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

[Timsup2nothin]

My observation, which is strictly anecdotal and relates only to USians, is that whites are more prone to "deaths of despair" specifically because of white privilege. A white person who's life has really hit a dead end is far more likely to be cast out by their peers, who intuitively understand that not "making it" given all the advantages they have means that there is no failure like a white failure.

 

[Lexicus]

It's also partially due to the fact that we have this giant cultural narrative where white male mediocrities get the girl and everything turns out fine, but that just isn't how reality works.

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*.

This is why:

 

[Akka]

What would you rather call it then?

"American racial obsession" sounds good.

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.

Once again you know the answer, and I'm pretty sure you even already explained it and used it in an argument in the past, but you use double standards so it only works when it goes the way you like. "internalization". If you can understand that black people can internalize and reproduce the prejudices that society has against blacks, if you can understand that women can internalize and reproduce behaviours that are harmful to women, then you SHOULD normally be able to understand that a militant can easily internalize and reproduce the party line about who the boogeyman of the world is, even if they are part of it (also there is the whole "virtue signaling", which certainly does exist, especially in ideological groups which exists through, well, ideology to begin with).

Incidentally, it's just factual you've piled up hate on "whiteness" despite being a white man, and you always target the "cis het white men" in any social debate. Acting bewildered that people could notice is just either colossal denial or bad faith.

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.

Men have the power in our society, and society's expectations lean noticeably toward "men are more legitimate to have the power". I'm not sure people have actually contested this (maybe, honestly can't be bothered to check).
But that's not the same as saying that men only have the good aspects - having the power comes with expectations, like the ones I listed already.
Once again, it's not about "men have it worse". It's about having a less caricatural view, and noticing it's a problem with excessive gender role being present in society and formatting people into toxic situations, and not a problem with a cabal of evil men calculating how to deliberately oppress women while keeping all the good stuff to themselves.

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.

I see feminism as a good developer on the situation, as a good way to highlight the problems of excessive gender role - I don't see feminism as a whole being the end-all be-all solution, because feminism encompass a lot of things, many of which I disagree with. But it gets the "systemic problem" at least mostly right.
And I'm not in the head of the persons you're talking about, so I can't speak about their intentions, but if I had been the one making these arguments, it would have been to point to you that it's not about "women vs men" like you're so fond of doing, but about what I said above : "excessive gender role being present in society and formatting people into toxic situation".

For all the talking you make about intersectionality and systemic problems, you seem to really have trouble to grasp what IS a systemic problem, always falling back on trying to find a subset of population (namely "white cis het men") to lay the blame, and to somehow take revenge on. That's not how it works, that's just reversing the problem instead of fixing it, and that's in the end counter-productive.

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.

I think it was more about showing a more nuanced view, pointing that women are also part of the system and participate in it, and that the difference in position aren't just 100 % benefit for one side and 100 % damage for the other.

---

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*.

That's a pretty good example of the typical double standards that is applied by the more militant people, yeah.

Conversations about privilege seem to [...] besides a little lip service if pressed.

Pretty much. Hard to answer because it would basically me nodding agreement all along.

---

My observation, which is strictly anecdotal and relates only to USians, is that whites are more prone to "deaths of despair" specifically because of white privilege. A white person who's life has really hit a dead end is far more likely to be cast out by their peers, who intuitively understand that not "making it" given all the advantages they have means that there is no failure like a white failure.

Somewhat true, but I find the formulation to be somewhat twisted.
I'd rather say that by being the "privileged" subsection of the population, they are seen as fully responsible and as such any failure is much more personal and, as such, a sign of being a failure.

Basically, I think you focus too much on how someone would be seen by their peers, while I think it's more about self-perception.

 

[Lexicus]

Once again you know the answer, and I'm pretty sure you even already explained it and used it in an argument in the past, but you use double standards so it only works when it goes the way you like. "internalization". If you can understand that black people can internalize and reproduce the prejudices that society has against blacks, if you can understand that women can internalize and reproduce behaviours that are harmful to women, then you SHOULD normally be able to understand that a militant can easily internalize and reproduce the party line about who the boogeyman of the world is, even if they are part of it (also there is the whole "virtue signaling", which certainly does exist, especially in ideological groups which exists through, well, ideology to begin with).

