I remember sometime last year speaking a bit with Crashing00 about the concept of privilege and I told him I hadn’t really made up my mind yet and decided to look more deeply into feminist theory and its claims more. Still Crashing00 made some very good points that I did not and still do not disagree with. I feel we mostly just talked past each other… however, one thing that he did say really stuck out in my mind and that was basically that privilege theory doesn’t really help anyone.
I maintained at that time that privilege theory might prove useful in pointing out areas of inequality, but overall I agree (and agreed) with Crashing00 a year or so ago that privilege theory isn’t really useful as far as actually helping people. So I decided to edify myself on the subject a lot more and am creating this thread to talk about some of my thoughts on the subject and why I feel that feminism (specifically, 3rd wave feminism) doesn’t really help anyone and that in many cases, simply ignores or hurts its own cause(s).
The Problem of Privilege
When I was first exposed to the idea of what privilege was, it seemed like a plausible concept. As I understood it then, it was sort of the idea that in certain cases being a group has an unearned advantage(s) in society, which leads to the oppression of non-privileged groups. However, my hesitation at that time in fully supporting this idea was because from what I did know about privilege, it didn’t really sound very well thought out and/or perhaps it was because I needed to learn more.
Unfortunately it seems to be more of a case of the former rather than the latter.
The problem with this concept is that by the feminist definition it means “the concept of privilege refers to any advantage that is unearned, exclusive, and socially conferred. For example, white people are generally assumed to be law-abiding until they show some sign that they are not, while people of color are routinely assumed to be criminals or potential criminals until they show they’re not.”
Now on the surface this seems like something I could get behind, no one should be assumed to be a criminal based on race. However, as I said, this concept isn’t well thought out. Societal dynamics are not the same across the country, state, or city and it seems that when this term is used, it refers to everything very generally.
Just because there might be a race problem in one city – does not mean that there is a race problem in every city or even every part of a city. Perhaps even more importantly here is to not just jump and say that the problem is a racial one and not say the police making assumptions about people living in an area where high crime rates exist and most of the people who live there happen to be mostly of one particular race.
Sexism is another example, just because one work place environment has sexism, does not mean that all companies do or that all areas of said company have sexism.
Certainly, both racism and sexism exist – but it seems that feminists are all too happy to ignore facts and/or opinions that contradict their world view or just not care about them in the first place and instead would rather just spread their ideology.
For example, let’s look at the game industry. I’ve worked done some freelance work in the indie game industry and to be honest, I haven’t worked with any women. I don’t think that the industry is sexist, but rather I think that in some professions one gender likes working in that profession more than the other. This is true for both genders, nursing for example, is absolutely dominated by females to the tune of 91% of nurses are female.
In the game industry the statistics are flipped in favor of men and a quick search of google and you have tons and tons of stories about how sexist the video game industry is. At least, this is what feminists would like you to believe. Their proof? Testimonials from individuals and death/rape threats, etc. that they receive on the internet from trolls.
My problem with this is, testimonials don’t provide any evidence that there is actually a problem within the industry itself other than that individual(s) have to deal with a few jerks at work and trolls on the internet. Here’s the thing about trolls, they are looking to get a reaction by saying things that they think will get that reaction out of an individual. So for example, if a troll wants to get a reaction out of a female – they’ll use rape threats and trolls don’t affect just women, they also affect men at least just as much and men certainly aren't the only ones guilty of trolling. But trolls and a few testimonials do not speak for all of society and it’s absurd to think that they do.
The other problem I had with the idea of how feminism uses the term.
It seems as though feminists want to use the term in order to promote conversation and discussion, but in practice, it’s used to more often than not to silence anyone with an opposing opinion. Whether or not an individual has all of the privilege in the world or no privilege at all has nothing to do with whether or not that individuals arguments are cogent.
I say this because I’ve spoken with and seen feminists invalidate what I and others have to say because by virtue of being a man that somehow makes me want to uphold the patriarchy or if the a woman says something similar, it’s because she’s been brain washed by the patriarchy. Which brings me to my next topic…
I say this because I’ve spoken with and seen feminists invalidate what I and others have to say because by virtue of being a man that somehow makes me want to uphold the patriarchy or if the a woman says something similar, it’s because she’s been brain washed by the patriarchy. Which brings me to my next topic…
The Patriarchy
According to feminism, patriarchy describes a general structure in which men have power over women. Society (n.) is the entirety of relations of a community. A patriarchal society consists of a male-dominated power structure throughout organized society and in individual relationships.
One would think that if we were living in a patriarchy, these things should be tilted more in the favor of men, rather than women. I don’t see the patriarchy and it doesn’t seem like the facts support this. Point this out to feminists though and you’re likely to be labeled a misogynist if you’re a man or if you’re a woman, then you suffer from a case of internalized misogyny because you’ve been brainwashed by the patriarchy, because men hate women.
Which leads me to my last topic…
Misogyny
I absolutely detest this word because every time I have seen it used by feminist, it never seems to be used to actually point out an actual case of misogyny but is instead used as a shaming tactic or to describe some social injustice which may or may not even exist in the first place. Instead, feminist theory seems to think that our society suffers from internalized misogyny. It's in fact so internalized within ourselves that it's normal.
