more thoughts on false consciousness
September 4, 2006 by thinking girl
you know, the more I think about this false consciousness stuff, the more I think that where it applies most clearly is to the ruling class, those benefitting by social structures that oppress others. (I know, this isn’t a new insight and is represented in Marxist literature.) Internalized oppression is a phenomenon that isn’t to be taken lightly, which is kind of what this post is playing around with, but also important is to recognize that those who are benefitted by patriarchy, in this case, but also by other oppressive systems notably racism and heterosexism do not realize that they benefit, or that the structures are the way they are.
Jess’s comment on the false consciousness post brought this to mind for me whilst I was in the shower - I do my best thinking there, I swear to y’all! - about the guy who emailed me a couple months back resisting feminism so strongly and denying that women are still oppressed by gender roles. I think a lot of men simply don’t want to admit that they are privileged and benefit from the oppression of women. I also think a lot of men don’t recognize that we’re talking about social constructions that have occurred over hundreds and hundreds of years, and not a result of biology or natural selection or evolution. so false consciousness applies most directly to these people, I think, and also contributing to this is the liberal ideology that we all get to where we are based on our own abilities and merit and nothing else. so when rich white men look around and see an absence of women, of people of colour, of disabled people, of gay/lesbian/bi/trans people, they think there is something inherently superior about them, that they have worked hard and look at all those other white rich men who have worked hard and those lazy stupid “others” no matter how hard they work can never get to the same position because they are “naturally” and inherently inferior. The tokens who do make it up the ladder of success are used as evidence of the american dream - not as evidence of people in control of networks who decide a black woman would be good for ratings, for example… but for so many people, the american dream is nothing but a slap in the face as they struggle againt socially constructed barriers to success. It’s an insult, because the same system that tells us that anyone can do anything if they try hard enough rewards people based on luck - the luck of one’s gender, race, sexual preference, ability, etc. So the message spoken out the side of our society’s mouth is that some people will never really be successful because they don’t fit the mold. Those who do fit the mold simply are made to believe their hard work got them to where they are, and so are the tokens who use their own experience as fuel for the white capitalist patriarchy’s fire. But what does that say about those who can’t overcome socially constructed obstacles? It says: They are lazy, they are stupid, they want to fail, they “choose” the lives they have, they are undeserving of social assistance, they are unworthy of sympathy. Or, there is something wrong with them. It’s the way they were raise (blame the mother), it’s their religion, it’s the size of their brains, it’s because they are biologically inferior, their IQs are “naturally” lower. ETC.
Unearned privilege gets some people very far in the world without even having to try. Combine that with a culture that encourages their every effort and a system that supports them, and it sure does seem like they deserve what they get in life - and by contrast, we ALL deserve waht we get in life. Sounds like false consciousness to me. I think we’d be smart to acknowledge that.
“you know, the more I think about this false consciousness stuff, the more I think that where it applies most clearly is to the ruling class, those benefitting by social structures that oppress others.”
in other words, those that disagree with you…
we all have our illusions…
p.s. - if anything, based on my *very* limited understanding of marx - i think he said quite the opposite…
the oppressors know *exactly* what they are doing… “religion is the opiate of the masses” and all that… i.e. the powers deliberate create and cultivate social institutions to keep the masses brainwashed to preserve the status quo…
that was rather antagonistic, Mike. and rather indicative of what I was getting at in this post.
It would be nice if you actually thought about what I said rather than making a knee-jerk reaction to it. I actually think quite carefully about what you have to say to me, even when it’s kind of nitpicky and splitting hairs. The same courtesy would be appreciated. Of course, you’re welcome to disagree, but it would be nice if you actually thought about my position a little bit first. Jsut an idea.
and you’re right, Marx didn’t write about what I’m talking about, another Marxist scholar did, named Georg Lukas. His theory was that the working class was the first to achieve class consciousness and truly understand their place as cogs in the machine of capitalism - the “living negation of capitalism” and Marx himself put it (in the Communist Manifesto), while the bourgoisie could only really achieve a false consciousness because they tend to universalize the current experience as eternal rather than seeing it in the context of history. Foucault would agree here, I think, in that he didn’t see power structures as something a group of people sat down around a table and decided on. Foucault was well-versed in Marxism himself (although he didn’t agree with much of Marx’s analyses of pwoer). so there’s a couple of references if you like, since you questioned me about it.
oy vey…
i think do about your posts - and while that comment was intentionally provocative - i would not characterize it as antagonistic
my point simply is and was - that we all suffer from illusions - you, me, pres. bush, etc…- do you disagree with that?… if you agree that we all suffer from illusions, then why single out one letter you’ve received and use that to characterize a whole group and hold that group up as the poster children for false consciousness or whatever - i mean - do you *really* have any evidence of this - or are you still annoyed with the letter you received - which, if you recall when you posted it - i found the writer to be ill-informed in some ways and inappropriate in others….
as far as my comments being “rather indicative of what I was getting at in this post.” - how so? rude? eh - i don’t see it - but could be considered that, i guess… but even allowing ir is rude can you really extrapolate that into a treatise on class consciousness, privilege and the patriarchy - wow - you are good…maybe i am having a bad day - maybe it was meant to be sarcastic (a quality you admire, iirc) and just missed the mark…sheesh….i am genuinely sorry if you took offense with the tone of the comment - though i stand by my main point - we, as humans, are fraught with the illusion - as the buddha taught…and there is no benefit for pointing at one demographic group or another and claiming they suffer from illusions more than others (well, maybe buddhist monks are less inflicted)
you make grandiose statments that i feel deserve to be questioned - and when i do so, i am accused of being nitpicky - ok - whatever… a philosopher ought to welcome those that question - i wouldn’t expect you’d only want a bunch of commenters telling you how brilliant you are and agreeing with every thing you say….i can’t recall anything i’ve commented on that i would consider nitpicky - of course nitpicky-ness is in the eye of the beholder….
as far as the ostensible point of your post… working class achieving class consciousness - well, why do so many of them vote republican… i mean look around the real world - examine your own experiences *in total* not just one letter - forget what these theorists say - heck - you can find some scholar, professor, theorist to support almost any theory - can you honestly see much evidence for the working class having achieved class consciousness - that is to a substantially greater degree than any other group?
that’s better.
I didn’t find your comment rude. I found it snide and vague - and as I said, antagonistic. You accuse me of not fleshing things out, but you failed to do it yourself with your first comment. So, good, and thanks for explaining yourself a bit further.
yes, I think we all do suffer from illusions. Indeed. Sometimes, a whole bunch of people suffer from the same one. Funny. Like Republicans.
I thought your comment was indicative of what I was getting at with the post considering how quickly you responded to it after I posted - less than 10 minutes. Maybe you’re a really fast reader and you had time to read the link I provided to the male privilege checklist as well, and had time to think about all that, and respond thoughtfully, in 9 minutes. Well, seeing as you didn’t exactly respond thoughtfully, you can see how I might assume you didn’t read everything AND think about it for more than a minute before sending off your snide comment. Pardon me for thinking that seemed a bit arrogant, and maybe a bit like clinging to privilege, and perhaps indicative of a kneejerk reaction.
anyway, feel free to continue to challenge me on my “grandiose statements” anytime. I don’t mind sarcasm, in fact I quite enjoy it, but I didn’t read that comment as sarcastic. I don’t think all your comments are nitpicky, just sometimes, and no I can’t give a specific example, I’d have to look back at them all to do that and I don’t have time. and as you say, it’s subjective anyway. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, I like when people don’t because it forces me to further define my ideas in response. This whole site is about my ideas, drawn from the work of others and my own experience, and it is all a work-in-progress - as we all are in life.
and yes, I do think that many oppressed people have a fairly good understanding of the cause of their oppression, while many of the ruling class don’t acknowledge that their actions are both the result of social structures that benefit them and contributing to the oppression of others. Class consciousness doesn’t have to do with how people vote necessarily, but understanding their social position, and that understanding doesn’t necessarily lead to revolution. I do think most oppressed people have an understanding that they are oppressed, and why, in at least a basic sense, like because they are women or poor or non-white. Those who don’t, well, Marxists would call that false consciousness. And, I think there IS a benefit to pointing out ways in which a whole specific group of people are under the same illusion in the same way. That’s called initiating social change.
Uh, I just finished writing this when I noticed that I’m going to cross-post slightly with what TG just wrote. Oh well. It ended up being way too long, so I’m going to break it into two comments.
Mike: I think the ‘working class voting for Republicans’ thing is the quintessential definition of ‘false consciousness’.
