dialogue with men that is going to create change, either internally or societally.
I've been thinking about what some of the women in the discussion said: that bringing up the idea that "women have privileges too" is off the topic, and that picking apart and deconstructing the list point by point is more on topic.
I understand where they're coming from, and I think that objection makes sense.
However, I don't think that bringing up female privilege is so much a derailment of the discussion as a different way of looking at privilege.
The man who brings up "Well, women have privileges too!" is looking at "privilege" in terms of "which sex has the advantage in society"?
From that viewpoint, it's like comparing the chances of two people in a car race.
If you say, "Well, obviously person A is going to win the race, because he has a slightly bigger engine, and he's young and has fast reflexes."
If the other person disagrees, he has two tactics: he can pick apart the so-called advantages of person A, explaining why his engine isn't really that much better or explaining why his reflexes aren't that great.
Or, he can explain that while, yes, Person A has these advantages, Person B also has advantages in the race. Person B has more experience in racing, and she's lighter, and so the car will go faster even with a slightly under-powered engine.
The second tactic is what I see going on when men point out women's privileges.
Furthermore, I think that a lot of women in the discussion started out with pre-conceived ideas of why men would object to the list. I recall the phrase "howls of protest" and women saying they see this kind of reaction all the time in feminist venues.
Either we assume that every man who replied with objections (either on the posts on the other LJ or on my related ones) is a sexist pig who doesn't want to examine his own privilege, or at the least is not very evolved and self-reflective. Or, you can make the assumption that something is not quite right about the presentation or the content of the list.
A lot of women in the discussion leaped to the "Sexist Pig" conclusion without even allowing that some of the items were even arguable.
I think it is ironic that in a discussion of the *Male* privilege checklist written *by a man* that a man was accused of derailing discussion of *women's concerns*.
The thing about the checklist: what is it's purpose?
If it was for Mr. Deutsch to examine his own privilege, well bully for him. But, it seems to me the purpose of making it public is to point out the privileges that men, collectively have.
The reaction of men is going to fall into three main categories:
1. Sexist pig. He's going to dismiss it as not reflecting reality or he's going to say, "So what? This is just life."
2. The sensitive feminist man. He's already going to be aware of most of these privileges. He's going to feel terrible about them. He's going to be doing everything in his power to address the areas that he can. Other issues are institutional, and not something the individual man can *do* anything about.
3. The average guy. He's already got some feminist awareness and generally agrees with the idea of equality. Maybe he feels that women were given a raw deal in the past, but he thinks we've come a long way and things are a lot closer to equal than they've ever been. He's going to see this huge list as an attack against him. He's going to look at every item that doesn't apply to him (say, if he's gay) or every item that's overstated or overgeneralized, and he's going to want to pick the list apart.
In none of those cases have you started a meaningful dialogue with men that is going to create change, either internally or societally.
I've been thinking about what some of the women in the discussion said: that bringing up the idea that "women have privileges too" is off the topic, and that picking apart and deconstructing the list point by point is more on topic.
I understand where they're coming from, and I think that objection makes sense.
However, I don't think that bringing up female privilege is so much a derailment of the discussion as a different way of looking at privilege.
The man who brings up "Well, women have privileges too!" is looking at "privilege" in terms of "which sex has the advantage in society"?
From that viewpoint, it's like comparing the chances of two people in a car race.
If you say, "Well, obviously person A is going to win the race, because he has a slightly bigger engine, and he's young and has fast reflexes."
If the other person disagrees, he has two tactics: he can pick apart the so-called advantages of person A, explaining why his engine isn't really that much better or explaining why his reflexes aren't that great.
Or, he can explain that while, yes, Person A has these advantages, Person B also has advantages in the race. Person B has more experience in racing, and she's lighter, and so the car will go faster even with a slightly under-powered engine.
The second tactic is what I see going on when men point out women's privileges.
Furthermore, I think that a lot of women in the discussion started out with pre-conceived ideas of why men would object to the list. I recall the phrase "howls of protest" and women saying they see this kind of reaction all the time in feminist venues.
Either we assume that every man who replied with objections (either on the posts on the other LJ or on my related ones) is a sexist pig who doesn't want to examine his own privilege, or at the least is not very evolved and self-reflective. Or, you can make the assumption that something is not quite right about the presentation or the content of the list.
A lot of women in the discussion leaped to the "Sexist Pig" conclusion without even allowing that some of the items were even arguable.