If that were the case, Why is it that when most men are called a misogynist, feel shame and feel the need to explain that they are not in fact a misogynist? Why would this word have any power at all, since this is a normal, accepted part of society? Perhaps the reason this word has the power to make men feel shame and/or explain that they aren’t misogynists is because society is not misogynistic and men are not raised to hate women.
Men are taught not to hit women. Even if a women hits a man, men are not taught not to hit back. In my experiences growing up, even my adopted father would tell me that he would beat the living ***** out of me if I ever hit a woman. I’ve seen women hit men (myself included) while proclaiming that as a man, the man couldn’t hit them back. Why would a culture that is internally misogynistic, teach men that this is a value?
Karen Straughan of Girl writes what? has a fantastic quote, that I find I agree with:
"The accusation could only have the power to shame and silence someone if society was not pervasively misogynistic. The power of an insult is the power to bring to bear the weight of society’s disapproval. It requires the culture in general to disapprove of the behavior, attitude, or attribute targeted by the insult. The fact that an accusation of misogyny can work as a shaming tactic at all to silence and bully people, or to damage their lives and social status, would actually reflect that our society is not pervasively misogynistic–at least, not in the dictionary sense that misogyny is an attitude of hatred or dislike of women. The fact that this accusation seems particularly effective when leveled against men also demonstrates that Quinn Norton is kinda full of *****. If hating women were a value normalized by the culture, and if men were raised to hate women, then calling a man a misogynist would have as much power as shouting “******-hater” at a Klansman in 1920."
I find that I have to agree with that sentiment. Now I'm going to conclude the topic here because I've been writing this for a while and I think I can add more through discussion in this thread. This should be enough to get the ball rolling though, I think. That being said, I don't think that everything that comes out of feminism is bad, my problem is mostly with 3rd wave feminism ideology, logic, and language. It has become dogmatic at the expense of logic and reason. The greater travesty is that more often than not 3rd wave feminism starts with a conclusion and then seeks to find evidence in order to support it's conclusions. I think, that 3rd wave feminism serves very little purpose these days and actually seems to undermine it's own efforts. Perhaps this could be improved, but it has to change from it's dogmatic formula and it certainly can't do it by using confirmation bias as a starting point for identifying problems.
Yo, nurses get paid less than other medical professionals generally, so arguing that nursing is 90% female and therefore is discriminatory against men sounds a little off. Got any percentages for the higher paid medical careers?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Yo, nurses get paid less than other medical professionals generally, so arguing that nursing is 90% female and therefore is discriminatory against men sounds a little off. Got any percentages for the higher paid medical careers?
Well, that's not what I was arguing there:
Quote from FoxBlade »
For example, let’s look at the game industry. I’ve worked done some freelance work in the indie game industry and to be honest, I haven’t worked with any women. I don’t think that the industry is sexist, but rather I think that in some professions one gender likes working in that profession more than the other. This is true for both genders, nursing for example, is absolutely dominated by females to the tune of 91% of nurses are female.
The point I was making is that it isn't an example of inequality.
Yo, nurses get paid less than other medical professionals generally, so arguing that nursing is 90% female and therefore is discriminatory against men sounds a little off. Got any percentages for the higher paid medical careers?
Out of all of that you nitpick on this point?
Comparing the pay of nurses to all other medical professionals is kind of dumb. If I remember correctly... generic nursing only requires a 4 year degree while being a doctor requires a lot more school... saying nurses make less than other medical professionals is like saying IT techs make less than software engineers... yeah no kidding. Go to school longer and usually you make more money in your given field. What would be more appropriate would be to compare nursing to other careers of similar schooling requirements keeping in mind that I dont think nurses can advance in career like many other careers since it requires more schooling versus an Engineer that can be given promotions based solely on experience.
Nursing isn't dominated by women because women are somehow inherently predisposed to being nurses. It's because it's historically one of the few kinds of work that women could get. Men didn't get into it much because they were raised to believe they were better at machines or mathematics or w/e and men have been and continue to be reluctant to get into "women's work" either because they undervalue it or because their peers would mock them for it. That men become doctors and women become nurses isn't because men are better doctors but because higher education was believed to be more than a woman could handle. You have no idea about the power of history.
Except statistically, men are indeed, on average, better at math (men and women have different strenghs)
Also, medicine has more women entering the field than men right now. I mean doctor medicine, not nursing medicine. In addition, there are moe women then men in university right now. (At least in developped countries)
I think my university is at 41% male to 59% female.
Because you're of the opinion that only the white male members of mtgsalvation have enough time for entertainment?
I didn't say that.
What I said was that OP comes from a background that gave him the ability to have the education required to write his post, an economic background stable enough to allow the internet access required to post and conduct research, and a life situation easy enough to allow him the time required to to give him enough free time to do all this. However despite all the above he was unable to understand their value and his advantage in having them over people who didn't.
Only I said it much quicker the first time. I liked its flow better too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Because you're of the opinion that only the white male members of mtgsalvation have enough time for entertainment?
I didn't say that.
What I said was that OP comes from a background that gave him the ability to have the education required to write his post, an economic background stable enough to allow the internet access required to post and conduct research, and a life situation easy enough to allow him the time required to to give him enough free time to do all this. However despite all the above he was unable to understand their value and his advantage in having them over people who didn't.