Having said that, I think you do raise a legitimate point about: how does one go about verifying what is and is not ‘false consciousness’? How does one distinguish between ‘false consciousness’ and, uh, ‘true consciousness’ (for want of a better phrase)?
In the case of the working class Republican voters, I would point to evidence that shows they are materially worse off under Republican policies than they would have been under Democratic policies, and in particular, ways in which the working class was lied to about how Republican policies actually affect them (i.e. they were told their ‘taxes were cut’ when in fact there has been a massive and ongoing shift of the tax burden from the rich to the working class under Reagan, Bush, and Bush II).
In short, one has to objectively look at the evidence, and there needs to be an element that the class suffering from ‘false consciousness’ thinks things play out differently than they actually do. The key concept is objectivity in the gathering of evidence … interpersonal verifiability, 2+2=4, logical coherence, etc.
TG: FWIW, I reviewed the male privilege checklist you alluded to, and found:
17 True
5 True But Irrelevant
2 Less True Than It Used To Be
6 False
8 Misleading
6 Questionable
In short, with items of widely varying importance and with considerable redundancy among some items, I found more false, misleading, or questionable assertions than what I considered to be true and relevant ones. (The ‘not relevant’ has to do with things being interpreted to ‘cast aspersion on my gender’, and while I don’t particularly want to get into why I think this isn’t relevant, I will certainly grant that this is a highly subjective and debatable personal judgment of mine.)
The ‘misleadings’ generally refer to items for which the specific item refers to a masculine privilege, but omits the mention of a closely related masculine penalty. The ‘questionables’ refer to items for which I’d want to see actual data before taking the assertion at face value.
I was particularly amused by the assertion that If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex. LOL! Apparently the author has no clue about how car insurance is priced in the U.S.A.
That, of course, does not include many major items that could be written under the aegis of “feminine privilege.” I came up with 17, which I was going to post but that would make this comment extremely long and I didn’t want to be rude. But if you’re curious, I’ll post (it’s a little under 400 words).
yes, please, I’m interested to hear what you would think feminine privileges are.
1. If I was born in North America since WWII, I can be almost certain that my genitals were not mutilated soon after birth, without aenesthesia.
2. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, I will not have to worry about my sexuality being questioned, or have the friend pull away in unease.
3. If I seek a hug in solace from a close friend, I will not have to worry about how my friend will interpret the gesture, and whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question.
4. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.
5. I am frequently the emotional center of my family.
6. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openess’, and ’softness’.
7. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question.
8. If I interact with other people’s children — particularly people I don’t know very well — I do not have to worry much about the interaction being misinterpreted.
9. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man.
10. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man.
11. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.
12. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry.
13. I will probably live longer than the average man.
14. Most people in society probably will not see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise.
15. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate for someone, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man.
16. If I have trouble accommodating to some aspects of gender demands, I have a much greater chance than a man does of having a sympathetic audience to discuss the unreasonableness of the demand, and a much lower chance that this failure to accommodate will be seen as signifying my fundamental inadequacy as a member of my gender.
17. I have a much greater ability to form close, intimate friendships than a man does.
and can you explain why you think it irrelevant that men face less sexual harrassment in the workplace - do you not see that as privilege? and why men being taught not to fear walking alone at night and women do is misleading in terms of male privilege?
did you also read the original article this was based on by Peggy McIntosh? I’d be interested to know what you think might be true or irrelevant or false from that article. Being white, I found the original to be overwhelming evidence of privilege I never thought about before attached to my skin colour.
well, i don’t buy that the oppressed are necessarily more enlightened than the oppressors… i think groups that have experienced bias know they have experienced bias - but so do the oppressors - in equal measures -who knows - i don’t have the stats and i doubt you do either…
when thinking of class issues, i think voting records are at least somewhat relevant… without having the exact numbers at my fingertips - though i am sure they are out there as i’ve recalled seeing them - lower and working class white males vote republican - in droves - yet, republicans have a huge “big business” bias - businesses which routinely exploit the working class - (yep even including lower class white males - though, admittedly, this is not the most exploited group on earth)…republicans spout pro big business rhetoric -which i think has resonance with some because of the anti-tax aspect among with other reasons - and a lot of working folks eat it up - they are happy with the promises of pennies while businesses rake in the real money - that to me is a glaring cases of “false consciousness”… i’m pretty confident the true exploiters - those that *really* benefit from the system - know pretty well what the score is….
TG - “And, I think there IS a benefit to pointing out ways in which a whole specific group of people are under the same illusion in the same way.”
i really don’t think you mean this - i mean - you *know* that every man suffers from this illusion? really? how?… how can you say the entire group suffers from that illusion - maybe you think that is nit-picking - but another sweeping statement with no support that deserves question… on what basis do you make that statement - again, the one letter?- even my (perceived) knee jerk(g*d bless rss feeds) - could be take as an indication i jump to conclusions -doesn’t seem to have any relevance to the issue - now does it???
i ran through the list of male privilege - and while i agree with some of the statements - i certainly don’t agree with all - at least not in the black and white form they are presented… but of course, rather than allowing *the possibility* that *gasp* something on the list is wrong, out of context or incomplete - of course, it proves that i suffer from false consciousness….
i mean, when i came up with an admittedly shorter list of the down sides of being male (higher incidents of alcoholism, lower life expectancy, being taught to suppress emotions) - that got no response from you that i am aware of… the statement was made that the qualities associated with masculinity were “inherestly beneficial” - another sweeping statement not well thought out - again, my point was not to claim that “men are oppressed” - but rather the whole notion of gender roles is more complex than you seem to allow…”inherently beneficial” - yeah - maybe from the view of a cold hearted capitalist - not a perspective i’d expect you to take
if “false consciousness” is your topic du jour - why not address a variation of it i would think is even more insidious to your cause - women that believe that the femiminist movement is obsolete… and there are more than a few out there - and they’re not all from the religious right… i would think that would be of particular interest to you…
i don’t get any sense of balance… - the issues are always painted black and white - that is what i find most bothersome - women making wrong choices are characterized as not having free choice because of their oppression - men, on the other hand, can’t seem to win… you characterize that the way men are raised is inherently beneficial - despite a cursory glance would show this is not *entirely* the case…. because of this, apparently, men, like women, only have themselves to blame for their shortcomings/mistakes…we’re full of illusions and apparently many other things…
btw - yes, i do read *very* quickly - not to mention the benefits of rss feeds… while i did not follow the links - mainly because i mistakenly thought they were all to previous posts of yours that i remembered (yep, great memory too…
- my assumption - btw - is that it ought not be required to follow a link to understand a post - if it is, it ought to be quoted and linked….
well, i have to say - ballgames list is, at least as valid as the other list…
again, my point is not to start a p*ssing contest about who has it rougher - but to my previous comments, one ought not be too quick to paint things in black and white…
I’m sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear with that first numbers part. That wasn’t referring to the item #, that was referring to the number of items that I thought fell into that category.
Here is a detailed breakdown of the gender list.
TRUE
2-5-9-10-12-13-14-15-26
33-34-35-36-37-40-41-44 (17 total)
TRUE BUT IRRELEVANT
4-20-21-23-32 (5 total)
LESS TRUE THAN IT USED TO BE
27-42 (2 total)
FALSE
19-22-24-25-29-31 (6 total)
MISLEADING
7-8-16-17-30-38-45-46 (8 total)
QUESTIONABLE
1-3-6-11-18-43 (6 total)
I did, actually, start to read that original Peggy McIntosh article but I stopped. I’ve bookmarked it to get back to it. It’s been a while, but there was certainly a lot of substance there, as I recall. However, I will freely admit I used my ‘white privilege’ card to get out of forcing myself to read it.
I emphatically believe that U.S. policies towards the poor (which are disproportionately black) are appalling, and I adamantly support progressive policies and politicians which seek to change that fact. FWIW.
ok - i went back and saw you did respond, in a manner to my statements that traditional masculine roles can damage men…
see my comment from 12:31 - so as i do not repeat myself - the key point, i think, is that to say masculine roles are inherently beneficial is only when takes a very narrow perspective - and ignores the emotional and physical health of men - does that mean men are oppressed - it wasn’t my intent to claim so - much less to claim that the negative impact pressures on men are *worse* or even *equal* to those on women- i was pointing out - that when one take a larger view - there are downsides to the social pressure on men to be masculine…of course, you seem incapable of acknowledging that…why is that? while, on the whole, i enjoy reading your perspective on a variety of issues your black and white worldview is making it hard for me to continue…and to think - this isn’t coming from a right wing conservative - this is coming from someone who agrees with many of your goals…
please allow me to respond…
1. If I was born in North America since WWII, I can be almost certain that my genitals were not mutilated soon after birth, without aenesthesia.
