We don’t need ragebait in this world.
False, also, this is literally in a community called shit post about shit posting. If you’re upset, you genuinely played yourself.
Sometimes it feels like the term male privilege is just a way to tell men to suck it up, don’t cry, keep your feelings bottle up on the inside. Meanwhile, hypocritically being against toxic masculinity.
It is. It’s the patriarchy subsuming criticism and repurposing it for it’s own ends.
Holy strawman
Men
- higher loneliness
- seen as dangerous by default
- higher mental illness
- worse academic performance
- higher suicide rates
- higher rates of homelessness
- less likely to get child custody in a divorce
- less support infrastructure
- are more likely to be dismissed when asking for help
- work more dangerous jobs
- higher workplace accident rate
- higher probability to be victim of a violent crime
- more likely to suffer from addiction (gambling, porn, substances)
- lower life expectancy
- higher incarceration rate
- more likely to be poor
What is the source of these issues?
Maybe men should stop being so shitty to men, but more so they should definitely stop being so hostile and abusive to women.
Maybe it’s not all men and using such generic language is akin to saying, “maybe the gays should stop being so flamboiyant if they want acceptance”?
Nice dog whistle.
Where did I say “all men?” Is it not entirely possible that these are all issues caused explicitly by men while there is also a conscious awareness from other men who are aware of and trying to address the issue? Men are the issue, or more accurately the concept of obligate masculinity is, but guess what demographic is enforcing that mindset?
Hint: not women, and if you think it is then you don’t listen to women nor men.
Not a dog whistle. I’m most likely more progressive than you, but you keep trying to feel superior to others! That’s definitely not a part of the problem!
Do… do you not see the irony in what you just wrote? Read it back to yourself.
That would imply it’s the gay community itself that is not accepting flamboyant gays…
The gay community is not uniformly homogeneous. There are plenty of gay men who aren’t big fans of flamboyant queer culture.
I hate the word “privilege” used in this context. Words have connotations, and “privilege” conjures up images of playing polo at the country club with the upper crust of one’s community, then going back to the office to work as executive vice president of the company your father founded. Yet, the people concerned about social justice seem unreasonably attached to their particular jargon, even if it gets in the way of communication. Over the past 15 years or so, I’ve seen a handful of people get it when it’s explained to them as, “imagine you grew up hardscrabble dirt poor, but also had to deal with racism.” But mostly, the online discussions devolve into a fight over the definition of the word privilege. C’mon, let’s just ditch the word, ferchrissakes! Keep the concept, call it something more relatable!
Same with “toxic masculinity.” Yes, I get it, the “toxic” adjective is a modifier to talk about a particular type of masculinity, but the people who hear it as “masculinity is toxic” have a point, too. People use adjectives as intensifiers. I guarantee that the people talking about “evil homosexuals” aren’t adding “evil” to distinguish from the good ones.
I also hate the term privilege because it implies those people have something they shouldn’t have, i.e. they need to be brought down, when really it’s that other people have a disadvantage. This makes the ones labeled privileged defensive because it seems like an attack instead of a call for help.
Everyone should be at least at the same level as the “privileged” ones.
Edit: it seems I might not have been clear as the discussion below seems to perfectly encapsulate why I personally dislike the term privilege because of how it frames things. The majority of privileged people aren’t getting a leg up, they just don’t have the things dragging them down that underprivileged people do. Maybe an analogy will help:
Imagine a grueling and difficult race everyone is forced to run. The actual distance is arbitrary and doesn’t matter, you just need to complete it. The starting line is a staggered mess with people starting forward and backwards from each other to varying degrees. Many of the people in the race rightly point out this is not fair and want the starting lines to at least be the same for everyone. Now, which do you think is more beneficial to having everyone agree/work to move the starting positions; saying the people in front need to move back, or that the people further back should be moved forward?
I think you’re running into a little cognitive dissonance. In this scenario, the privilege is what is causing the disadvantage in the first place. You cannot be privileged in a truly equal society, therefore you can’t elevate everyone to a privileged class, you can only equal the playing field.
It’s a zero sum game.
I was with you most of the way but you lost me here. Some of the biggest privileges for cis straight white males is that they don’t have to deal with racism, sexism, and bigotry over who they are and who they love. That’s not a zero sum game. We can all have that privilege. That privilege isn’t what causes bigotry.