Only I said it much quicker the first time. I liked its flow better too.
No, you really didn't say it "much quicker". You didn't say it at all. You snarkily posted "lol, privilege!" as a dismissal of all his points without actually addressing any of them. What's more you appear to have completely missed his entire point, to the level that I have to ask whether you actually read the post at all.
One of his points (and there were mutliple) was about how useless the dismissal of someones arguments with the statement of "lol, privilege" rather than actually addressing the points is. Since you are guilty of that level of dismissal, lets start there.
Why do you think "lol, privilege" is an adequate rebuttal to any of the points that the OP raised?
Because you're of the opinion that only the white male members of mtgsalvation have enough time for entertainment?
I didn't say that.
What I said was that OP comes from a background that gave him the ability to have the education required to write his post, an economic background stable enough to allow the internet access required to post and conduct research, and a life situation easy enough to allow him the time required to to give him enough free time to do all this. However despite all the above he was unable to understand their value and his advantage in having them over people who didn't.
Only I said it much quicker the first time. I liked its flow better too.
priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/Submit
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
Are you saying that the OP was those "advantages" unfairly because of some special trait or grouping he falls into?
The phrase "women and children first" is certainly interesting. Why is it that women are grouped with children as needing special protection? It's a form of paternalism that relegates women to the status of defenseless child-like beings. This is a form of misogyny, not evidence that misogyny doesn't exist.
The phrase "women and children first" is certainly interesting. Why is it that women are grouped with children as needing special protection? It's a form of paternalism that relegates women to the status of defenseless child-like beings. This is a form of misogyny, not evidence that misogyny doesn't exist.
Yes and no. It's also a statement that the women and the children are more valuable then the men, and thus misandrist. It's an interesting facet of chivalry that it is simultaneously sexist against *everyone*.
And in that particular example, the women end up getting infantilized, whereas the men end up dying. I think it says something interesting about our approach to sex-based injustices if we immediately focus on the former and dismiss the latter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's because situations in which people are faced with self-sacrifice to save others are pretty rare, whereas situations in which people are infantilized are more common. The notion that women and children are to be saved first is not an isolated idea that comes up only in cases of disaster. It's part of a larger narrative about the natures and roles of the genders, and there's a pretty hefty trade off for being first on the lifeboats.
One would think that if we were living in a patriarchy, these things should be tilted more in the favor of men, rather than women.
The federal government?
Number of female presidents (ever): 0
Current percentage of female senators: 20.0%
Current percentage of females in congress: 18.2%
I'd say that's more patriarchal than not, and certainly tilted in favour of men.
(The report you linked says that men reported less need for support services post-violence, and were less likely to receive them. Also that women are more likely to experience most forms of intimate partner violence, and to experience them more frequently. Both genders suffer under the type of sexism that feminists describe as patriarchy.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Both genders suffer under the type of sexism that feminists describe as patriarchy.
The problem is that "patriarchy" is not a type of sexism. The patriarchy is "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." While a patriarchy is sexist, we do not live in a patriarchy. Nor does the existence of sexism (even institutionalized sexism, if it exists) make it a patriarchy.
Use of the word patriarchy to mean something completely different is a big problem, and is one of the reasons why Internet feminist run into so many problems trying to make their points.
Both genders suffer under the type of sexism that feminists describe as patriarchy.
The problem is that "patriarchy" is not a type of sexism. The patriarchy is "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." While a patriarchy is sexist, we do not live in a patriarchy. Nor does the existence of sexism (even institutionalized sexism, if it exists) make it a patriarchy.
Use of the word patriarchy to mean something completely different is a big problem, and is one of the reasons why Internet feminist run into so many problems trying to make their points.
To an extent I agree with you (hence my phrasing above). It's possible that patriarchy (as used by feminism) is at this point a term of art, at which point we could stop quibbling about the original meaning of the word, and start addressing the complaints that use it for framing.
So what percentage would you describe as largely excluded?
There's historically 100% exclusion from presidency; it doesn't get much higher than that.
Perhaps if Congress and the Senate were 10% female rather than 20%? Would that cross the line into patriarchy?
Maybe you mean financial power? 4.8% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are women.
Judicial power? Women currently make up a shockingly high 33% of Supreme Court Justices, so I guess they're not largely excluded there. (Although there has only been one woman Justice, ever, aside from the three currently serving, so there's that.
The difficulty, here, is distinguishing between distinct problems: Overt Discrimination, Subtle Discrimination, Institutional Barriers and Cultural Barriers, to name a few. All of these contribute to the kinds of things you're trying to address, but they're different (but interrelated) problems, especially in how you address them.
To an extent I agree with you (hence my phrasing above). It's possible that patriarchy (as used by feminism) is at this point a term of art, at which point we could stop quibbling about the original meaning of the word, and start addressing the complaints that use it for framing.
I can't do that. Because the image being evoked by the feminists using partriarchy in this manner is *inentionally* the definition I cited, and only when called out on it do they retreat to the "well we really mean this other thing that isn't the definition of the word" -- it's intentionally cheap and poor debate tactics.