>> some 20,000 cases of female genital mutilation occur within the US every year. Not nearly the same numbers as for male circumcision, but in many cases these are complete clitoridectomies, in which the woman is significantly less likely to experience sexual pleasure in her lifetime. Also, grown women are pressured by society’s addiction to pornography to undergo genital surgeries for aesthetic reasons, or to re-hymenize after virginity has been lost. I am totally against genital surgery of any kind, for any sex, including hermaphrodites.
2. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, I will not have to worry about my sexuality being questioned, or have the friend pull away in unease.
>>not quite. Many, many - I’d say the majority of women I know do not feel comfortable hugging their female friends. I don’t know why. I feel this way myself at time. Certain friends I hug, certain I do not.
4. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.
>>well, women are often ridiculed for being overly emotional. In some situations, if a woman shows emotion, her concerns are completely dimissed - even if they are quite valid. The ugly stereotype of the hysterical woman rears its head often. Most women - particularly in professional situations - train themselves to suppress emotional reactions in order to be more masculine and taken more seriously.
5. I am frequently the emotional center of my family.
>>this is a benefit how? this is a huge burden in my book. Tending to the emotional needs of an entire family is a lot of work, and can leave no room for tending to her own - which is often necessary, since others do not tend to her emotional needs.
6. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openess’, and ’softness’.
>>Clothes that signify vulnerability… to rape or being attacked? women’s clothing is highly restrictive: it is made of flimsier fabric than men’s, it prevents freedom of movement, and is often impractical should someone want to attack her.
7. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question.
>> see the comments above about emotional burden of femininity and emotional armor. Emotion is devalued in our society - for men AND for women. We worship at the altar of rationalist.
10. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man.
>>yes this is true, but not because men get more depressed or depressed more often than women. Women are the chief consumers of anti-depressants - that pesky emotionality again. Men are not taught to go to the doctor and talk about these things, and women are, which leads to higher suicide rates among men and is definitely not good. But the pressure to be feminine is just as strong and detrimental - it just comes out in different ways. Women’s bodies have been medicalized in ways that mens’ have not. I don’t know that that is a good thing.
11. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.
>>I assume you are not including rape in your definition of violent assault? I’m not sure why, since rape is most definitely a violent assault. Also, the majority of domestic violence cases are not reported. Women are encouraged to cultivate silence around domestic abuse and rape. Stats are very sketchy in this area.
12. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry.
>>again, the emotional aspect of femininity is not exactly valued in society.
13. I will probably live longer than the average man.
>> as long as she’s single: married women live shorter lives than single women. Married men, on the other hand, live longer lives than single men. Marriage benefits men much more than women. AND, older women are among the most financially destitute in our society.
14. Most people in society probably will not see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise.
>> no, instead it will be tied to whether or not I have children, am married, have done those things in the “proper order”, and how tidy my house is.
16. If I have trouble accommodating to some aspects of gender demands, I have a much greater chance than a man does of having a sympathetic audience to discuss the unreasonableness of the demand, and a much lower chance that this failure to accommodate will be seen as signifying my fundamental inadequacy as a member of my gender.
>>I strongly disagree with this one. Have you not witnessed the venom with which women are accused of being “bad” mothers? Or the shaming women face for being overweight? 90% of anorexics are female - 15% of those starve themselves to death. Women aren’t all that supportive of other women when they fail at femininity. I’ve heard women say that “she’s not a REAL woman because she had a C-section”!
17. I have a much greater ability to form close, intimate friendships than a man does.
>>I don’t know that this is true, actually. Female friendships aren’t as pretty as you see in the movies. We all kind of wish we had that kind of support. Female friendships are fraught with gossip, jealousy, competition, meanness, and distrust. They are fragile and often fall apart at the entrance of a new man into one of the women’s lives. It seems to me in my experience and observations that my male friends have unwavering friendships with their male friends that are longstanding - not at all characterised by what I just described of female friendships. Women certainly have strong friendships too, but I don’t think to any larger degree than do men.
I will allow that women are encouraged to develop richer emotional lives than are men, however this is not always a benefit, as society does not place much value on emotion. Also, women who do not show the “appropriate” level of emotion are considered to be cold and unfriendly.
ok, thanks ballgame, I did misunderstand what you meant with the numbers. I’ll check it out in more detail tomorrow.
I appreciate the thought you put into your comment - especially with your list. I don’t agree with much of it, but that’s what debate is about - being open to other perspectives to learn from.
Mike,
I have to be brief, don’t take that as a dismissal of your comments. I just have to go to bed, like, an hour ago.
“you *know* that every man suffers from this illusion? really? how?… how can you say the entire group suffers from that illusion?”
I don’t think all men suffer from any illusion, you’re right. I think *most* men suffer from it - certainly the group I had in top of my mind was white rich hetero abled men. Even still not all these people are under illusions of the same sort either. But my god, it sure seems like it. Even people who consider themselves to be very enlightened can realize they are holding on to illusions about the world and their own life, would you not agree, since you are the one who said everyone suffers from illusions? I’m saying that in our culture, I think there is a common thread about privilege that is unacknowledged by most of the members of this group. Is that more specific? I’ll bet still not acceptable though…
ya know, the world is a place of generalizations. mainly, yes, I deal in them, because the main social structures I deal with impress generalizations upon people in the form of oppression. No group is homogenous. Context always matters. But that doesn’t mean I can’t speak in generalizations, with some caveats. I believe I’ve expressed this before by saying that I look forward to a world in which each individual person can be free to live as she/he sees fit without interference from oppressive social structures.
I’m not saying that not agreeing with me is a sign of suffering from false consciousness. I’m saying that false consciousness is something that we are all perhaps more subject to than we might care to admit, seeing as how this society of ours stuffs things down our throats. As you might recall from my post about false consciousness, I do think that it’s possible to break out of it, but that does take careful reflection rather than kneejerk reactions.
always with the thinking.
cold-hearted capitalism rules society. Thus, masculinity is socially (not necessarily personally) beneficial to the men who practice it from its perspective. (I’m merely being descriptive.) But I think I made clear that I don’t think masculinity is without its downsides. I’ve said that many times in these comments. I’m not at all incapable of admitting that. I’d love to see masculinity change, or die. what I deny is that men are OPPRESSED by masculinity.
I actually don’t see the world in black and white. I see it in many shades of grey, so much that I lean towards moral relativism and the idea that there is no truth, only experience. Yet, feminism makes sense for me, socialism makes sense for me, equality makes sense for me, because I believe many people share the same experiences of living in this world that are not fair and not just. It’s a conflict, for sure, but I’m not a simple girl. I don’t believe we should give up on this work just because we can’t take into account every single person’s personal experience every time we go to take a step outside our doors. Sometimes, policies have to be made for the good of the whole. the policies in place now support structures that are not for the good of the whole - they are good for an elite group. I want to see that change.
I wrote a post called Feminism is Dead a while back. I’ll go back and re-read it and see if the subject needs addressing again. Theo provided a link a little while ago to a story that has relevance here….
enough already. time for bed.
TG, I genuinely appreciate your responsiveness to my comments.
Uh oh. Am I going to need a lawyer?
Wow. Is that really true? If so, that is definitely something I did not know. We are talking about surgeries performed on underage people, and not voluntary choices by adult women, right? Do you have a cite? Sorry to ask, but that number is SO much higher than I would have guessed … by a factor of about a 100!
BTW, if you’re saying that you’re opposed to male circumcision, then you have just earned a boatload of respect from me. I’ve encountered too many feminist bloggers who point out that FGM is worse than male circumcision (which is inarguably correct), but who then conclude that male circumcision is therefore trivial (which is a logical non sequitur and demonstrably false).
As to the assault vulnerability, yes, that DID include rape according to this chart. Can’t, obviously, vouch for the underlying data. I believe you when you imply that a lot of rape goes unreported. On the male side, there are a lot unreported attacks that occur because it was ‘just a fight’ and men are supposed to ‘know how to defend themselves’. (Not trying to imply that there’s an equivalency between your typical brawl and your typical rape.)
