How most men, even good caring men, have no clue what women go through

[Placid Dingo]

You can't, but as ECH posits, within classes you can see gender advantage, and I agree with that.  But when you are comparing an impoverished white guy with an upper-class corporate white woman, the conversation about gender privilage doesn't make any sense, and frankly, is insulting to the man steeped in poverty.


I'm thinking maybe your middle-class privilege is clouding your view

OK, I don't think anyone would disagree.

So is it correct to say that that you agree gender privilege exists, but is not always relevant to a discussion on power dynamics in a community?

[P3nT4gR4m]

You can't, but as ECH posits, within classes you can see gender advantage, and I agree with that.  But when you are comparing an impoverished white guy with an upper-class corporate white woman, the conversation about gender privilage doesn't make any sense, and frankly, is insulting to the man steeped in poverty.


I'm thinking maybe your middle-class privilege is clouding your view

OK, I don't think anyone would disagree.

So is it correct to say that that you agree gender privilege exists, but is not always relevant to a discussion on power dynamics in a community?

Nail on head! This is why I have no truck with feminism. Feminism is about equality for women. That's not how equality works. Equality is for everybody, otherwise it's not equality.

I couldn't give less of a fuck about women's issues. I'm not a woman. I give a fuck about people treating women like shit just on the strength that they're women but I feel no different to that than I would if it was a woman treating a man like shit because he's a man.

This is where me and feminism part company because, despite protestations to the contrary, all I've heard, in any of these fucking retarded threads are "men are okay cos men haz privilege. men can't understand what it's like cos men haz privilege" or the disgustingly patronising "men suffer too but just not as much as women, on account of the privilege thing"

If that's the feminist position then fuck feminism. If it's not then feminism has a long way to go before I'm convinced of it.

[Verbal Mike]

What I'm hearing is "fuck recognizing and dismantling forms of oppression directed specifically at women, there are other forms of oppression too and they affect me!!!!"

I don't think you're being facetious or malicious, just misunderstanding a lot of stuff me and some others have been saying. You can't throw down The Machine all at once, you have to carefully inspect the pieces and carefully tweak them, bit by bit. Insisting that there's just oppression in general and no specific parts of it are worth discussing is insisting on not seeing the trees for the forest.

To me, the context of this discussion, from the start more or less, has been within the broader context of understanding oppression in general. But you have to look at the details to get any kind of useable understanding of the whole.

Oppression is holistic in the sense that the nature of the whole reflects the nature of its parts, and that the whole is more than the sum of the parts (a poor black woman in the US is not just oppressed as poor + black + woman, she suffers an entirely special kind of oppression carrying components of at least three broader patterns of oppression). But precisely because of that, examining the parts can be crucial (at least to some of us, including me) to understanding the whole.

[Placid Dingo]

You can't, but as ECH posits, within classes you can see gender advantage, and I agree with that.  But when you are comparing an impoverished white guy with an upper-class corporate white woman, the conversation about gender privilage doesn't make any sense, and frankly, is insulting to the man steeped in poverty.


I'm thinking maybe your middle-class privilege is clouding your view

OK, I don't think anyone would disagree.

So is it correct to say that that you agree gender privilege exists, but is not always relevant to a discussion on power dynamics in a community?

Nail on head! This is why I have no truck with feminism. Feminism is about equality for women. That's not how equality works. Equality is for everybody, otherwise it's not equality.

I couldn't give less of a fuck about women's issues. I'm not a woman. I give a fuck about people treating women like shit just on the strength that they're women but I feel no different to that than I would if it was a woman treating a man like shit because he's a man.

This is where me and feminism part company because, despite protestations to the contrary, all I've heard, in any of these fucking retarded threads are "men are okay cos men haz privilege. men can't understand what it's like cos men haz privilege" or the disgustingly patronising "men suffer too but just not as much as women, on account of the privilege thing"

If that's the feminist position then fuck feminism. If it's not then feminism has a long way to go before I'm convinced of it.

Well feminism doesn't cover everything. Not should it. But I think it has value, and for this reason I do identify as a feminist.

[AFK]

You can't, but as ECH posits, within classes you can see gender advantage, and I agree with that.  But when you are comparing an impoverished white guy with an upper-class corporate white woman, the conversation about gender privilage doesn't make any sense, and frankly, is insulting to the man steeped in poverty.


I'm thinking maybe your middle-class privilege is clouding your view

OK, I don't think anyone would disagree.