But lets analyze it from the correct perspective, and the correct defintion of the word.
So what percentage would you describe as largely excluded?
The key issue here, is what does "excluded" mean. Does it mean not present, or not allowed to be present? Because I would interpret it the other way. There's not a problem with the president/representatives because there is nothing prohibiting women (or even making it more difficult for women to get in) within the system. There may be a sexism problem in the electorate, but then thats not a patriarchy. Especially not when 50% of the voters are women.
There's historically 100% exclusion from presidency; it doesn't get much higher than that.
Perhaps if Congress and the Senate were 10% female rather than 20%? Would that cross the line into patriarchy?
Like I said above, there *isn't* an exclusion. At all. At least not in the sense of women being in any wya prohibited or prevented from receiving those positions.
Again, a sexist electorate does not = a patriarchy. The point being that identifying an imbalance of currently serving sexes does not mean that there is a patriarchy.
Ultimately, the problem with arguing against the patriarchy is that there is no secret cabal of men trying to stop women from getting into power. Is the instituionalized cultural sexism? Perhaps -- but *that's not a patriarchy*
What I said was that OP comes from a background that gave him the ability to have the education required to write his post, an economic background stable enough to allow the internet access required to post and conduct research, and a life situation easy enough to allow him the time required to to give him enough free time to do all this. However despite all the above he was unable to understand their value and his advantage in having them over people who didn't.
Actually, I didn't say that privilege doesn't exist, I think that it does to some degree. My point is that privilege, even if it exists, isn't actually helpful in identifying or helping anyone and that privilege theory is not very well thought out. The other problem with this concept is doing exactly what you are doing here. You are attempting to dismiss everything I said based on assumptions you are making about my background, when in fact you know nothing about what my background is, how long it took me to write this, or anything at all about me as a person.
Quote from Tiax »
That's because situations in which people are faced with self-sacrifice to save others are pretty rare, whereas situations in which people are infantilized are more common. The notion that women and children are to be saved first is not an isolated idea that comes up only in cases of disaster. It's part of a larger narrative about the natures and roles of the genders, and there's a pretty hefty trade off for being first on the lifeboats.
Whether or not the situation is rare completely ignores the point.
As Blinking Spirit said, men in this situation end up dying in favor of women and children. The lives of men in this case are disposable and is considered less valuable. Feminism is quick to dismiss what the narrative says about men in these situations in favor of an opposing world view that fits their conclusion instead of looking at reality for what it is.
Quote from Grant »
The federal government?
Number of female presidents (ever): 0
Current percentage of female senators: 20.0%
Current percentage of females in congress: 18.2%
I'd say that's more patriarchal than not, and certainly tilted in favour of men.
Is it though?
What laws or policy do we have that prevent women from running for office? When women do run for office, why do they win at all if we live in a patriarchal and misogynistic society?
Hillary Clinton for example ran for office against President Obama during the primaries, but didn't win. Are you going to conclude that this is because of patriarchy and misogynist attitudes about women - or is it more likely that more voters just happened to support Obama than Clinton?
How can we make the assumption that the reason each voter decided not to vote for Clinton is because of some inherent internal patriarchal and misogynist system?
While the men to women ratio in congress might tilt in the favor of men, there is no compelling reason to conclude this is because of the reasons that feminists put forth. They have no evidence to support this and their theories about why this is, are questionable at best. That is because feminism starts with the conclusion that society is misogynist and that we live in a patriarchy and then look for evidence to support this.
If we want to actually find out why this disparity between men and women actually exists, we can't do what feminism does and look for evidence to support the conclusion.
To an extent I agree with you (hence my phrasing above). It's possible that patriarchy (as used by feminism) is at this point a term of art, at which point we could stop quibbling about the original meaning of the word, and start addressing the complaints that use it for framing.
I can't do that. Because the image being evoked by the feminists using partriarchy in this manner is *inentionally* the definition I cited, and only when called out on it do they retreat to the "well we really mean this other thing that isn't the definition of the word" -- it's intentionally cheap and poor debate tactics.
But lets analyze it from the correct perspective, and the correct defintion of the word.
So what percentage would you describe as largely excluded?
The key issue here, is what does "excluded" mean. Does it mean not present, or not allowed to be present? Because I would interpret it the other way. There's not a problem with the president/representatives because there is nothing prohibiting women (or even making it more difficult for women to get in) within the system. There may be a sexism problem in the electorate, but then thats not a patriarchy. Especially not when 50% of the voters are women.
There's historically 100% exclusion from presidency; it doesn't get much higher than that.
Perhaps if Congress and the Senate were 10% female rather than 20%? Would that cross the line into patriarchy?
Like I said above, there *isn't* an exclusion. At all. At least not in the sense of women being in any wya prohibited or prevented from receiving those positions.
Again, a sexist electorate does not = a patriarchy. The point being that identifying an imbalance of currently serving sexes does not mean that there is a patriarchy.
Ultimately, the problem with arguing against the patriarchy is that there is no secret cabal of men trying to stop women from getting into power. Is the instituionalized cultural sexism? Perhaps -- but *that's not a patriarchy*
You could certainly engage with the patriarchy-as-term-of-art definition, especially as it's not that different from yours. You choose not to. It seems reasonable that women would choose a term that evokes the imagery of men dominating positions of power, when they _do_. Your quibble is that the patriarchy isn't legally enforced. But your definition doesn't specify _legally_, just that women are excluded. Which they are.