“Not trying to imply that there’s an equivalency between your typical brawl and your typical rape.”
really, you are though. and that’s the whole point. you’re minimizing what you feel like minimizing and bringing it all back to your existing point of view.
again, yes, masculinity is as narrowly defined a set of gender rules as femininity. this is inherent to the problem. but when you talk about privilege you get into the hierarchy of it all. “I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people” - yes, and it sucks that men have to wear such an armor, it’s probably one of the most detrimental things about how society works and people interact; but, you see, the thing is that “wearing an emotional armor” is actually valued by society, while emoting is sees as weak and contemptible. put it into perspective. that’s the idea.
the essence of holding privilege is that you don’t and are not forced to take into account other experiences than your own. you say lots of the points on that list are “irrelevant” - i’d ask you what “irrelevant” means, and to whom it might be “irrelevant.” take a step back, read, listen, keep an open mind. see what happens.
but there are a lot of things “valued by society” that are damaging to the individual - that’s pretty much the point - innit… it doesn’t merely *suck* to wear emotional armor - there is a solid connection between this and alcoholism, stress related disease - early death, etc…
again, TG, rather than allowing that there is *any* value in any of the points ballgame lists, you dismiss pretty much each and every one (you skipped a few - maybe becuase *gasp* you recognize some validity to them - or maybe it was getting late…
let’s just pick one….
2. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, I will not have to worry about my sexuality being questioned, or have the friend pull away in unease.
>>not quite. Many, many - I’d say the majority of women I know do not feel comfortable hugging their female friends. I don’t know why. I feel this way myself at time. Certain friends I hug, certain I do not.
now, get serious - women in this society hug each other far more often than men do… majority? you really know that… if anything, to paraphrase one of your arguments - women have the choice whether to be open about normal, healthy displays of emotions or not - if two women choose to hug - no one will bat an eye - that is simply not the case with two men… too suggest otherwise, well - forget about the theorists and look around a bit….
trust me, it doesn’t hurt - either physically, or your overall position - to admit that others have some valid points….
ruxandra: I have to respectfully disagree with you.
My point about the underreporting was simply that the chart I cited was affected by systematic underreporting of the violent victimization of BOTH sexes for different reasons. Getting into a debate about which gender was subjected to more heinous kinds of (reported and unreported) violence did not seem a particularly productive tangent to explore. Men, after all, are more likely to be murdered than women. How many rapes equals one murder? How many assaults equals one rape? etc. etc.
I disagree with your second point. Saying society ‘values’ emotionally armored males is no different than saying that society is pressuring males to be emotionally armored, which is my whole point. This is not a privilege! I see it as feminine privilege that women are far less likely to have their emoting seen as contemptible than men (at least outside of the work world).
If “the essence of holding privilege is that you don’t and are not forced to take into account other experiences than your own”, then men aren’t privileged! (I am saying this to question the logic of your assertion, not to claim that men aren’t privileged, BTW.) Men are constantly having to take the responses of others into account, and having to squelch the spontaneous experience of and expression of their own feelings. That’s the whole point of the ‘emotional armor’!
As to the items I labeled ‘irrelevant’, yes, I freely grant that those were far more subjective judgements than the other categories, and I don’t necessarily expect anyone to buy those labels without considerable discussion.
TG: “ya know, the world is a place of generalizations. ” yeah, well that’s a problem now, innit… generalizations oversimplify the world and reduce the richness and complexity of life - to a degree some of that is necessary (i mean, were one not able to “generalize” that a walking biped that speaks was a human, it would be difficult to do anything…
- beyond a point, however, they become damaging - as they reduce life - and i would argue - lead one down the path of black/white thinking…
tg: “But I think I made clear that I don’t think masculinity is without its downsides. I’ve said that many times in these comments. I’m not at all incapable of admitting that. I’d love to see masculinity change, or die. what I deny is that men are OPPRESSED by masculinity.” - well, who’s splitting hairs now
and of course, while you may have stated this in comments - you also seem to try to refute any mention of the damage of social roles on males - i.e. see your response to ballgames list - virtually a point by pont refutation….
tg: “I actually don’t see the world in black and white.” you know what, i genuinely believe you. what i think you don’t see is that your writing doesn’t reflect that… you seem to feel the need to refute any evidence that conflicts with your overall stand - one of the signs of black and white thinking - see my comments about your comments to ballgame’s list…
there seems to be so much in our society these days about “demonizing” the other side - and i am not even necessarily talking about you here…. if you demonize me - which i don’t think you do - at the very least, you are always nice about it - lol…. i do agree with a lot of what you write - if anything - i question the targets (i.e. makeup ads vs. the practice of wearing makeup; characterizing britney spears as “oppressed”; racism in the show SURVIVOR; ) -while there may be truth about what you write about these - in the grand scheme of things, they seem like small potatoes - and i know what you are likely to say, they just prove how deep oppression is….well, maybe - but still, seems like small potatoes - plus, frankly it is boring to comment in agreeement -makes me feel like - what were ruch limbaugh’s fans called - dittos - or something like that…
the problem with demonizing “the other” is two fold - first of all - most often, it is wrong… secondly - by polarizing the situation, you often back people in the corner - turning off people that otherwise might agree with you….
@ballgame: you (i won’t even respond to mike because i think he’s currently in i-know-better-than-you and i-told-you-so mode) are not hearing what i’m saying.
“Men are constantly having to take the responses of others into account, and having to squelch the spontaneous experience of and expression of their own feelings. That’s the whole point of the ‘emotional armor’!”
please. no, it’s not - the whole point of “emotional armor” is remaining aloof and not taking others into consideration. women are the ones socialized to always think about others and put others first, and they’re held in contempt for it. that’s the status quo.
“society is pressuring males to be emotionally armored, which is my whole point.”
and as i said that’s part of my point but the other part is that society is structured around rewarding and encouraging “emotionally armored” behavior which most men exhibit most of the time. this is how the privileged - and i’m not really going to debate that the patriarchal sytem works around male privilege - are able to both remain unaware of the extent of their privilege and to continue to contribute to oppression (including their own). because by being aloof and non-”emotional” and by not giving a damn about other people, you can also easily dismiss them and their concerns. it’s part of how the oppression works.
you seem to be arguing against the “emotional armor” - but apparently you take this to be all about “expression of your own feelings”. i would say that, to the contrary (and in spite of the emotional armor rule), men always get to express their own “feelings” (aka opinions), to be patronizing and impose their views, which must take precedence over anyone else’s. somehow, everything is always about them. which is actually all privilege.
that’s why i said take a step back, inform yourself and listen. there, that’s a way for you to be all anti-”masculine.”
ps: you can do this yourself (and you should), but since you focused a bit on violence here’s a link where you might learn some basic stuff about violence. it’s important.
r: “@ballgame: you (i won’t even respond to mike because i think he’s currently in i-know-better-than-you and i-told-you-so mode)”
oy vey….
ignore everything i said, if you wish - except this one thing: “there are a lot of things “valued by society” that are damaging to the individual - that’s pretty much the point - innit… it doesn’t merely *suck* to wear emotional armor - there is a solid connection between this and alcoholism, stress related disease - early death, etc…”
please respond to that….or if you’d rather, continue with the name calling…
oy vey indeed. everything i said to ballgame applies to you as well (and there’s no “name calling” - i’m just describing an attitude as i see it). that comment you want me not to ignore sets up a strawman; i didn’t say the emotional armor “sucks” in the sense that it “sucks a little” - i agree that it sucks a lot, if you read carefully you’ll see i even said that it’s one of the worst things about society. i’ve also said very clearly that i think the gender system oppresses men too. BUT. see what else i said. see what tg has said.
and i still think that you just want to win. what’s more, you want to win for fun, because “it is boring to comment in agreeement”… and i’m just not interested in going there. how’s that for emotional armor, hehe.
do i enjoy a good debate: absolutely…
are my comments intended to “win” just for fun: nope - and i resent that - and while “describing an attitude” may be not literally name calling - it ain’t too far from it - and i’m the one that nitpicks…geesh…
to be sure you describe that traditional masculine roles are negative and damaging - but are very vague on who is damaged and how - it seems that your focus - at least in most recent set of comments - is how donning “emotional armor” contributes to the oppression of women and the lack of recognition men have for their privileged status… as opposed to the sort of damage me and ballgame are talking about
so, much of this discussion seem to articulate the point I made a long while ago, that many men don’t FEEL powerful in their own lives - and so find it hard to see that they are in fact privileged by society and that that privilege oppresses others.