So is it correct to say that that you agree gender privilege exists, but is not always relevant to a discussion on power dynamics in a community?

More or less.  I still don't like the privilege word, because I think all people should enjoy a base level expectation of respect.  I don't like the idea of not being treated awful as being privilege.  I consider that part and parcel with human rights.  People should expect decency.  Like, I don't consider those of you who haven't been verbally accosted in this thread as privileged.  You just have been treated better than myself and others who have taken different positions.  People who are being treated poorly because of gender are definitely oppressed and we should work on ending that shit.  But assigning a label of "privilege" to people who are experiencing decency, I believe, is counterproductive, and yes, is inappropriate when talking about ACTUAL power dynamics that are linked to real conditions on the ground. 


To be clear, I'm not arguing that the discussion of gender inequality, naturally, is inappropriate, only when you ascribe or imply power to a group of people where a significant portion of that group enjoys no power.  But if you discuss that group in terms of class, you get much closer to the reality if things, and that discussion is completely appropriate and neccessary.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

This is where me and feminism part company because, despite protestations to the contrary, all I've heard, in any of these fucking retarded threads are "men are okay cos men haz privilege. men can't understand what it's like cos men haz privilege" or the disgustingly patronising "men suffer too but just not as much as women, on account of the privilege thing"

Yeah, I've noticed those particular points really twack your noodle.

What I find disgustingly patronizing is the idea that male privilege doesn't exist not through any sort of empirical evidence but apparently because you simply don't like it being pointed out.

[Verbal Mike]

You can't, but as ECH posits, within classes you can see gender advantage, and I agree with that.  But when you are comparing an impoverished white guy with an upper-class corporate white woman, the conversation about gender privilage doesn't make any sense, and frankly, is insulting to the man steeped in poverty.


I'm thinking maybe your middle-class privilege is clouding your view

OK, I don't think anyone would disagree.

So is it correct to say that that you agree gender privilege exists, but is not always relevant to a discussion on power dynamics in a community?

More or less.  I still don't like the privilege word, because I think all people should enjoy a base level expectation of respect.  I don't like the idea of not being treated awful as being privilege.  I consider that part and parcel with human rights.  People should expect decency.  Like, I don't consider those of you who haven't been verbally accosted in this thread as privileged.  You just have been treated better than myself and others who have taken different positions.  People who are being treated poorly because of gender are definitely oppressed and we should work on ending that shit.  But assigning a label of "privilege" to people who are experiencing decency, I believe, is counterproductive, and yes, is inappropriate when talking about ACTUAL power dynamics that are linked to real conditions on the ground. 


To be clear, I'm not arguing that the discussion of gender inequality, naturally, is inappropriate, only when you ascribe or imply power to a group of people where a significant portion of that group enjoys no power.  But if you discuss that group in terms of class, you get much closer to the reality if things, and that discussion is completely appropriate and neccessary.

Just to be clear, I told you to fuck off and die because of the way you argued your position, not because of the position itself.

Incidentally, I agree that the "privilege" term is problematic. Just last night I read an interesting post about this by an Israeli political scientist who was saying that for all the problems with human-rights oriented discourse (mainly: it replaces something deeply moral with legal technicality), in this context since privilege is just the opposite of "lack of certain rights", the privilege-oriented discourse drags the discussion down, whereas arguing human rights for all drags the discussion up. It's a fair point. (Although I wonder whether rights-oriented discourse is as good at targetting the kind of bias privilege creates.)

Anyway, what is not a fair point, or a point at all, is to insist on a different definition of "privilege" than that used by everyone else in the discussion, and insist that privilege works the way your sense of it does, rather than talking about the actual thing people are actually talking about, i.e. "not lacking certain rights". That's either trolling, being stupid, or plain old menu-eating. Words mean different things, not so much to different people but in different contexts (the topic at hand, the dialect/sociolect/language being used, low vs. high register, etc.) Latching on to one meaning regardless of context is absurd. (And I'm not talking about literally putting a latch on meanings – y'see?)

[P3nT4gR4m]

This is where me and feminism part company because, despite protestations to the contrary, all I've heard, in any of these fucking retarded threads are "men are okay cos men haz privilege. men can't understand what it's like cos men haz privilege" or the disgustingly patronising "men suffer too but just not as much as women, on account of the privilege thing"

Yeah, I've noticed those particular points really twack your noodle.