There are some privileges that would be lost, like being preferentially hired by racists. But for the most part we’re fighting in large part for equal good treatment. It’s not a zero sum game.
cis straight white males is that they don’t have to deal with racism, sexism, and bigotry over who they are and who they love
How does that racism materially present itself? With racism it’s by decades of economic support and government programs aimed at creating wealth for a certain ethnicity over another. With sex it’s decades of reinforcing gender roles and denying educational opportunities for women. Rules about race mixing were created to deny a dilution of the ethnic collective of political power.
That’s not a zero sum game. We can all have that privilege. That privilege isn’t what causes bigotry.
I would argue that it shouldn’t be a privilege, but a universal right.
But for the most part we’re fighting in large part for equal good treatment. It’s not a zero sum game.
I think you might want to look up the definition of privilege. You can’t be privileged unless someone is being disadvantaged. If you want to get rid of privilege then what you’re saying is you want everyone to be treated the same.
I’ve tried to bring this up before, but I personally don’t believe everyone should be treated the same.
In an ideal world where we had an objective way to measure this, I would prefer that we lived in an absolute meritocracy.
Some people are a better fit for a particular purpose than other people due to racial advantage, gender advantage, physical advantage, age advantage, or any other number of advantages that they have been gifted by the miracle of life and talent, or that they have earned from dedication and struggle.
In my ideal world, if you remove all of the things that are not important to the task at hand, and only judge based on who is most fit for the task at hand, then the people who are the best fit would get the most appropriate reward for their capacity.
As a nonwhite male IT worker, my ability to lift heavy objects is secondary to my ability to fix a printer. If a female can fix printers better than I can, she’s more than welcome to have the job at the same pay they would have paid me for it.
Imo an absolute meritocracy would first require a society of absolute equity. Otherwise how would you know if someone is actually more inherently better at something or if they just had more opportunity?
I think meritocracies are a nice idea, but they’ve mostly been supported by societal elites throughout history because they know it’s easy to score when you’re born on third base.
A society of absolute equity is impossible. Some people will be taller, faster, smarter, more charismatic, dumber or any other adjective you wanna name. Trying to decrease that variance by limiting systemic advantages is one thing. But, it will never lead to truly equal opportunity and/or outcome for everyone. Thats a type of optimism that requires a high level of ignoring the objective reality of the world. Relationship based opportunity availability will also always be a thing. Limiting it via legislative action could curb it to a degree but never completely. Thats just not a realistic ideal. You could implement some Harrison Bergeron esq limiters but at that point I wouldn’t want to live in that world. My sole non trolling response so far.
Yes, and that’s the point with male privilege? It’s an advantage without any other reason than the holder being male.
Raising women to hold the same privilege is the same as removing it for men, if everyone has it it’s not a privilege.
I think this is why the equality in society moves forward too slowly, not necessarily because men don’t want women to have equal rights and opportunities, but as you said the privileged are defensive because they don’t want to lose their privileges.
Stop arguing semmantics and understand what they’re saying! This is about communication, not being technically correct.
FFS, your post is exactly portraying the problem.
You even use a much better word: equality. Yet argue in favor of using a less effective word… Truly sad.
Semantics are important and I do understand what they are saying. Did you read my comment?
it implies those people have something they shouldn’t have
This for example. Male privilege is something men shouldn’t have since it’s based entirely on gender. So the privilege teeds to be abolished for equality to happen.
And as I said, of course men gets defensive when its problematized and put in the spotlight, you may support equality but who wants to lose their advantages? 🤷
Ironically enough your comment also focused on the semantics instead of the issue at hand… :)
No, it’s really not a privilege, especially for any non-rich, not cleaned up white man. It’s what should be the minimum respect people are given for being conscious beings.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about?
What is not a privilege and how does it relate to a minimum level of respect?
Basic respect and zero assumptions about intent are a solid start. Those ARE NOT privileges, but what any honest person engaging with someone or something should expect… Someone should be able to ask a basic question about a service you are providing with zero assumptions made as to what you expect as a result or a cost, as a basic example.
Seriously, how is this confusing??
I personally don’t like the idea of the phrase toxic masculinity because I don’t believe that the masculine energy is toxic in and of itself. I feel like a more appropriate term would be pseudo masculinity. Because that implies that people are not naturally this way, but they are forcing themselves to act this way in pursuit of some perceived ideal of masculinity.
I mean, humans are frequently guilty of using terms that mean a very specific thing in a much broader sense as a shorthand for clearly communicating what we specifically mean in that instance.
