The self-defeating nature of using "Privilege (Theory)" (in societal discourse)

[Ryika]

Laying out snark bait while the mods are on alert is dishonourable.

Ehh? It's entirely true. Obviously it's a one-sided portrayal to counteract the narrative that dominates the discussion, but having an additional tool to get a competitive advantage is clearly a privilege.

 

[Lexicus]

I could also formulate it differently : do you think that women being three times less likely to kill themselves isn't an advantage of women over men ?

No, I don't really think it can be characterized as an 'advantage' that women have over men.

the exact same reasoning when it goes the other way.

I typically don't think of suicide rates and mental health problems as a facet of privilege, actually, but now that you've brought it up I suppose you're right. But the crucial difference here is that assuming, say, black people in the US have higher suicide rates, that is because of stuff white people are doing - hoarding the wealth, being racist, etc. The men suicide issue, as you seem to acknowledge, is actually men killing themselves due to gender roles or whatever that are imposed by other men, so I just don't think it's correct to characterize it as an 'advantage' for women in the same sense that, say, the fact that seven out of ten Fortune 500 CEOs are white men reflects an 'advantage' for white men.

 

[Akka]

that is because of stuff white people are doing

And that's your problem right there. What you draw from it all is just the pretext to fire at the target you already wanted to focus on - the "white men", source of all the evil in the world. That's not how it works.

As much as "the patriarchy" irritates me due to the buzzword effect, at least it gets the overall point right : it's about fighting a SYSTEM, and recognizing that everyone is affected by it - not about the same things, not in an equal way, but everyone gets involved. It's not (supposed to be) about finding the scapegoat and take it as an acceptable target, it's about changing said system.

 

[Senethro]

A system Lex has referred to at times as White Supremacy.

 

[Akka]

Yeah, it certainly sounds like it disproves the idea that it's all about the white boogeyman.

 

[Senethro]

What would you rather call it then?

 

[NovaKart]

I don't understand the question. I am not even trying to say this is not sexism, I am trying to say it is not sexism from women toward men that is responsible for these problems that men are experiencing. Because the whole context in which these issues are brought up inevitably seems to be trying to prove that men aren't the privileged sex in our societies, which is just patent nonsense.



So this leads us to: which cards don't they hold? then you cite a bunch of examples of men being screwed over by other men, and we come around to exactly the same point in the discussion.

Why does it matter whether disadvantages that affect men come from women or other men? The result is the same, is it not?

 

[Lexicus]

And that's your problem right there. What you draw from it all is just the pretext to fire at the target you already wanted to focus on - the "white men", source of all the evil in the world. That's not how it works.

As much as "the patriarchy" irritates me due to the buzzword effect, at least it gets the overall point right : it's about fighting a SYSTEM, and recognizing that everyone is affected by it - not about the same things, not in an equal way, but everyone gets involved. It's not (supposed to be) about finding the scapegoat and take it as an acceptable target, it's about changing said system.

So, you are aware that I am a white man, right? Why would I want to target myself in the manner you describe? It makes no sense.

The context of this discussion is that several posters took issue with my assertion that men "hold all the cards" in our society. So these alleged examples of "female privilege" were furnished, to try to "prove" that actually men aren't the privileged sex.

The fact that you also disagree with that, and see feminism as the solution to these problems, means that we actually agree one hundred percent on this issue. You agree with me that these problems men face are not actually imposed on men by women. The only reason I am saying that women are not responsible for these issues, is because basically several other posters were implicitly claiming that they are.

Why does it matter whether disadvantages that affect men come from women or other men? The result is the same, is it not?

It matters because, again, you and some other posters (@Narz, apparently @Azem.Ocram though I figured he would know better) have been trying to frame these things as empirical evidence that men are not the privileged sex in our societies, and it just isn't true.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

I do indeed know better, @Lexicus

Men are more privileged than women. This is a fact in most of the world.

There is no such thing as systematic misandry inthe USA.

American men on average have a bigger paycheck than women, even given equivalent positions.

These are all facts which I know to be true. However,

In the USA, women are less disadvantaged every generation (which is good).

Misandrists and misanthropes exist. Some of them are wealthy and powerful.

The pay gap between men and women in equivalent jobs is in the single-digits of percentage and men don’t get maternity leave, men have higher unemployment than women, and employed men work odd hours (flexible workers or overtime on salary).

Women are now expected to work in addition to raising children if they choose to raise children and many couples are choosing not to (crony capitalism/corporate autocracy has already hurt the Japanese population, it’s only a matter of time until it hurts the USA, it might never hurt Europe again because of EU laws). Also, individual benefits are decreasing along with real wages because it’s expected to have a double-income household.

Being able to afford housing is increasingly difficult, especially for the growing divorcee population.

In other words, the patriarchy is not good and is still around but it’s slowly being replaced by an even worse corporate oligarchy and there are fewer wealthy oligarchs (0.7% of global population) than men (~50%).

EDIT: The solution is not to go back to the patriarchy but to instead attach strings to bailouts, turning them into restructures and takeovers. If banks are not allowed to issue R Bonds, then government bailouts should become nationalization.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, that's good to hear it being said, that patriarchy is also destructive to men too, and in fact, feminism, thinking that kind of stuff is good for nobody is actually consistent with itself and not that ridiclous man-hater straw version people here and across the internet think it is. People are too obsessed with shooting the messenger.

Props to @Akka since it's literally been years since I've seen anyone talk about it as such.

 

[Lexicus]

Props to @Akka since it's literally been years since I've seen anyone talk about it as such.

This just goes to show you're not paying much attention. There are also plenty of ways men benefit materially and socially from patriarchy.

