Comments on: When Your Male Privilege Stops Applying To Your Situation, It Goes Beyond Inconvenient, Doesn’t It?

By: Lisa Kansas

Lisa Kansas — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:01:16 +0000

Well, of course you personally don’t have to do anything, nor do you have to show even the remotest empathy for anyone else’s situation nor evince the slightest desire to be supportive to anyone else for any reason whatsoever. However, if someone is going to recommend that another someone puts himself in physical danger for the former person’s benefit, I would hope that the former person would feel inclined to at least give a twitch of acknowledgement of that danger and supportive empathy.

By: Edel

Edel — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:32:43 +0000

I’m with Minerva on this one. This statement, “If you really want to advance the cause of feminism, first you’re going to push to make those spaces safe for the young men inhabiting them” is both insulting and ridiculous. FIRST we have to once again take care of men? Because we can’t do any good without you? Guys, I sympathize, really, but this is a male problem in a male space. You have to take care of it yourselves.

By: Kate

Kate — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:16:52 +0000

And here is where the phrase ‘the patriarchy hurts men, too’ is totally applicable and ought not to (I say ought because this is the internet after all) start a flame war.

In a situation like that, if you don’t play by the rules, you de-identify yourself from the privelage. You step out of the umbrella and you become the other, because the other isn’t there to directly terrorise.

By: minerva

minerva — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:02:41 +0000

YOu ask: “Male privilege doesn’t exist anymore when everyone in the group is already male, does it..?”

Absolutely, it does. Your example here describes it exactly.

The situation you discuss IS about “male privilege” – the enactment and enforcement of a particular kind of masculinity, in a frame of domination. The “top dog” here declares himself as the paradigm, then uses his power to declare ‘Other’ those who he deems do not fit in, and imposes a regime of humiliation and control to maintain that definition and that hierarchy.

It’s actually a classic example of “male privilege” – the term itself may seem incorrect, especially if we assume that “male privilege” can only be used against women – but if we realize that gender-based supremacy is aimed at both women and men, there’s no contradiction at all.

It’s simply the logical working of sexism.

I also wonder at who you mean in this comment: “If you really want to advance the cause of feminism, first you’re going to push to make those spaces safe for the young men inhabiting them.” – if by that you mean MEN need to take leadership and focus on how men play out supremacy on other men, yes I totally agree. (If you mean “all feminists” however, that smacks a bit of asking women to care for men’s needs, yet again.)

I am waiting for the movement of MEN that seeks to end these poison cultures of supremacy, where informed by feminist (and anti-homophobic, anti-racist thought) their focus is on the issues men have with supremacy and the chains of male sexist thinking.

By: ACW

ACW — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:25:35 +0000

This post and the subsequent comments have my wheels turning.
I agree that, in a group of all males, male privilege is moot. So, then, within that group, power is either attained or ascribed by other criteria. Do we have examples of the ‘top dog’ in an all male group setting an acceptable tone? I agree with Hugo that it is the responsibility of the chain of command to ensure a proper environment and to condone gentlemanly behavior.
This is what I contribute: My father was career military. I grew up on military installations. When I was a senior in high school, he served a tour in Korea alone, but that was fifteen years ago, and dependents were discouraged from living there “due to pollution”. I don’t know, because I wasn’t there.
My father was raised with six sisters. He married and had two daughters. My strongest memories from childhood are of him speaking up for women. He enjoyed the Army (for the most part), rose in rank to CSM and headed up three academies during his last eight years. I know that when he got to that point and had some clout, he was able to make sure the female soldiers didn’t have to put up with crap. Even earlier, when he was a drill sergeant and first sergeant, I can recall stories told across the dinner table of him checking soldiers for inappropriate behavior or comments.
My wheels are turning because that commendable leadership was confined to a specific period of his life – the part I remember. The next time we speak, I’m compelled to ask about his earlier years in service, when his voice was likely limited, and about his leadership role now, as a high school instructor. He is in a better position now, to influence the minds of the next generation, and his opinions are respected. I wonder how vocal he is about women’s rights these days. I also wonder how many times inappropriate behavior or comments came across, went unchecked, and were omitted from the dinner conversation.

By: Links of Great Interest 9/11/09 | the Hathor Legacy

Links of Great Interest 9/11/09 | the Hathor Legacy — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:31:44 +0000

[...] punkass blog discusses the multiple possible locations of anti-sexist [...]

By: Hugo

Hugo — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:10:29 +0000

Thanks for this corrective, Lisa. You’re right: the solution isn’t just about individuals making changes; as you point out, that’s simply impossible in a great many situations. Movements for social transformation can’t expect martyrdom to be the norm. One mistake we liberals (as opposed to radicals) always make is to assume that what is needed is more conscientiousness on the part of people acting alone. That is privileged indeed — we need more top-down activism and legislation to impose and enforce gender equity in traditionally all-male and authoritarian spaces. It’s not the private’s job to correct the sergeant — it’s the chain of command’s job, and that chain extends to the president and to the legislators.

By: Blogwhoring « random babble…

Blogwhoring « random babble… — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:57:52 +0000

[...] Kansas: When Your Male Privilege Stops Applying to Your Situation it Goes Beyond Inconvenient, Doesn’t [...]

By: OuyangDan

OuyangDan — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:06:22 +0000

Ha ha. Then I super apologize for the super long comment. Like I said, the point you made was stellar either way.

By: Lisa Kansas

Lisa Kansas — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:03:04 +0000

LOL, yeah, sorry–I meant at the time, which was a while ago, like 20 years ago. I will go back and change the tense.