Ballgame, thanks for your comments. I will try to dig up that citation for you. I have a feeling it’s from a report I found on UNICEF’s website that offered a statistical analysis of FGC. Most developed countries have anti-FGC legislation in place specifically because refugees and immigrants from countries that practice FGC do seek out these procedures for their daughters. Most legislation also works to try and prevent families from taking their daughters across borders to have the procedure done. Unfortunately, this has a bit of a rebound effect, because when immigrants find out about this legislation, sometimes they subject their very young daughters to FGC - sometimes even in infancy - before they make the move. Also a growing concern is FGC performed in refugee camps while refugees are awaiting transport to a safer area, also usually done on very young girls. FGC is a terrible thing, very deterimental to psychological, physical and sexual health of young girls and women. It also holds a lot of value for the communities in which it is practiced. I wrote a post about FGC a while back after I researched very extensively for a paper I wrote on the topic. I’m writing another one as we speak, but using a Foucaultian framework of disciplinary power to view the practice as a form of internalized oppression.
And yes, the ones I skipped over in your list were ones I found no problem with. I hope you understand I was trying to provide you an alternative perspective on what you view as feminine privilege, rather than being nitpicky or not being able to admit that you have a point. I think you do have some valid points there, but it isn’t as black and white as all that - just as you don’t think Amp’s male privilege list is black and white. I appreciate your participation in the discussion here. Thanks!
tg: “so, much of this discussion seem to articulate the point I made a long while ago, that many men don’t FEEL powerful in their own lives - and so find it hard to see that they are in fact privileged by society and that that privilege oppresses others.”
that’s what you got out of this, huh…
Mike, Mike.
“you seem to feel the need to refute any evidence that conflicts with your overall stand - one of the signs of black and white thinking.”
more like, one of the signs of a philosophy student! This is what I’m trained to do - present a thoughtful argument and respond to objections. I should also point out that when I do present ideas that are shades of grey I am pushed into further defining those ideas by commenters - largely by you! You just accused me of inconsistency between two posts the other day! Come on, you have to admit that one… But overall, I have to say Mike, I find your comments helpful to me, because when I do present something, I want it to be strong, I want to figure out if it works, I want to be sure that’s how I really feel. This whole blog is basically an ongoing, cumulative, and interlocking body of thought, and so much of what I write about builds on other ideas that I’ve already written about. And I appreciate that you out of most of my readers do understand where I”m coming from (even if you don’t agree, you still get this about my work here).
Mike and Ballgame:
when I say that men are not oppressed by masculinity, I am talking about oppression as an interlocking system of institutionalized barriers targetting people based on their membership in specific socially constructed groups that exist in binary opposition to other socially constructed groups that are not subject to these same barriers. Maybe I will draw an analogy to help my point become clearer. You might disagree with me here as well if you wish, but I think it has some merit, so hear me out. (and of course, analogies are not meant to be just exactly the same as the thing they are trying to help illuminate, so bear that in mind as well.) I would say there is about as much negativity associated with being male as there is with being white. Being white for me is nothing to be proud of. My skin signifies a certain degree of social privilege and power that I am uncomfortable about. I am as constructed as “white” as others are constructed as “black” or “native” or “asian” or “latino/a” or “arab.” Though those constructions of whiteness are not positive in my opinion, I would never ever say that they oppress me as a white person. White people are not oppressed by race. They are privileged by it. This despite all the negative associations one can find with whiteness. Does that help at all? please say you understand my point. If not, just say you disagree and we will agree to do so.
Mike again:
I really do not try to demonize men here. I think there is much wrong with the construction of masculinity in this society, and although I don’t believe men to be oppressed AS MEN in this society, I don’t think “men” are the enemy - patriarchy is. I kind of resent that implication, that I’m a man-hating feminist. I love men. I wish certain men would drop off the planet (bush!), mind you! And no, I certainly don’t demonize you here - far from it, I’ve expressed my appreciation and respect for you numerous times.
“while there may be truth about what you write about these - in the grand scheme of things, they seem like small potatoes.”
You did anticipate what I would say about this, but only half of it. One of the things that I don’t often like to talk about but that I believe very much is that the current power structure is not going to change. At least not in my lifetime. I will live my whole life not seeing my dreams of equality for all people come to pass. I don’t like to talk about it because it makes me very sad and frustrated. These are the times I feel nihilistic. But, that is not to say I am without hope. You see, I don’t beleive that power is only a top-down model. (remember my post about empowerment, and the different models of power I talked about?) I believe that we all have a degree of power within us, and this is a very important locus for resistence. If we can resist these oppressive ideologies, even in a small potatoes kind of way, that may be all we can do. But if we ALL do it, every one of us who believes this world is capable of something better than what we’ve got - if we all of us resist with that small power we have inside us, in our own bodies, then we can make changes that might help a few of the people out there who need it most. Concentrating on overcoming power structures as they stand right now would be a quite literally bloody mess. That’s what 9/11 was all about - resistence to a dominating force, and it was devastating and still is to this day as the bodies of Canadian soldiers are flown home weekly as we try to clean up the US’s mess in Afghanistan. I don’t believe in violence. I am a pacifist. Revolution of the kind that would topple patriarchy would require heavy military action, I truly believe that. But, if we can all with our small bodies RESIST… maybe some gains can be made and bit by bit, we can begin to build a better world.
thanks for the kind words - and do notice, when i started talking about “demonizing” the other, i took great pains to separate that from the rest of my comment and to state that i was not really talking about you…other than to joke that at least you were nice about it…lol…
and while, defending a point against all objections may be a characteristic of philosophy students - recognizing that a view might be too narrow, and needs expanded is also a characteristic of philospohy students - at least us amateurs…
I did notice that, thanks.
yes, point taken. as for narrowness of views, I wouldn’t characterize my views that way. I try to give people lots of leeway in my theorizing - like opening the door to the possiblity that people are unduly influenced to make “bad” decisions by negative societal influences, for example, rather than putting all the responsibility for “bad” decisions on individuals (hello britney). Anyway, I think we’ve said enough, and I’m glad we made up. lol.
oh, and Ruxandra? thanks for stepping into my shoes and helping out there, your comments were spot-on.
for me, if i can distill a “moral” from this discussion, it is that one never can truly tell what it is like to be someone else - i.e. men don’t know what it is like to be women and vice versa. this can manifest itself several ways: men may not realize the privileges they benefit from in this unequal society. this is an example of the false consciousness you describe. while, i think i *realized* it to a degree, the checklist you described was instructive of the degree - pointed out some things i might not have considered… however, it is also illusionary for women to assume that because men are privileged, that every aspect of traditional male conditioning is completely beneficial - to all men, all times, in every context… it has damaging aspects as well - to men, themselves - and not just how men view their own status, or feminism or whatever…
i stand by my earlier comment - the comment i think best sums up my feelings here (not even sure it is for this post - but definitely before emotions heated up - well, you know how temperamental we men get…
- anyhow, any time there are societal pressures on a group of people to think, feel or act a certain way, it is likely to be damaging to some individuals…this is true if you are talking about pressure on women to look like supermodels or pressure on men to be macho… to acknowledge this, i think, does not minimize the oppression women have felt, nor does it equate the male and female experience… what i saw as “narrow” views was that i perceived you as being extremely reluctant to acknowledge anything damaging about the conditioning men receive - most notably in your point by point dismissal of ballgame’s list…
on a related note, this reminds me of a discussion about stereotypes in my ed psych class… i may have posted about this before - forgive me if i am repeating myself - i had a great professor and her class was really memorable and made a big impact on me - anyhow, a few of our students related that they felt that some stereotypes were “positive”. (i disagreed with that from the word go, but some of my classmates were insistent) our professor had a great illustration from her real life. she is married to an asian man. the stereotype, which some would hold as a “positive” stereotype, was that asians are great in mathematics…her husband, while a very intelligent man, was not great in math - was instead average… so, he has faced the perception of some that something must be “wrong” with him - he is lazy, or dumb or whatever, because he doesn’t live up to the “positive” stereotype…
But I didn’t say that masculinity isn’t problematic for me. I said that men aren’t oppressed by masculinity. For me, that is a very large difference.