If women aren't prevented from reaching positions of power, how are the dismally small proportions of women in positions of power reached? You call it institutionalised sexism, meaning the exclusion is encoded in society and culture rather than law. That's exactly what term-of-art-patriarchy, that you choose not to engage with, by quibbling about legality when that's not even in the definition you cited, is talking about.
Whether or not the situation is rare completely ignores the point.
As Blinking Spirit said, men in this situation end up dying in favor of women and children. The lives of men in this case are disposable and is considered less valuable. Feminism is quick to dismiss what the narrative says about men in these situations in favor of an opposing world view that fits their conclusion instead of looking at reality for what it is.
Economists Mikael Elinder and Oscar Erixson from the University of Uppsala in Sweden have studied 18 maritime disasters that took place between 1852 and 2011. Writing in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they reveal that women and children only enjoyed a better outcome than men when the Birkenhead and Titanic went down. In every other case, men had the advantage, with an average survival rate of 37 percent compared to 27 percent for women and 15 percent for children. Rather than “women and children first,” Elinder said, passengers and crew on stricken vessels have historically abided by a very different axiom: “Every man for himself.”
How, then, did the “women and children first” myth originate? Elinder pointed to the work of Cambridge University historian Lucy Delap, who has argued that the British ruling elite during the Edwardian era spread the notion that men put women’s interests first. Their goal, according to Delap, was to shatter the case for female suffrage.
At best, "women and children" first is a trope from movies and TV. It doesn't seem to actually play out in the event of a disaster. It paints women as closer to children than to men, but it doesn't seem that people are actually dying for it.
:Let's jsut accept the fact that I'm not going to engage you utilizing intentionally deceptive, orwellian, terms designed to promote one sid e as being inherently correct, unless those terms actually get engrained in culture sufficiently that they have taken on secondary meaning.
Suffice to say "the patriarchy" has not.
Another example would be pro-choice/pro-life (admittedly orwellian terms that are sufficiently established to have secondary meaning) and anti-choice (an orwellian term that is *not* ingrained in culture and language and has not acquried secondary meaning). "The patriarchy" as a term is analogous to anti-choice, not to pro-choice/pro-life.
If women aren't prevented from reaching positions of power, how are the dismally small proportions of women in positions of power reached?
Out of curiousity (and I don't know the answer to this) what percentage of women that ran for office (in a legit race) won? On that note, it's hardly intellectually honest to cite the presidential statistics when there was (and is) a legitimate contender for the office that is a women. If she had beaten Obama in the prelims, odds are extremely good that she would have been president.
bLatch I can't cite anything right now because I am on my phone, but voting habits I would guess remain the same regardless of the gender of the candidate.
Tiax you are ignoring the fact that men in those situations have historically been viewed as being disposable in life or death situations while women and children have not, by society. Yes, they have been grouped together, but grouped together as being more valuable than men in those situations. I would argue that is good for women and children but not for the men who end up dead.
You're missing the point, the narrative of feminist theory relies on the assumption that society is inherently misogynistic and that we live in a patriarchy. If that were true, such a policy would not even exist in the first place. How it actually plays out is not relevant, the fact that it actually exists at all flies in direct opposition to what feminists say.
Quote from Tiax »
At best, "women and children" first is a trope from movies and TV. It doesn't seem to actually play out in the event of a disaster. It paints women as closer to children than to men, but it doesn't seem that people are actually dying for it.
I remember sometime last year speaking a bit with Crashing00 about the concept of privilege and I told him I hadn’t really made up my mind yet and decided to look more deeply into feminist theory and its claims more. Still Crashing00 made some very good points that I did not and still do not disagree with. I feel we mostly just talked past each other… however, one thing that he did say really stuck out in my mind and that was basically that privilege theory doesn’t really help anyone.
I maintained at that time that privilege theory might prove useful in pointing out areas of inequality, but overall I agree (and agreed) with Crashing00 a year or so ago that privilege theory isn’t really useful as far as actually helping people. So I decided to edify myself on the subject a lot more and am creating this thread to talk about some of my thoughts on the subject and why I feel that feminism (specifically, 3rd wave feminism) doesn’t really help anyone and that in many cases, simply ignores or hurts its own cause(s).
When I was first exposed to the idea of what privilege was, it seemed like a plausible concept. As I understood it then, it was sort of the idea that in certain cases being a group has an unearned advantage(s) in society, which leads to the oppression of non-privileged groups. However, my hesitation at that time in fully supporting this idea was because from what I did know about privilege, it didn’t really sound very well thought out and/or perhaps it was because I needed to learn more.
Unfortunately it seems to be more of a case of the former rather than the latter.
The problem with this concept is that by the feminist definition it means “the concept of privilege refers to any advantage that is unearned, exclusive, and socially conferred. For example, white people are generally assumed to be law-abiding until they show some sign that they are not, while people of color are routinely assumed to be criminals or potential criminals until they show they’re not.”