For instance, I have heard people are use the phrase “toxic masculinity” to describe boyfriends that don’t want to do the dishes, when the actual correct term is “lazy piece of shit”, but for some reason, when communicating this information to other people, it is easier for them to ascribe an issue with the sex of the person than an issue with the choices of the person, implying that the only actual fix is to repair your emotional relationship with your own sex instead of accepting that everyone has a human responsibility to contribute to doing the chores around the house.
Once again, I reiterate that masculinity and masculine energy is not toxic, any more than femininity and feminine energy is toxic, and I also exhort anyone that took the time to read this much to do their best to effectively and accurately communicate using specific language rather than emotional shorthand.
Love the term “pseudo-masculinity.” It takes away from the gender slant of toxic masculinity, implies anyone can have it, and makes clear it’s not what masculinity should be.
The people who are offended by “toxic masculinity” already use pseudo masculinity to describe everything not toxic masculinity.
All yold I think pseudo masculinity can only be more confusing.
I’d never heard it before and I understood the implication before they expanded on it. I’m a woman and a feminist who thinks the term toxic masculinity is unsuitable.
That may be. I’m just suggesting pseudo masculinity is worse because it’s already confused.
But so is toxic masculinity. It’s used to describe men being assholes because they’re men, and not because they just happen to be assholes, too.
Hey, sure. I’m not arguing for the term toxic masculinity. I’m arguing against pseudo masculinity because it’s way more confusing.
It’s probably better to find another term entirely
That applies to white women as well
False
How? They have white previlege.
Who does?
White women
What about them?
They have white previlege
Women?
White guys make up a large chunk of the population. There are white guys that have some of the same problems that are harming minorities as well. Poverty, addiction, mental and physical health, inflation, an unfavorable jobs market, and so on.
They see a democratic party that is at best useless at addressing these problems, when they admit that they exist at all. At worst, they see a party that is dismissive and hostile to these concerns, and to them personally. In contrast, they see a republican party that is full of welcoming con artists who will happily tell them that all their problems spring from minorities.
Neither side is offering actual solutions, but republicans are acknowledging that the problems exist, even if they’re offering false solutions.
So white guys keep falling for con artists. No one else is offering them anything.
In a society where white men are favored they still have that. Which isn’t a small thing! They will probably always win if put up against women or people of color when looking for jobs.
I bet a lot of the minorities would prefer to be a white man to have it easier in life.
Kind of ironic saying they have nothing and then automatically being accepted in the powerful fine boys club which fight for their kinds right to stay in a superior place in society.
In a society where white men are favored they still have that. Which isn’t a small thing! They will probably always win if put up against women or people of color when looking for jobs.
The problems I listed all disproportionately impact minorities, and addressing them will disproportionately benefit minorities. Failing to address them out of spite for white men disproportionately harms minorities. But hey, you sure showed those white men that you’re willing to harm minorities to get to them.
If you want white men to stop following con artists, you need to credibly solve problems that they’re facing, or they’ll believe the first con artist that comes along that wants them to blame minorities for their problems, which adds fuel to existing oppression.
I bet a lot of the minorities would prefer to be a white man to have it easier in life.
Yeah, probably. They have it worse off and I never said otherwise. Thing is, what democrats usually do in this situation isn’t to solve the actual problems. It’s to look at the bigoted false solutions offered by republican con artists and put forth watered down versions of those, breaking solidarity with minorities in the process. What this doesn’t do is peel off the votes of white men who have been suckered by con artists. You can’t beat false solutions with a lesser version of the same false solution.
Kind of ironic saying they have nothing and then automatically being accepted in the powerful fine boys club which fight for their kinds right to stay in a superior place in society.
I’m saying that democrats are leaving votes on the table that they could get if they wanted them, without throwing minorities under the bus like they’ve been doing.
Well I’ve never said that one should punish white men out of spite. Those are your words.
But again. Kinda ironic that the way for minorities to get it better is to make sure poor white men have it better first. Isn’t this the problem tho?
I don’t care about democrats or republicans. That system is flawed to the core. It’s built to keep this power balance who ever you decide to vote for. Or to be honest, don’t vote at all because it’s rigged for people to not be able to vote.
Why I left the left? I used to be a radical leftist, who believed in radical ideas like <most lukewarm liberal opinion> and <thing that is standard in Europe>, but then I went through <signs of cognitive decline> and also got falsely accused of rape after having sex with a drunken woman, so I became a moderate christian conservative who believes in <opinion considered theocratic by people with more than two brain cells>, <thing that would make Hitler blush>, and <literal nazi thing, but “extermination” is replaced with “removal from society”>.
