![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Male Privilege, Part II
May. 20th, 2006 09:27 amI 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:( Sexist pigs, sensitive feminst men, and regular guys )
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.( vrrrrooom! )
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:( Sexist pigs, sensitive feminst men, and regular guys )
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.( vrrrrooom! )
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.