Now on the surface this seems like something I could get behind, no one should be assumed to be a criminal based on race. However, as I said, this concept isn’t well thought out. Societal dynamics are not the same across the country, state, or city and it seems that when this term is used, it refers to everything very generally.
Just because there might be a race problem in one city – does not mean that there is a race problem in every city or even every part of a city. Perhaps even more importantly here is to not just jump and say that the problem is a racial one and not say the police making assumptions about people living in an area where high crime rates exist and most of the people who live there happen to be mostly of one particular race.
Sexism is another example, just because one work place environment has sexism, does not mean that all companies do or that all areas of said company have sexism.
Certainly, both racism and sexism exist – but it seems that feminists are all too happy to ignore facts and/or opinions that contradict their world view or just not care about them in the first place and instead would rather just spread their ideology.
For example, let’s look at the game industry. I’ve worked done some freelance work in the indie game industry and to be honest, I haven’t worked with any women. I don’t think that the industry is sexist, but rather I think that in some professions one gender likes working in that profession more than the other. This is true for both genders, nursing for example, is absolutely dominated by females to the tune of 91% of nurses are female.
In the game industry the statistics are flipped in favor of men and a quick search of google and you have tons and tons of stories about how sexist the video game industry is. At least, this is what feminists would like you to believe. Their proof? Testimonials from individuals and death/rape threats, etc. that they receive on the internet from trolls.
My problem with this is, testimonials don’t provide any evidence that there is actually a problem within the industry itself other than that individual(s) have to deal with a few jerks at work and trolls on the internet. Here’s the thing about trolls, they are looking to get a reaction by saying things that they think will get that reaction out of an individual. So for example, if a troll wants to get a reaction out of a female – they’ll use rape threats and trolls don’t affect just women, they also affect men at least just as much and men certainly aren't the only ones guilty of trolling. But trolls and a few testimonials do not speak for all of society and it’s absurd to think that they do.
The other problem I had with the idea of how feminism uses the term.
It seems as though feminists want to use the term in order to promote conversation and discussion, but in practice, it’s used to more often than not to silence anyone with an opposing opinion. Whether or not an individual has all of the privilege in the world or no privilege at all has nothing to do with whether or not that individuals arguments are cogent.
I say this because I’ve spoken with and seen feminists invalidate what I and others have to say because by virtue of being a man that somehow makes me want to uphold the patriarchy or if the a woman says something similar, it’s because she’s been brain washed by the patriarchy. Which brings me to my next topic…
I say this because I’ve spoken with and seen feminists invalidate what I and others have to say because by virtue of being a man that somehow makes me want to uphold the patriarchy or if the a woman says something similar, it’s because she’s been brain washed by the patriarchy. Which brings me to my next topic…
The Patriarchy
According to feminism, patriarchy describes a general structure in which men have power over women. Society (n.) is the entirety of relations of a community. A patriarchal society consists of a male-dominated power structure throughout organized society and in individual relationships.
Well…do we live in a patriarchal society? Certainly, feminists are happy to point to laws that discriminate against women’s reproductive rights as proof that we do. But one has to wonder that if we did live in a patriarchy, then why don’t men have any reproductive rights? Why do men face overwhelming discrimination in family courts? Why is it that when little boys are raped by older woman and end up pregnant, the boy must pay his rapist child support? Why is it that 28.1% of men (compared to 32.9% of women) are victims of domestic violence but there are no battered men's shelters? Why is it that unemployment is rates between both genders is pretty even, but tends to favor women slightly? Why do we have an entire branch of the federal government dedicated to women’s health, but none for men’s health, even though men are more likely to die sooner than women of natural causes, are 94% more likely to die in the work place despite making up 54% of the workforce, or more often as a result of homicide, or suicide?
One would think that if we were living in a patriarchy, these things should be tilted more in the favor of men, rather than women. I don’t see the patriarchy and it doesn’t seem like the facts support this. Point this out to feminists though and you’re likely to be labeled a misogynist if you’re a man or if you’re a woman, then you suffer from a case of internalized misogyny because you’ve been brainwashed by the patriarchy, because men hate women.
Which leads me to my last topic…
I absolutely detest this word because every time I have seen it used by feminist, it never seems to be used to actually point out an actual case of misogyny but is instead used as a shaming tactic or to describe some social injustice which may or may not even exist in the first place. Instead, feminist theory seems to think that our society suffers from internalized misogyny. It's in fact so internalized within ourselves that it's normal.
If that were the case, Why is it that when most men are called a misogynist, feel shame and feel the need to explain that they are not in fact a misogynist? Why would this word have any power at all, since this is a normal, accepted part of society? Perhaps the reason this word has the power to make men feel shame and/or explain that they aren’t misogynists is because society is not misogynistic and men are not raised to hate women.
Men are taught not to hit women. Even if a women hits a man, men are not taught not to hit back. In my experiences growing up, even my adopted father would tell me that he would beat the living ***** out of me if I ever hit a woman. I’ve seen women hit men (myself included) while proclaiming that as a man, the man couldn’t hit them back. Why would a culture that is internally misogynistic, teach men that this is a value?