What I find disgustingly patronizing is the idea that male privilege doesn't exist not through any sort of empirical evidence but apparently because you simply don't like it being pointed out.

Nice try but no cigar. I accept that male privilege exists. I'm a man. I'm naturally physically stronger than most women. Hell, I'm physically stronger than most fucking men so, when it gets right down to it and a dispute gets to the stage where it's time to get busy with the fists, hell yeah, what I say goes. If that aint privilege then there's no such thing, right? Bollocks if I earned that privilege by not stuffing my face with junk food and sitting in front of a teevee 24/7, I'm privileged - I accept that.

My point is that this does not always give me advantage but, fuck it, we're scoring on a mean, right? And women trump me, right? I'm pretty sure black people do, too but I'm not sure where gays fit in. Maybe I'm more oppressed than them? Or maybe I'm the least oppressed motherfucker on the face of the planet?

This is relevant how?

[AFK]

You can't, but as ECH posits, within classes you can see gender advantage, and I agree with that.  But when you are comparing an impoverished white guy with an upper-class corporate white woman, the conversation about gender privilage doesn't make any sense, and frankly, is insulting to the man steeped in poverty.


I'm thinking maybe your middle-class privilege is clouding your view

OK, I don't think anyone would disagree.

So is it correct to say that that you agree gender privilege exists, but is not always relevant to a discussion on power dynamics in a community?

More or less.  I still don't like the privilege word, because I think all people should enjoy a base level expectation of respect.  I don't like the idea of not being treated awful as being privilege.  I consider that part and parcel with human rights.  People should expect decency.  Like, I don't consider those of you who haven't been verbally accosted in this thread as privileged.  You just have been treated better than myself and others who have taken different positions.  People who are being treated poorly because of gender are definitely oppressed and we should work on ending that shit.  But assigning a label of "privilege" to people who are experiencing decency, I believe, is counterproductive, and yes, is inappropriate when talking about ACTUAL power dynamics that are linked to real conditions on the ground. 


To be clear, I'm not arguing that the discussion of gender inequality, naturally, is inappropriate, only when you ascribe or imply power to a group of people where a significant portion of that group enjoys no power.  But if you discuss that group in terms of class, you get much closer to the reality if things, and that discussion is completely appropriate and neccessary.

Just to be clear, I told you to fuck off and die because of the way you argued your position, not because of the position itself.

Incidentally, I agree that the "privilege" term is problematic. Just last night I read an interesting post about this by an Israeli political scientist who was saying that for all the problems with human-rights oriented discourse (mainly: it replaces something deeply moral with legal technicality), in this context since privilege is just the opposite of "lack of certain rights", the privilege-oriented discourse drags the discussion down, whereas arguing human rights for all drags the discussion up. It's a fair point. (Although I wonder whether rights-oriented discourse is as good at targetting the kind of bias privilege creates.)

Anyway, what is not a fair point, or a point at all, is to insist on a different definition of "privilege" than that used by everyone else in the discussion, and insist that privilege works the way your sense of it does, rather than talking about the actual thing people are actually talking about, i.e. "not lacking certain rights". That's either trolling, being stupid, or plain old menu-eating. Words mean different things, not so much to different people but in different contexts (the topic at hand, the dialect/sociolect/language being used, low vs. high register, etc.) Latching on to one meaning regardless of context is absurd. (And I'm not talking about literally putting a latch on meanings – y'see?)

Uh, so you agree that the term is problematic but you are upset because I've been arguing that the term is problematic.


Okay, that makes PERFECT sense.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

People who are being treated poorly because of gender are definitely oppressed and we should work on ending that shit.  But assigning a label of "privilege" to people who are experiencing decency, I believe, is counterproductive, and yes, is inappropriate when talking about ACTUAL power dynamics that are linked to real conditions on the ground. 

Do you think you are not invalidating the systemic abuse of women by implying it isn't an "actual power dynamic"?

Privilege is a much better word than "experiencing decency" and I'll illustrate that in a second here.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the discussion of gender inequality, naturally, is inappropriate, only when you ascribe or imply power to a group of people where a significant portion of that group enjoys no power.  But if you discuss that group in terms of class, you get much closer to the reality if things, and that discussion is completely appropriate and neccessary.

You conceded that most men actually do enjoy power over women regardless of their economic class, due to biology.