So you actually believe that I have internalized hatred against white men due to my politically radical millieu? It's just sort of bizarre because my politics are fundamentally anti-capitalist, not anti-white-man, and I've actually spent some time explaining why I think identity fundamentalism is wrong...

Incidentally, it's just factual you've piled up hate on "whiteness" despite being a white man,

Well, yes, because I see whiteness as analogous to nobility, conferring unearned privileges on its bearers and depriving other people unfairly of resources and opportunity.

and you always target the "cis het white men" in any social debate.

Can you quote me on that?

For all the talking you make about intersectionality and systemic problems, you seem to really have trouble to grasp what IS a systemic problem, always falling back on trying to find a subset of population (namely "white cis het men") to lay the blame, and to somehow take revenge on. That's not how it works, that's just reversing the problem instead of fixing it, and that's in the end counter-productive.

Again, I wonder whether you can quote me on this? Can you quote me making an actual argument that the way we solve the problems of patriarchy is by "taking revenge" on "white cis het men" (a phrase I don't believe I've ever actually used)?

I'd rather say that by being the "privileged" subsection of the population, they are seen as fully responsible and as such any failure is much more personal and, as such, a sign of being a failure.

Spoiled for language

Spoiler :

So I mean...I participated in mocking this tweet when it made the rounds on social media...you want to talk about it?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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?

Probably not, but you're missing my point. The argument being presented was that women only seek to attract men to get these things, and that in a society where that wasn't necessary then women would have no other motivation for attracting men. Which is MGTOW/rad-fem territory.

 

[Lexicus]

Probably not, but you're missing my point. The argument being presented was that women only seek to attract men to get these things, and that in a society where that wasn't necessary then women would have no other motivation for attracting men.

When was this argument presented anywhere?

 

[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]

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?

No.

This explains why you seem to think that everyone is "missing your point." Your point is founded on a misunderstanding of what other people are thinking.

 

[Lexicus]

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?

No, it doesn't.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No.

This explains why you seem to think that everyone is "missing your point." Your point is founded on a misunderstanding of what other people are thinking.

Not sure who "everyone" is since I only accused you of missing my point, which you did. Do I have to explain why again? At least in this reply you're actually addressing it, even if only with two letters.

No, it doesn't.

I'll just add this to my scrapbook of "wonderful attempts to engage in an actual exchange". You won't be surprised to learn that the two of you feature quite heavily in it.

But come on though, explain how this doesn't imply exactly what I said:

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...

There's some pretty clear statements here about what you believe:

• Women are held to unrealistic standards of appearance by men, and this is a bad thing
• Despite this being a bad thing, women attempt to meet these standards anyway
• They do this to in order to be found attractive and get the approval of men
• They need to do this because men hold all the power in society

The clear implication here is that you believe they wouldn't be doing that if men didn't hold all the power in society, i.e. if the last bullet point disappeared, the two above it would surely also disappear. Which in turn implies they would have no other motivations for that behaviour.

You can't really just dismiss that with "no, it doesn't". The above is an entirely reasonable conclusion to reach based on what you said, but of course that doesn't mean it's 100% accurate or doesn't miss something, which is why I said "doesn't this rather imply..." rather than claiming to know exactly what you think and feel. That's your opportunity to clarify things or expand. That's what a conversation is.

But if you reply with "no, it doesn't" you just look like a dick. At least you're not looking (at the moment) like an illogical dick though, so you've got Tim beat at least.

 

[metalhead]

There's some pretty clear statements here about what you believe:

• Women are held to unrealistic standards of appearance by men, and this is a bad thing
• Despite this being a bad thing, women attempt to meet these standards anyway
• They do this to in order to be found attractive and get the approval of men
• They need to do this because men hold all the power in society

The clear implication here is that you believe they wouldn't be doing that if men didn't hold all the power in society, i.e. if the last bullet point disappeared, the two above it would surely also disappear. Which in turn implies they would have no other motivations for that behaviour.

You can't really just dismiss that with "no, it doesn't". The above is an entirely reasonable conclusion to reach based on what you said, but of course that doesn't mean it's 100% accurate or doesn't miss something, which is why I said "doesn't this rather imply..." rather than claiming to know exactly what you think and feel.