Also, what I objected to about ballgame’s list was the characterization of certain aspect of femininity as privileges. I think ballgame is right to point out the negatives of masculinity - but that doesn’t mean the opposites as represented in femininity are positive, or privileges. My point wasn’t to dismiss the unstated claim that men have it rough because of masculinity, which is what you seem to have read me as doing. It was to show that some of what ballgame saw as privileges actually don’t do women any favours, but further inscribe onto them subordinate status. For example, by assuming that because men are not encouraged to express emotion, and some men wish to express emotion but fear social ramifications for doing so, that because women are encouraged to express emotion they have a privilege men don’t have and are rewarded for doing so. My point is that our society doesn’t value emotion in anyone, man or woman, and women are frequently belittled for showing emotion even whilst they are encouraged to express it. They are actually also belittled for not expressing emotion (”cold fish,” “unfeeling bitch,” “dead fuck” are all examples). Do you see? It’s related to the point you’ve been making, that masculinity is detrimental to men, despite inscribing men with social power. Just because women are encouraged by society to do a thing doesn’t mean they are rewarded when they do it - not like men *are* rewarded for doing things that can be detrimental to them that society encourages them to do.
and thanks for ceding my point about false consciousness. finally!
p.s. in fact - my guess is that some women may not be fully aware of all the forms of oppression they face - as indicated by a number of “is feminism obsolete” articles i’ve read or other post-feminism ideologies - just as some men don’t realize the negativity of male cultural roles - that is until they drop dead of heart attacks…
i don’t recall i ever disputed that some men suffered from false consciousness… my dispute initially was your statment that false consciousness “applies most clearly is to the ruling class, those benefitting by social structures that oppress others.” later your generalization - later still saying that “most” men suffered it…somewhere in there, characterizing the nature of my comments as being further proof…
society doesn’t reward women for following stereotypical behavior for women - really - what about supermodels…what about britney spears… what about some actresses whose looks outweighs their talent…
about ballgame’s list…despite all your rhetoric about finding masculinity problematic (and i find it curious you phrase it that way - and not the more direct way “masculinity damages men…”
- you can’t allow just about anything he says…looking at the list you cite - and his list - for the most part, while they both list the “privileges” of maleness and femaleness respectively, really they are both looking at the downsides of the opposite sex…
while you might claim that women are not “rewarded” for the roles society encourages - a statement that is partially true, at best - your still missing the bigger picture. a woman that is more open with her emotions might not, for example, be rewarded by society in the sense that she can parlay that into a ceo position - but is that your only measuring stick - i’d argue that a greater emotional health is a much greater “reward”. while you may argue that it is still not a reward given by society - it is a reward that such woman experiences by following societies’ roles…. to be sure, men are punished by society for not living up to societies roles - and are “punished” not by society, but by their own bodies, addiction, etc… when they do live up to them…
and i could list as many insulting statements about men- hurled at them for all sorts of reasons…
Cross-posting again; some of my points echo what Mike just said.
I think this is a useful clarification of your perspective, TG, and I think ruxandra’s earlier point about masculinity — not maleness — being ‘privileged’ is an essential distinguishing feature between American attitudes towards race and gender. In addition, while (for the sake of this argument) there is no sacrifice involved in American society in becoming white, nor any barrier to entry (you basically are or aren’t), there are significant barriers to being ‘masculine’ and enormous societal pressures which guarantee that one’s membership in the ‘masculine’ group is always tenuous and relative. By dint of nature and nurture and class, different men handle these pressures with varying degrees of sacrifice, but for many there is no question that the sacrifices are huge — involving large portions of their humanity — and the payoff extremely meager. (This site’s header sums it up nicely: “Family. Religion. Friendship. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business.”
What compels men to ‘keep playing the game’ despite the stacked odds is simply there is no other game to play. Men cannot simply shirk the noblesse oblige of ‘masculine privilege’ and, say, be sensitive dish-washing nurturing breeders of their own offspring instead. Women also enforce the ‘masculinity trap’ (some may even say they’re the prime enforcers) in the premium they place on males being high up on the hierarchy. (Another key difference from race … by and large, blacks don’t stop respecting whites because they’re not acting ‘white enough’.)
None of which is to deny that women face pressures of their own regarding femininity, or that women who ardently wish to be ‘top dogs’ face challenges that men who wish to be ‘top dogs’ can generally sidestep. For me, though, I truly question whether ‘privileged’ is an accurate term to apply to the average man whose real power is extremely limited, and whose actual loss of humanity can in some cases be quite significant and which is at any rate greater than the average woman’s loss of humanity IMHO.
Which brings me to a recurring theme in your comments, TG. I don’t think your comparison of how emotion is handled in men and women is on target. You are absolutely correct when you point out that emotionality is not particularly valued in men or women — a highly complicated question dealing with the frailty of genuine emotional bonds in an industrialized society with nuclear families producing atomized individuals — but there is definitely a difference in how much emotional damage is ‘part and parcel’ of being male or female.
Though less true than it used to be, men’s emotional development is still more ‘ruptured’ than women’s, with earlier pressures to be independent and the requirement to handle violence rendering affectionate peer relations more problematic than it is with girls. This is not trivial. I’m surprised you’ve raised as much resistance as you have to the notion that women as a group have deeper and more intimate friendships than men do. I’ve seen this exact issue raised a number of different times by female columnists recently and I didn’t really think it was controversial. I think you exaggerate the ‘contempt’ with which feminine emoting is greeted outside of the work world, and at any rate such emoting simply isn’t pummeled out of women during their formative years the way it is in men. This may, indeed, make things a little more problematic for women in the work world, but it also means they are capable of enjoying more emotionally rewarding (and healthier) lives.
ruxandra: Please stop asking me to have an open mind. I will extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is unintentional, but it frankly it feels very patronizing to me when you do. I do appreciate your comments and am interested in what you say.
TG: this is a great discussion. There have been a couple of your comments where it seems like you might be hinting at us all to ‘wrap it up’ so you can move on to what you would like to talk about next, but I can’t tell for sure, so if that’s true you might need to be a little more explicit.
ballgame, i don’t mean to be patronizing with the “open mind” comment, i mean it in the most direct way possible because i believe this is where much of the problem lies with this debate. as i said, i think that part of the manifestation of male privilege is the way we’re socialized, based on sex/gender, to express our views forcefully or not and to feel the need to take the points of view of others into account or not, and to feel one is expected to always be “nice” and “understanding” or not. which is all tied in with the “emotional armor” issue (and btw i’ve tried to say but i don’t think you understood me that i think both you and mike are both criticizing the fact that society has these rules and taking advantage of them to further your point of view in this debate). i want to stress especially my point about guys being taught to see everything as revolving around them and to tend to bring any issue back to their own personal experience, which by definition is limited, making most exchanges of this kind - where it’s about lots of issues and the bigger picture - unfair and frustrating. i do think this dynamic is something we should be aware of and use to guide us: that’s why i said to keep an open mind. in other words, men can choose to listen a bit, and women can choose to “not be nice about it.” if it applies to the specific context.
but basically i do see both you and mike as being completely locked into a point of view that only reflects a particular kind of experience: your own/the one you’re most familiar with. again, that you are free to do this and that moreover you insist on coming back to it in this particular debate is “further proof” of how privilege and false consciousnes function together. yes, we’ve all agreed so far: the fact that we can’t properly fulfill what gender roles require of us holds true for both men and women, and it is stressful and harmful for both. but the other dimension of the problem, which you and mike dance around in your arguments is the essential point that oppression is systemic and institutionalized and used for both creating and propping up a patriarchal system that when all is said and done puts “masculinity” above “femininity” everytime.
the fact that you want and insist that we discuss the ways in which gender roles are harmful to guys is quite ok. that’s an important topic. but this discussion was about recognizing privilege, and in this discussion when presented with a list of points to think about you chose to come back with your own list to invalidate/trump it. and that, to me, is a classic instance of the “everything revolves around me” tactic. that’s why i have to keep saying “listen and keep an open mind.” and you have to understand that this is one of the most frustrating things that women have to deal with on a daily basis: our concerns, our experiences, our points of view in the patriarchy are constantly minimized and trivialized. because it’s the patriarchy.
do you know w.e.b. dubois’ concept of “double consciousness”? it might be helpful to understand what that is about: in a system that sets up two spheres for people to move in: a (privileged) “mainstream” as the point of reference and then all kinds of minority/marginalized/oppressed groups within that, members of such groups are forced to develop a “double consciousness”: to be aware simultaneously of the mainstream and the margins, while the others only need to deal with the mainstream and have no outside force to push them towards sparing a thought for what it might be like for the other. and, again, that’s what privilege means: you get to tune out things, you are automatically “above” them because the system places you there. but you can choose to see this or not.
and we’re overlooking too many things here in this discussion. oppression, for one. i don’t think it needs to be said (again), but the oppression of women in society isn’t limited to the stress from not fulfilling your gender role… there’s more immediate oppressions that the patriarchy relies on - otherwise it wouldn’t be such a well-oiled machine - and once again: if you have no intersection with these things then you are very privileged indeed.
for instance, i find it extremely telling - and scary, to be honest - that, ballgame, you didn’t see the problem with your argument about men/women and violence, and that once i pointed it out you have chosen not to comment at all. and mike, too, though he’s so inclined towards “nitpicking.” “I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.”??? when violence against women is what it is throughout the world - i really can’t understand how someone might think they are thoroughly informed and open minded (and aware) and come up with that.