In fact, men have been taught to put women and children above themselves for a long time, even in cases of life and death. Men are expected to protect their families. Men are expected to go to war, fight, and die for their country. Why, if men have all of this internal misogyny, would a man sacrifice himself in order to save their wife and children without so much as a second thought? Why would we as a culture value his sacrifice for doing so? Why would Arland D. Williams sacrifice his own life to save other passengers, including women?
Karen Straughan of Girl writes what? has a fantastic quote, that I find I agree with:
"The accusation could only have the power to shame and silence someone if society was not pervasively misogynistic. The power of an insult is the power to bring to bear the weight of society’s disapproval. It requires the culture in general to disapprove of the behavior, attitude, or attribute targeted by the insult. The fact that an accusation of misogyny can work as a shaming tactic at all to silence and bully people, or to damage their lives and social status, would actually reflect that our society is not pervasively misogynistic–at least, not in the dictionary sense that misogyny is an attitude of hatred or dislike of women. The fact that this accusation seems particularly effective when leveled against men also demonstrates that Quinn Norton is kinda full of *****. If hating women were a value normalized by the culture, and if men were raised to hate women, then calling a man a misogynist would have as much power as shouting “******-hater” at a Klansman in 1920."
I find that I have to agree with that sentiment. Now I'm going to conclude the topic here because I've been writing this for a while and I think I can add more through discussion in this thread. This should be enough to get the ball rolling though, I think. That being said, I don't think that everything that comes out of feminism is bad, my problem is mostly with 3rd wave feminism ideology, logic, and language. It has become dogmatic at the expense of logic and reason. The greater travesty is that more often than not 3rd wave feminism starts with a conclusion and then seeks to find evidence in order to support it's conclusions. I think, that 3rd wave feminism serves very little purpose these days and actually seems to undermine it's own efforts. Perhaps this could be improved, but it has to change from it's dogmatic formula and it certainly can't do it by using confirmation bias as a starting point for identifying problems.
Art is life itself.
Well, that's not what I was arguing there:
The point I was making is that it isn't an example of inequality.
Out of all of that you nitpick on this point?
Comparing the pay of nurses to all other medical professionals is kind of dumb. If I remember correctly... generic nursing only requires a 4 year degree while being a doctor requires a lot more school... saying nurses make less than other medical professionals is like saying IT techs make less than software engineers... yeah no kidding. Go to school longer and usually you make more money in your given field. What would be more appropriate would be to compare nursing to other careers of similar schooling requirements keeping in mind that I dont think nurses can advance in career like many other careers since it requires more schooling versus an Engineer that can be given promotions based solely on experience.
Except statistically, men are indeed, on average, better at math (men and women have different strenghs)
Also, medicine has more women entering the field than men right now. I mean doctor medicine, not nursing medicine. In addition, there are moe women then men in university right now. (At least in developped countries)
I think my university is at 41% male to 59% female.
Because you're of the opinion that only the white male members of mtgsalvation have enough time for entertainment?
Do you care to address any of his actual points, or do you just want to make snide comments?
I didn't say that.
What I said was that OP comes from a background that gave him the ability to have the education required to write his post, an economic background stable enough to allow the internet access required to post and conduct research, and a life situation easy enough to allow him the time required to to give him enough free time to do all this. However despite all the above he was unable to understand their value and his advantage in having them over people who didn't.
Only I said it much quicker the first time. I liked its flow better too.
No, you really didn't say it "much quicker". You didn't say it at all. You snarkily posted "lol, privilege!" as a dismissal of all his points without actually addressing any of them. What's more you appear to have completely missed his entire point, to the level that I have to ask whether you actually read the post at all.
One of his points (and there were mutliple) was about how useless the dismissal of someones arguments with the statement of "lol, privilege" rather than actually addressing the points is. Since you are guilty of that level of dismissal, lets start there.
Why do you think "lol, privilege" is an adequate rebuttal to any of the points that the OP raised?
priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/Submit
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
Are you saying that the OP was those "advantages" unfairly because of some special trait or grouping he falls into?
Yes and no. It's also a statement that the women and the children are more valuable then the men, and thus misandrist. It's an interesting facet of chivalry that it is simultaneously sexist against *everyone*.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The federal government?
Number of female presidents (ever): 0
Current percentage of female senators: 20.0%
Current percentage of females in congress: 18.2%
I'd say that's more patriarchal than not, and certainly tilted in favour of men.
(The report you linked says that men reported less need for support services post-violence, and were less likely to receive them. Also that women are more likely to experience most forms of intimate partner violence, and to experience them more frequently. Both genders suffer under the type of sexism that feminists describe as patriarchy.)
The problem is that "patriarchy" is not a type of sexism. The patriarchy is "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." While a patriarchy is sexist, we do not live in a patriarchy. Nor does the existence of sexism (even institutionalized sexism, if it exists) make it a patriarchy.
Use of the word patriarchy to mean something completely different is a big problem, and is one of the reasons why Internet feminist run into so many problems trying to make their points.
To an extent I agree with you (hence my phrasing above). It's possible that patriarchy (as used by feminism) is at this point a term of art, at which point we could stop quibbling about the original meaning of the word, and start addressing the complaints that use it for framing.
So what percentage would you describe as largely excluded?
There's historically 100% exclusion from presidency; it doesn't get much higher than that.