I think where this misses the mark is in the conclusion that "they wouldn't be doing it if men didn't hold all the power in society."

Most people, both men and women, have reason to want to look their best in some circumstances. Going on dates comes to mind. I would imagine that no matter who holds power in society, that will continue. In situations where a woman wants to appear romantically/sexually attractive to a man, she will take steps to do so.

However, the problem is that women are called upon to do this all the time because our society judges their worth in most circumstances on their appearance. Women are under constant pressure to appear as attractive as possible, whether in a place where they might do so anyways to maximize the possibility of romance or sex, or are in the workplace.

So it's not that they wouldn't ever be doing it, it's that they would no longer need to do it, would no longer be harshly judged for not doing it.

 

[Lexicus]

You can't really just dismiss that with "no, it doesn't". The above is an entirely reasonable conclusion to reach based on what you said, but of course that doesn't mean it's 100% accurate or doesn't miss something, which is why I said "doesn't this rather imply..." rather than claiming to know exactly what you think and feel. That's your opportunity to clarify things or expand. That's what a conversation is.

I am trying to figure out how to explain it to you. Metalhead already took care of it pretty much.

• Women are held to unrealistic standards of appearance by men, and this is a bad thing

• Despite this being a bad thing, women attempt to meet these standards anyway

• They do this to in order to be found attractive and get the approval of men

• They need to do this because men hold all the power in society

The first three of these bullet points are basically accurate summary. The third and fourth I would probably qualify with, "in professional and some social contexts." That is because the fact most relevant here is the existence of a pretty solid body of literature demonstrating that women who wear makeup enjoy more professional success. Some aspects of this include more access to promotions, higher earnings, higher tips for waitresses who wear makeup.

And to be clear, men who are perceived as attractive also enjoy more professional success. The difference is that only for women is makeup a requirement to be considered attractive. And yes, I know it's not a "requirement" in 100% of all circumstances, but generally speaking it is.


In any case,

The clear implication here is that you believe they wouldn't be doing that if men didn't hold all the power in society, i.e. if the last bullet point disappeared, the two above it would surely also disappear. Which in turn implies they would have no other motivations for that behaviour.

This bolded bit is an illogical leap on your part. There is not really anything to say except that it does not actually follow from anything I've said.

Remember, this is in a context where another poster asserted that women wear makeup primarily to impress other women. I don't think that saying "women wear makeup primarily to impress men, and this is a successful strategy for social/career advancement because men occupy most positions of social/professional authority" means I believe that women would never have any reason to wear makeup after we smash the patriarchy. Even if I did think that it wouldn't then imply that I don't believe (most) women are attracted to and want to have sex with men.

 

[metalhead]

It bears noting that they also wear make-up to impress other women. This isn't something that flows only from men. The social attitude very much affects women and causes women to judge other women who don't "play by the rules," so to speak. Women don't escape being conditioned by social attitudes on account of their gender.

 

[Lexicus]

It bears noting that they also wear make-up to impress other women. This isn't something that flows only from men. The social attitude very much affects women and causes women to judge other women who don't "play by the rules," so to speak. Women don't escape being conditioned by social attitudes on account of their gender.

I don't think there's much question that in the first instance it flows from men. The issue here is that women can of course participate in the enforcement of social rules that are centered around the perspective of men.

 

[metalhead]

They can, and they do. People will frequently point to, say, female behavior towards other women as proof that attitudes don't come from a male-dominated society, or point to the fact that Black cops also brutalize Black people disproportionately as evidence that there isn't actually sexism/racism at play.

It's an understandable counter-argument, but all it does is prove the pervasiveness of sexism and racism, and how people aren't immune from acquiring problematic views and attitudes on account of their gender or race or orientation or anything else.

A woman may be more likely than a man to grow to understand the source of those attitudes, and to take positive action to discard them. But personal growth and overcoming attitudes that society foists on us from birth is hard.

 

[Lexicus]

It's an understandable counter-argument, but all it does is prove the pervasiveness of sexism and racism, and how people aren't immune from acquiring problematic views and attitudes on account of their gender or race or orientation or anything else.

The problem with it is that we live in history, not in the Platonic world of forms and logic.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

You guys are hilarious.