 

[Archon_Wing]

This just goes to show you're not paying much attention. There are also plenty of ways men benefit materially and socially from patriarchy.

And I said they didn't where?

Maybe you should pay attention, instead of just selectively reading things.

 

[Lexicus]

And I said they didn't where?

that kind of stuff is good for nobody

What did you mean by this?

 

[Archon_Wing]

What did you mean by this?

Patriarchy harms everyone, even if they're benefiting from it.

 

[Lexicus]

Patriarchy harms everyone, even if they're benefiting from it.

Ah okay. Fair enough. I'm not sure I entirely agree but w.e

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ah okay. Fair enough. I'm not sure I entirely agree but w.e

Well, point is Feminism wants to help everyone even if women are the focus and men have much to gain by supporting them. It should not be a cause of conflict and no I don't buy the "this wave was good, that wave was bad" thing either.

The idea that Feminists want to destroy men is about as sane as saying that the LGBT rights movement wants to get rid of heterosexuality. These movements have always been about inclusiveness. Just because some idiots think otherwise do not change it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't think this is true at all. I won't presume to speak for miaasma but I believe "men got together one day and tell women to start wearing makeup" is a gross mischaracterization of the argument he was making.

Basically, the point is that when men hold all the cards (or pretty much all the cards) in society, behavior (among both sexes) is going to be calibrated in the medium-to-long-term to get the approval of men. There are studies showing that wearing makeup leads to more professional success for women in the US. Men occupy almost all of the leadership roles that are relevant to this context.

I mean really, blaming women for the unrealistic standards of appearance women are held to by men seems a bit much...

So... you seem to be saying that you don't think women would be making the effort to live up to "unrealistic" beauty standards if they weren't living in a society where men hold all the cards, or where this is necessary to make any progress professionally*. Doesn't this rather imply that you think that women have no inherent romantic inclination towards men, or desire to be romantically involved with them in any way? It sounds like you think their only motivation for this behaviour is to leech resources, power and status from men. Never figured you for a MGTOW I have to say.


*not that I agree with this description of society of course, but for the sake of argument I can pretend I do.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So... you seem to be saying that you don't think women would be making the effort to live up to "unrealistic" beauty standards if they weren't living in a society where men hold all the cards, or where this is necessary to make any progress professionally*. Doesn't this rather imply that you think that women have no inherent romantic inclination towards men, or desire to be romantically involved with them in any way? It sounds like you think their only motivation for this behaviour is to leech resources, power and status from men. Never figured you for a MGTOW I have to say.


*not that I agree with this description of society of course, but for the sake of argument I can pretend I do.

In a society where men have all the resources, power, and status is there any motivation/strategy available other than to "leech it" from them?

 

[Senethro]

As that economic status of women as a group and workforce participation have gone up, so too has the divorce rate.

Coincidence?

 

[Bootstoots]

I'm also pretty sure I could find many of your own posts crying about "white privilege" by comparing disproportionate alcoholism/drug/other self-inflicted woe that can find their roots in societal situation among minorities compared to whites (no, I can't be arsed to check, in the very very very very very unlikely case I'm wrong, more power to you), but somehow you seem to not want to apply the exact same reasoning when it goes the other way.

I could also formulate it differently : do you think that women being three times less likely to kill themselves isn't an advantage of women over men ?

No, I don't really think it can be characterized as an 'advantage' that women have over men.

I typically don't think of suicide rates and mental health problems as a facet of privilege, actually, but now that you've brought it up I suppose you're right. But the crucial difference here is that assuming, say, black people in the US have higher suicide rates, that is because of stuff white people are doing - hoarding the wealth, being racist, etc. The men suicide issue, as you seem to acknowledge, is actually men killing themselves due to gender roles or whatever that are imposed by other men, so I just don't think it's correct to characterize it as an 'advantage' for women in the same sense that, say, the fact that seven out of ten Fortune 500 CEOs are white men reflects an 'advantage' for white men.

Among US racial groups, whites have the highest rate of death from drug overdoses and the second-highest rate of death from each of suicide and alcoholism, trailing Native Americans and well ahead of blacks and Hispanics. The numbers are especially stark for suicide, although this is in large part because whites (and Native Americans) are disproportionately likely to live in rural areas - gun ownership is higher in rural areas and suicide is more common per capita in rural areas than urban ones even controlling for guns. The opioid epidemic, and meth before it, have been hitting white people harder per capita than other racial groups, although it is beginning to catch up there too.

This raises an issue - if "deaths of despair" were more common among people of color than whites, it would be considered yet another symptom of white privilege. When the numbers run the other way, rather than being taken as a point against theories of straight white male privilege, privilege as an issue is instead basically ignored*. Conversations about privilege seem to assign all disproportionality in favor of straight white men to heterosexual white male privilege. It's not clear to what extent this is actually the case, though, and how the effects of things that can fairly be called privilege can be teased apart from the effects of other factors that are not generally considered privilege-related. Although perhaps that's not the best way to put it, because "privilege-related" seems to be defined tautologically such that all differences in any behavior-related variable is itself seen as an effect of privilege.

I guess I need to see a fairly narrow definition of terms in order to get much idea about how much privilege is affecting outcomes. My gut feeling is "quite a bit, but not all; ballpark average of 50% for most effects under most definitions of privilege". That's the way it seems to be working out for the gender pay gap specifically - the gap of something like 20% is explained about halfway by different career decisions between genders, but the other half is not attributable to these factors so that a gap of ~10% is likely to be mostly explainable by privilege.

*Of course there is actually a glaring privilege issue - social class - but in practice I've found most privilege conversations revolve almost entirely around race and gender, and occasionally sexuality, with very little attention paid to class besides a little lip service if pressed.