i was actually just going to make this one comment to mike: ballgame’s saying he’s “Not trying to imply that there’s an equivalency between your typical brawl and your typical rape.” doesn’t help when that’s precisely what his argument was based upon. likewise, the fact that you declare that your arguments are not to “minimize the oppression women have felt” (and btw i also take issue with not using the present there - or are you contradicting yourself about “postfeminist ideologies”?) doesn’t mean that’s not what you’re doing, in effect, when you keep stressing that, really, for any oppression felt by women there’s “at least” equal oppression felt by men. thing is, you are simply not right and you should look into it. and i’m not being patronizing, or personally insulting, i feel i’m just being straightforward and pragmatic.
oh, and i think “For me, though, I truly question whether ‘privileged’ is an accurate term to apply to the average man whose real power is extremely limited, and whose actual loss of humanity can in some cases be quite significant and which is at any rate greater than the average woman’s loss of humanity IMHO.” sums up the problem quite nicely. though i also found this discussion to be “interesting,” if that statement - which was your starting argument, i believe - is also your conclusion after everything said, then i’d have to say, in my opinion, all the debate here was basically useless.
well ruxandra - since you know who is wrong and since you insist to read into to what is said the very opposite of what is actually said there is really no point to even try to respond to anything…
i mean, c’mon - offended by my use of “felt” - of course, i am the nitpicker, right…
r: “thing is, you are simply not right and you should look into it. and i’m not being patronizing, or personally insulting, i feel i’m just being straightforward and pragmatic.” well, maybe you don’t feel you are being patronizing or insulting, but - eh, why bother….
tg started with the statement: “you know, the more I think about this false consciousness stuff, the more I think that where it applies most clearly is to the ruling class, those benefitting by social structures that oppress others.”
after 27 comments her conclusion is “so, much of this discussion seem to articulate the point I made a long while ago, that many men don’t FEEL powerful in their own lives - and so find it hard to see that they are in fact privileged by society and that that privilege oppresses others.”
which is one thing you get unequivocably right: “if that statement - which was your starting argument, i believe - is also your conclusion after everything said, then i’d have to say, in my opinion, all the debate here was basically useless.”
i have explicitly said there were things about the list that tg cited that i did not realize, or that i had not thought about in those terms - or to the degree… it seems a bit to much for anyone else though to admit their views have been altered a millimeter… frankly, i don’t need this
well ballgame, you wanted a closing entry: here it is - we’re wrong, r. said so…
next…
well I’ll be damned if I allow THAT comment to stand as the last one on MY blog on this topic.
Ruxandra just posted an extremely eloquent comment about why the two of us are frustrated by this discussion. her description and use of double consciousness was perfect in this context, and she brought out so very well the main point that we are talking about with this masculinity-is-just-as-damaging-as-femininity is OPPRESSION. yes, men die sooner than women. Yes, men have a higher incidence of alcoholism than women. Yes, men feel enormous pressure to protect their fragile manhood. Yes, men neglect their emotional development in faviour of playing the masculine game. Yes, men who dsiplay emotion are ridiculed. These are important points, and not to downplay the impact these have on men’s lives, but all this still does not add up to oppression.
I think what drove me to call you nitpicky, Mike, is stuff like this - that you seem to be stuck like a broken record on how damaging masculinity is to men but give only lip service to women’s oppression. And when someone points out the problems in your comments, the biggest of all being that your privileged position in society as a man is glaring like a beacon in this discussion, you pout in the corner about it and come back with sarcasm and snideness and without addressing her real concerns. not to mention the arrogant assertion of that privilege in trying to bring this discusison to a close on MY blog with a condescending comment about her to another poster! there is definitely a degree of privilege in this discussion as the men in the room are shouting over the women to assert their point that men are so very damaged by masculinity. The emotional armour, as Ruxandra has pointed out, works not only to cover up what might be underneath, but also acts to protect it by deflecting blows and allowing the wearer to push his way through a battle without harm. She also said long ago in this thread that men *are* taught to express their *feelings* - as opinions - while women are taught to keep quiet and they have nothing of value to offer.
Now, I’m not saying this discussion is useless, nor am I trying to be insulting or condescending, nor am I trying to get y’all to wrap it up, because I think it is interesting and important, and comes down to the basic problem women and feminists have in trying to talk across gender lines: privilege gets in the way, even in conversations that are about privilege! Now, I know for certain that this talk can be accomplished, because in my gender & women’s studies classes there are inevitably men in the class who “get” it, and sometimes who get it better than some women in the class. But inevitably, there are also men in these same classes who are so certain of their masculinity and their detached rationality that they don’t even feel it necessary to allow someone to finish talking before they jump in uninvited with whatever wisdom they feel moved to share. And when you’re talking, guess what: you’re not listening, you’re not trying to understand.
And remember, women are taught to buy into masculinity and support it as well - as ballgame pointed out, thanks for that, and I’ve seen that come out in many ways too, where women simply shut up and allow men to talk over them because not to do so isn’t “nice”. Women are taught to be feminine, and femininity supports masculinity.
I think Mike (and ballgame has expressed this too although not as explicitly as Mike has in other discussions) that this discussion comes down to your belief in free will at all times. Even though people face oppression that restricts them in so many ways, you still hold on to free will, and I think that poses a problem in this kind of discussion. I think a more tenable position might be to hold on to the possibility of free will, rather than the assumption that because a person does something, he/she has freely chosen it. Consider this suggestion.
Mike, ballgame said “I truly question whether ‘privileged’ is an accurate term to apply to the average man whose real power is extremely limited.”
Doesn’t this sound an awful lot like what I said: “much of this discussion seems to articulate the point I made a long while ago, that many men don’t FEEL powerful in their own lives - and so find it hard to see that they are in fact privileged by society and that that privilege oppresses others.”
Hello!?! ballgame said EXACTLY what I was describing!
Now, ballgame, I think you brought something out that is important: the fragility of masculinity vs. the non-fragility of whiteness in my analogy. Good point! I might suggest that whiteness gets called into question when one does not follow along with the dictates of whiteness - like for example when white people enter into interracial relationships, bear bi- or multi-racial children, or twist their hair into dreadlocks, or identifies with, say, judaism or hinduism. Yet there is still a privilege associated with white skin that remains, for example, when a white person is not with his/her non-white partner or children, or cuts off those dreadlocks or pushes them under a cap. And some of the time, white people are praised for being white AND being different from the white norms - in the same kind of way that men are sometimes praised for doing feminine things like taking on a more active role in childcare or showing emotion (because, after all, men ARE praised for showing emotion - by women!). I don’t think masculinity is just the same as this, though. Masculinity IS more fragile than race in that I don’t have to affirm my race everyday in every way the way to retain white privilege the way men have to reaffirm their masculinity.
ok, that’s all for now…
apparently, you have no issue with one commenter flat out saying we are wrong, but do have an issue with my reaction to it…interesting…
as far as my sarcastic comments (gee, i thought you liked sarcasm…
my point is, when someone is going to flat out say that we are wrong - that part of the discussion has effectively ended, whether or not my snide post is the last one or not… i mean, how could i address a comment like that: “i know you are but what am i?” frankly, imho, with that attitude nothing productive can possibly happen here anymore- at least in this discussion -
therefore, what is the point of addressing her real concerns…she knows that i am wrong and she knows that when i say one thing i really mean something else - as much as i love a good debate, i also know when to cut my losses…
if i go on like a broken record, it is because i feel no one is getting what i am trying to say - and perhaps i am not eloquent enough to put it in a different way - in your last comment, you explicity acknowledged many of the points i’ve made - maybe you feel you’ve expressed this before, if so, this is the first time i, unambiguously, have *gotten* your feelings on this… whether that consititues oppression or not - well, frankly seems a nitpicky point to someone dying at 50 from a stress related heart attack…if it’s not oppression, well then it’s something else pretty bad…
you have made many great points about female oppression - as such - i don’t feel the need to add to that aspect of the discussion - as i’ve said before, most of my points in this discussion are meant to expand what is being discussed - look at it from another angle - not to argue that one person is “wrong” - but to broaden the scope - i.e. eliminate what i perceive as being narrow…
as far as “much of what is being said…” - you quoted one line out of 40+ comments! of course, if one wants to, one is free to interpret any of my words or ballgames as signs of male privilege, though i don’t feel they are - let me guess though - sign of our false consciousness… so we either: a. admit we are wrong, b: continue to debate it, when it seems that watever we say is used to further convince you of the conclusion you came to originally - talk about no win - my point in bringing up that quote was to illustrate that if, indeed, ballgame’s view has not changed much, well - he’s not the only one…
time to cut losses…
feel free - no one’s keeping you in this discussion but you.