Perhaps if Congress and the Senate were 10% female rather than 20%? Would that cross the line into patriarchy?
Maybe you mean financial power? 4.8% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are women.
Judicial power? Women currently make up a shockingly high 33% of Supreme Court Justices, so I guess they're not largely excluded there. (Although there has only been one woman Justice, ever, aside from the three currently serving, so there's that.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I can't do that. Because the image being evoked by the feminists using partriarchy in this manner is *inentionally* the definition I cited, and only when called out on it do they retreat to the "well we really mean this other thing that isn't the definition of the word" -- it's intentionally cheap and poor debate tactics.
But lets analyze it from the correct perspective, and the correct defintion of the word.
The key issue here, is what does "excluded" mean. Does it mean not present, or not allowed to be present? Because I would interpret it the other way. There's not a problem with the president/representatives because there is nothing prohibiting women (or even making it more difficult for women to get in) within the system. There may be a sexism problem in the electorate, but then thats not a patriarchy. Especially not when 50% of the voters are women.
Like I said above, there *isn't* an exclusion. At all. At least not in the sense of women being in any wya prohibited or prevented from receiving those positions.
Again, a sexist electorate does not = a patriarchy. The point being that identifying an imbalance of currently serving sexes does not mean that there is a patriarchy.
Ultimately, the problem with arguing against the patriarchy is that there is no secret cabal of men trying to stop women from getting into power. Is the instituionalized cultural sexism? Perhaps -- but *that's not a patriarchy*
Actually, I didn't say that privilege doesn't exist, I think that it does to some degree. My point is that privilege, even if it exists, isn't actually helpful in identifying or helping anyone and that privilege theory is not very well thought out. The other problem with this concept is doing exactly what you are doing here. You are attempting to dismiss everything I said based on assumptions you are making about my background, when in fact you know nothing about what my background is, how long it took me to write this, or anything at all about me as a person.
Whether or not the situation is rare completely ignores the point.
As Blinking Spirit said, men in this situation end up dying in favor of women and children. The lives of men in this case are disposable and is considered less valuable. Feminism is quick to dismiss what the narrative says about men in these situations in favor of an opposing world view that fits their conclusion instead of looking at reality for what it is.
Is it though?
What laws or policy do we have that prevent women from running for office? When women do run for office, why do they win at all if we live in a patriarchal and misogynistic society?
Hillary Clinton for example ran for office against President Obama during the primaries, but didn't win. Are you going to conclude that this is because of patriarchy and misogynist attitudes about women - or is it more likely that more voters just happened to support Obama than Clinton?
How can we make the assumption that the reason each voter decided not to vote for Clinton is because of some inherent internal patriarchal and misogynist system?
While the men to women ratio in congress might tilt in the favor of men, there is no compelling reason to conclude this is because of the reasons that feminists put forth. They have no evidence to support this and their theories about why this is, are questionable at best. That is because feminism starts with the conclusion that society is misogynist and that we live in a patriarchy and then look for evidence to support this.
If we want to actually find out why this disparity between men and women actually exists, we can't do what feminism does and look for evidence to support the conclusion.
You could certainly engage with the patriarchy-as-term-of-art definition, especially as it's not that different from yours. You choose not to. It seems reasonable that women would choose a term that evokes the imagery of men dominating positions of power, when they _do_. Your quibble is that the patriarchy isn't legally enforced. But your definition doesn't specify _legally_, just that women are excluded. Which they are.
If women aren't prevented from reaching positions of power, how are the dismally small proportions of women in positions of power reached? You call it institutionalised sexism, meaning the exclusion is encoded in society and culture rather than law. That's exactly what term-of-art-patriarchy, that you choose not to engage with, by quibbling about legality when that's not even in the definition you cited, is talking about.
I'm not even sure it's true that men in that situation end up dying more. http://www.history.com/news/women-and-children-first-on-sinking-ships-its-every-man-for-himself
At best, "women and children" first is a trope from movies and TV. It doesn't seem to actually play out in the event of a disaster. It paints women as closer to children than to men, but it doesn't seem that people are actually dying for it.
Suffice to say "the patriarchy" has not.
Another example would be pro-choice/pro-life (admittedly orwellian terms that are sufficiently established to have secondary meaning) and anti-choice (an orwellian term that is *not* ingrained in culture and language and has not acquried secondary meaning). "The patriarchy" as a term is analogous to anti-choice, not to pro-choice/pro-life.
Out of curiousity (and I don't know the answer to this) what percentage of women that ran for office (in a legit race) won? On that note, it's hardly intellectually honest to cite the presidential statistics when there was (and is) a legitimate contender for the office that is a women. If she had beaten Obama in the prelims, odds are extremely good that she would have been president.
Tiax you are ignoring the fact that men in those situations have historically been viewed as being disposable in life or death situations while women and children have not, by society. Yes, they have been grouped together, but grouped together as being more valuable than men in those situations. I would argue that is good for women and children but not for the men who end up dead.
You're missing the point, the narrative of feminist theory relies on the assumption that society is inherently misogynistic and that we live in a patriarchy. If that were true, such a policy would not even exist in the first place. How it actually plays out is not relevant, the fact that it actually exists at all flies in direct opposition to what feminists say.
Except when that actually has been the case.