I wonder how many "rail thin" men in poverty are forced into prostitution and trafficked around the world? Would you say that because economically impoverished rail thin men are far less likely to be forced into prostitution that they are "experiencing decency"?

[AFK]

People who are being treated poorly because of gender are definitely oppressed and we should work on ending that shit.  But assigning a label of "privilege" to people who are experiencing decency, I believe, is counterproductive, and yes, is inappropriate when talking about ACTUAL power dynamics that are linked to real conditions on the ground. 

Do you think you are not invalidating the systemic abuse of women by implying it isn't an "actual power dynamic"?

Privilege is a much better word than "experiencing decency" and I'll illustrate that in a second here.

It is a power dynamic but it is a power dynamic that is being created by an individual not allowing an individual to have their right to emotional and bodily autonomy.  It originates from an individual who is a complete waste of humanity.  Being an awful person doesn't come from privilege, it comes from a person being an awful person and having complete disregard for the freedom of another, and that individual can be male, female gay, straight, etc. 

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the discussion of gender inequality, naturally, is inappropriate, only when you ascribe or imply power to a group of people where a significant portion of that group enjoys no power.  But if you discuss that group in terms of class, you get much closer to the reality if things, and that discussion is completely appropriate and neccessary.

You conceded that most men actually do enjoy power over women regardless of their economic class, due to biology.

I wonder how many "rail thin" men in poverty are forced into prostitution and trafficked around the world? Would you say that because economically impoverished rail thin men are far less likely to be forced into prostitution that they are "experiencing decency"?

No, because the fact that women are forced into prostitution has nothing to do with those men unless they are the ones forcing them into prostituion.  They aren't even part of the conversation, and shouldn't be, because they are not part of the problem. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

This is where me and feminism part company because, despite protestations to the contrary, all I've heard, in any of these fucking retarded threads are "men are okay cos men haz privilege. men can't understand what it's like cos men haz privilege" or the disgustingly patronising "men suffer too but just not as much as women, on account of the privilege thing"

Yeah, I've noticed those particular points really twack your noodle.

What I find disgustingly patronizing is the idea that male privilege doesn't exist not through any sort of empirical evidence but apparently because you simply don't like it being pointed out.

Nice try but no cigar. I accept that male privilege exists. I'm a man. I'm naturally physically stronger than most women. Hell, I'm physically stronger than most fucking men so, when it gets right down to it and a dispute gets to the stage where it's time to get busy with the fists, hell yeah, what I say goes. If that aint privilege then there's no such thing, right? Bollocks if I earned that privilege by not stuffing my face with junk food and sitting in front of a teevee 24/7, I'm privileged - I accept that.

My point is that this does not always give me advantage but, fuck it, we're scoring on a mean, right? And women trump me, right? I'm pretty sure black people do, too but I'm not sure where gays fit in. Maybe I'm more oppressed than them? Or maybe I'm the least oppressed motherfucker on the face of the planet?

This is relevant how?

Nobody on the forum has ever said that being male always gives you the advantage, just a very high probability of having a number of advantages.

It's relevant to anyone that wants to get beyond their biases as much as possible in order to perceive the world more accurately. It's relevant to being more compassionate towards women. It's relevant to grappling with kyriarchy in order to better communicate with people from many different backgrounds. It's relevant to understanding people, including yourself—your own conditioning. It's relevant to de-conditioning cultural bullshit in order to be more true to yourself.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'd like to suggest that everyone take a second and go back and read CorbeuteEtRenard's excellent post on the subject of privilege, since the same damn miscommunication is occurring.  And when I say "everyone", I mean BOTH sides of this argument.

[Verbal Mike]

Uh, so you agree that the term is problematic but you are upset because I've been arguing that the term is problematic.

Okay, that makes PERFECT sense.

No, I'm upset that you refuse to discuss the term as it's used in this context and instead attack a straw man, namely the everyday sense of "privilege", which is irrelevant here. The argument I mentioned is about the relevant sense of privilege, not the everyday sense, and does not fall into the trap of discussing only the latter (though that trap is part of the problem that post discussed, as it were.)

Also, what Net said.

And I have a meeting now but will re-read Corbeute's post again later, it probably can't hurt.

[AFK]

Merriam-Webster defines privilege as, and I quote (because my iPad won't let me copy and paste):


"a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor: perogative ; such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office"


Please explain to me how your definition differs, and, where does it come from?  In other words, some kind of citation that shows this is a common usage of the word.