I don’t think it’s nitpicky at all to say that the negative sides of masculinity aren’t oppression. I’ve defined what I think oppression is many many many times, so I won’t do it again. perhaps you simply disagree with my definition. I think it is arrogant and insulting and utlimately extremely harmful to imply that anyhting negative associated with a social role is oppression. certain negative things are oppression, and certain are not.
there’s a difference between sarcasm and condescension.
anyway, if you choose to come back, to this discussion or another, I’ll welcome you warmly.
please find on this thread and point it out to me where i have said men are oppressed… my quick search has found quite the opposite - i have said that whatever i say about the negative effects on men do *NOT* mean that men are oppressed…(of course, to some’s twisted logic - saying one thing, in fact, means the opposite - so who knows…
my last comment, i thought was clear - ok - men are not oppressed by the downsides of their gender - but whatever you want to call it, they still suffer from something - pick a word for this - and i’ll use it from now on…
as i’ve said before - my intent is to *broaden* the discussion - you were talking about the oppression of women - and the illusions of males’ concerning it - which i never disputed - i threw into the mix - well, whatever word you want to use for what i described… and the associated illusions - whatever you want to call them…
seems that you’d prefer to define away the issue - by saying whatever we are talking about is not oppression - when i - in fact - have never claimed so…
if you want your discussions to be narrow and restricted - fine - if you are interested in hearing what i would consider are broader issues related to the issues you bring up - fine too… at times, i get the sense of both views from you…
condescension is to be told “thing is, you are simply not right and you should look into it.”
do you agree?
my. lord. mike, i know you feel soooo offended (come on, you’re the one who keeps asking others to lighten up and asserting your right to snideness, sarcasm, etc.), but i obviously said that you were “not correct” specifically about “stressing that, really, for any oppression felt by women there’s “at least” equal oppression felt by men”. (btw what was that you were saying about demonizing those who disagree with you? i obviously did not say that you are “wrong” with all your past and future assertions.) what i criticized you for is perfectly true: you and ballgame kept coming back to that point, and that point is a poorly thought-out stance whose premise isn’t borne out by the facts. ok, yeah, instead of being clear about this very clear point i could say something else more tentative and “be nice about it,” but i don’t really see any reason to do so except that you would much prefer it.
i think you know that the disagreement on my part and tg’s was never about the discussion not being narrow enough to suit our tastes, but precisely about your and ballgame’s minimizing and disputing of “the oppression of women - and the illusions of males’ concerning it.” to the contrary, we‘ve bee talking about the bigger picture. but once again, you are ignoring an essential issue actually related to the topic of this post: it’s not that you are bringing in your own point of view, too, it’s that you’ve been insisting that your point of view take precedence over the rest. that’s why we have not been able to discuss points from the male privilege checklist at all (other than ballgame’s verdicts), which might’ve been interesting; other things got in the way. and besides you weren’t really listening to what tg and i were saying. you declare yourself surprised that she repeated what both she and i have said before.
so to sum up: “you have made many great points about female oppression - as such - i don’t feel the need to add to that aspect of the discussion - as i’ve said before, most of my points in this discussion are meant to expand what is being discussed - look at it from another angle” - yeah, saying this is fine but the problem is that here you’ve done the opposite of “not adding something” to the “points abot female oppression.” because basically you and ballgame have been arguing here that maybe there is no such thing as male privilege - or it’s not so big a deal - since oppression is actually “at least” as serious a problem for men than for women. i’ve already said that i see the “women are less threatened by violence than men” argument from “your side” as the worst illustration of this; and for me this isn’t even rhetorical anymore, and it’s scary because ignoring, minimizing and trivializing violence against women is a MAJOR problem in our society, and a clear imposition of male privilege and all the other trappings of the patriarchy.
in your latest post you seem to have changed your mind about what your point has been all along. ok. i’ll actually take that over statements about “privilege not really applying to males” and “men being more dehumanized than women” and “ballgame’s list being at least as valid as the other list” anyday.
and i will stop here and i will not say anything spiteful back. but feel free to let me know where you think i have put words in your mouth that are “the very opposite of what you actually said”…
@tg: yes, exactly.
and thanks, too.
r: here’s a list:
1. i say that i am not trying to minimize the oppression of women and i have never described men as oppressed - but you say that by saying that i am minimizing the oppression of women…and saying that men experience at least as much oppression as women - how do you come to that conclusion based on my actual words…
2. unless my memory is rustier than i think it is, i only, in fact, said one of the three things it seems that you are attributing to me in your most recent comment…“privilege not really applying to males” and “men being more dehumanized than women” and “ballgame’s list being at least as valid as the other list” i’ll leave it to you to find out which one i really said - and if i am wrong and did say all of these - please show me where… additionally, where did i say that men experience the same degree of oppression as women -where in fact, did i even say men are oppressed - sheesh - i don’t mind if people disagree with what i say or even not like me because of it - but *please* do so for things i actually say and do…
i feel, if anything, perhaps i have articulated my position better - i don’t really feel i have changed it…
am I right then, Mike, to say that based on yor comments, you believe masculinity to be detrimental to men but not constitutive of oppression? I think it’s been confusing in this discussion, because although you have said many times that you aren’t saying that men are oppressed or that women and men experience similar degrees of oppression, you do seem to be placing an awful lot of emphasis on men’s lived experiences with regards to masculinity and asserting that women are privileged by femininity.
and why should you point fingers at me for not changing my views based on your argument, but feel no need to change your views based on mine?
Actually, I think you’ve hit on a good term for it: men suffer from masculinity. I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with 1. saying men are oppressed by masculinity, and 2. saying that men do not benefit from masculinity, because they most certainly do.
so on the one hand, you say I am generalizing by making grandiose statements, and on the other I am too narrow because I try to define the terms of the discussion. hmmm. interesting.
tg: “am I right then, Mike, to say that based on yor comments, you believe masculinity to be detrimental to men but not constitutive of oppression? I think it’s been confusing in this discussion, because although you have said many times that you aren’t saying that men are oppressed or that women and men experience similar degrees of oppression, you do seem to be placing an awful lot of emphasis on men’s lived experiences with regards to masculinity and asserting that women are privileged by femininity.” that’s probably a fair summary - - for me to acknowledge the downside of male roles is the point - whether one chooses to label that oppression or not - well, that matters less to me - but it seems to matter a lot to you - and that’s cool - no disrespect intended - we all have our buttons…- if you feel that i emphasize the male experience - well, ok - probably becuase a. i am a man - so i have first hand experience there - it is always beneficial to write about what you know and b. you seem to be doing a good job covering the female experience…not sure if i ever called women “privileged” by their feminity - if you recall, i have stated that those infamous lists purported to be about the privilege of men and women respectively - but were really more about the down sides of the other gender…
“and why should you point fingers at me for not changing my views based on your argument, but feel no need to change your views based on mine?” well, because it was stated in a comment that ballgame’ opinion had not changed and as such the discussion was worthless - i merely pointed out the fact that ballgame wasn’t the only one whose opinion hasn’t changed - has my opinion changed? probably not to any large degree - but as i stated in an earlier comment, the discussion has allowed me to see a different dimension of female oppression….
“Actually, I think you’ve hit on a good term for it: men suffer from masculinity. I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with 1. saying men are oppressed by masculinity, and 2. saying that men do not benefit from masculinity, because they most certainly do.” well, as i said before, call it what you want - matters less to me than you - men benefit from it but also suffer from it sometime…
“so on the one hand, you say I am generalizing by making grandiose statements, and on the other I am too narrow because I try to define the terms of the discussion. hmmm. interesting. ” well, those two are not necessarily incompatible - and you weren’t necessarily doing them at the same time - for example - you first made sweeping statements about men’s false consciousness re: oppression - later, when points were raised about the damage of masculinity (to use the new verbage) - your only response seemed to be - well that’s not oppression - thus narrowing the scope…
one last thought for r: i am less offended or hurt by your comments than i see them as evidence that your mind is closed on this issue - and as such no real point continuing in debating with you about it…
i still feel obligated though to fix what i feel are erroneous claims about my comments…i care what people think about me - and seem to be painted as a jerk, nitpicker, suffering a false consciousness, pouting or whatever you are probably thinking but are too nice to post - the only comment i made that i regret was my initial one… in rereading it, it is very snippy and does not convey what i really intended…i deserve some disdain for that (lol) - of course, i did very quickly apologize for any offense tak