For starters, metalhead is right. Women are harsh critics of each other. In fact, we are downright vicious. We dress to impress other women, not men. Yes, I would say most of us want to appeal to the opposite gender (or the same), but unless women are actively "hunting", we couldn't care less what we look like to men. It's more important to me how a woman thinks I look (and not because I'm a lesbian either). Women have an eye for detail, nuance, and sex appeal. If a woman thinks I look good, I know I look good.

A woman thinks a dress looks good on another woman. A man thinks it looks good on the floor.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You guys are hilarious.

For starters, metalhead is right. Women are harsh critics of each other. In fact, we are downright vicious. We dress to impress other women, not men. Yes, I would say most of us want to appeal to the opposite gender (or the same), but unless women are actively "hunting", we couldn't care less what we look like to men. It's more important to me how a woman thinks I look (and not because I'm a lesbian either). Women have an eye for detail, nuance, and sex appeal. If a woman thinks I look good, I know I look good.

A woman thinks a dress looks good on another woman. A man thinks it looks good on the floor.

Completely accurate, at least in my case. The only article of clothing I have ever been able to give any description of five minutes after I saw it are tee shirts with clever sayings on them...I can remember the sayings. With women it makes no difference what they are wearing, since I am usually busy contemplating what they might look like naked.

 

[Akka]

So you actually believe that I have internalized hatred against white men due to my politically radical millieu? It's just sort of bizarre because my politics are fundamentally anti-capitalist, not anti-white-man, and I've actually spent some time explaining why I think identity fundamentalism is wrong...

Actually, from where I'm standing, your politics look STRONGLY anti-white-man and just marginally anti-capitalist. You look MUCH more obsessed with racial militantism than with class injustice (I do remember you arguing that revenue-based subsidies weren't a good option because it would benefit white people more than black people).
And though yes I remember you speaking about identity fundamentalism causing communities to eat themselve up through a race toward ideological purity, from my point of view you're practicing identity fundamentalism more than battling it (as I said in a past debate, I see fundamentalism as a process and not a set of value).

Well, yes, because I see whiteness as analogous to nobility, conferring unearned privileges on its bearers and depriving other people unfairly of resources and opportunity.

Yeah, but the intensity of that hatred and the fact that you see it that way (whiteness is an actual visual distinction, in the West it's not a small minority dominating a large exploited majority, but a large majority with a growing number of minorities) is kinda showing precisely what I spoke above.

Can you quote me on that?

Again, I wonder whether you can quote me on this? Can you quote me making an actual argument that the way we solve the problems of patriarchy is by "taking revenge" on "white cis het men" (a phrase I don't believe I've ever actually used)?

I probably could, but honestly I can't be arsed to spend a lot of time digging through past thread and finding the context and so on. At the very least, that's my perception.
And no, I don't think you explicitely said "we should take revenge on the cis-white-het men", but that's just a strawman. My point is that your tone, the way you mock arguments or people when the subject come, the accusations you throw and so on betray a deep scorn and disgust toward white-cis-het males on the whole, and you consider that if they take a blow as a group, it's deserved.

You can easily consider that the way people speak can show their "true colours" beyond what they say explicitely (and you don't shy of using this argument against many people, I do remember how easily you flag people as "fascist" and "racist"), so, well, it's just the same reasoning, just from someone who isn't you

Spoiled for language

Spoiler :

View attachment 502238

So I mean...I participated in mocking this tweet when it made the rounds on social media...you want to talk about it?

Well, good for you ?
I mean, we have plenty of people you consider racist that would also mock a racist tweet. Does that convince you they aren't ?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think where this misses the mark is in the conclusion that "they wouldn't be doing it if men didn't hold all the power in society."

Most people, both men and women, have reason to want to look their best in some circumstances. Going on dates comes to mind. I would imagine that no matter who holds power in society, that will continue. In situations where a woman wants to appear romantically/sexually attractive to a man, she will take steps to do so.

However, the problem is that women are called upon to do this all the time because our society judges their worth in most circumstances on their appearance. Women are under constant pressure to appear as attractive as possible, whether in a place where they might do so anyways to maximize the possibility of romance or sex, or are in the workplace.

So it's not that they wouldn't ever be doing it, it's that they would no longer need to do it, would no longer be harshly judged for not doing it.

Slightly better than "no, it doesn't"