Privilege is saturating the parenting binary even as we blog! I comment those who are working to keep feminist issues loud and proud!
I'll add another one:
In a relationship, it is less likely that you will be expected to alter your tastes, habits, and lifestyle to that of your partner. If you continue to maintain your own identity, you won't be interpreted as being difficult, distant, or uncommitted to the relationship. More often, your partner will--suddenly and inexplicably--start to like the music you like, the food you like, and the friends you like. You will probably interpret this as a sign you were meant for each other rather than a social privelege of your gender.
Of all the points listed, the last one rings truest.
I frequently pass out leaflets in busy pedestrian areas during rush hour at the end of the work day.
I've used those pedestrian routes at the end of my work day to get home.
Living in Washington D.C. I've likewise been approached been approached by activists while I've been absorbed in going about my business.
I've been on both sides of the leaflet.
It is my opinion that many activists have 4 blind spots:
1. A gut level understanding that nobody has an obligation to listen to them.
2. How they appear to strangers who are caught up in their own business, who may know nothing of what the activist is talking about or who may have a negative stereotype of what the activist is talking about.
3. A clear focus on what they are doing as an activist: with numbers 1 & 2 firmly in mind, convincing people to support what you want them to support.
4. Seperating a need to work out emotional reactions to injustice from the objective task of winning people over to your cause.
People do have a better nature in addition to self interest. However, "people are just like you", they have limits to their resources ( energy, time, emotional ) and they have their own self interests to look out for.
They will be less likely to hear someone out who looks very different from "one of their own" or someone who comes off as hostile in any way. I'm not saying it is right, I am just saying that is the way it is.
Does anyone really expect more than a few men to seek out a "Male Privilege Checklist", to not feel turned off by implied accusatory nature of such a list, be open minded to, and conscientously work against accepting those privileges?
Thank you for linking to the list! 
SteveR, it might be worth your time to follow the link and read the introduction to the list.
Does anyone really expect more than a few men to seek out a "Male Privilege Checklist", to not feel turned off by implied accusatory nature of such a list, be open minded to, and conscientously work against accepting those privileges?
I very much doubt that anyone will do the above, devoid of some much more complex context.
However, that's not the only possible context in which the list will ever be read. The list is used a lot to foster discussion in situations where people have already expressed some commitment to learning about feminism, such as "unlearning sexism" workshops and college classrooms.
The list is not intended as a persuasive argument for those who disagree with feminism (at least, that's not how I intend it). I do a lot of that sort of thing, too, but there's no rule that says that everything must be intended that way.
SteveR--
What do you do in D.C.? You can respond via email aspazia@gmail.com.
"Does anyone really expect more than a few men to seek out a "Male Privilege Checklist", to not feel turned off by implied accusatory nature of such a list, be open minded to, and conscientously work against accepting those privileges?"
You ask a good question. It has been my experience that McIntosh's list, which ranks the privileges white peiople have, either makes students very, very defensive or it opens their eyes. How people react to this list is different for each person. For my part, I have always appreciated the effort to specify concretely the ways in which men vs. women experience the world or white vs. people of color. Is it worth contesting some of the points here, sure. But, nonetheless, lists like this, particularly McIntosh's white privilege one, has been a helpful way to get students/people to start thinking outside of their own experience. Literature plays a powerful role there.
The resistance people experience to these lists seems to be an equally powerful starting point for discussion. In your case, what pisses you off about this list? What are your reactions?
Thanks for the list.
Other than #28 it rings true - I'm not attractive and it sure as hell doesn't feel like a minor problem to me but that's a personal observation. Part of the lunacy of the late 20th and early 21st century has been the trend towards making men as screwed up and as insecure about their body images as women can get (we're nowhere nearly as bad but it's early days for this trend). It does not strike me as progress.
Getting back to the list - personally I've always been aware of being on the top of the food chain for no reason other then gender and skin color. In a weird way I've resented it cause I'd like to feel I was getting what I got becasue of my own efforts and worth not cause I'm a wasp Male and in some kind of insider group.
The list is used a lot to foster discussion in situations where people have already expressed some commitment to learning about feminism, such as "unlearning sexism" workshops and college classrooms.
That is rational, but don't you think there is also a danger in driving away people who are willing to listen with such lists?
I was raised in a liberal household and every influential female figure in my childhood was what would be called a "second waver" in today's parlance.
In other words, you couldn't ask for someone more predisposed to be willing to listen.
I took some wmst studies classes and went to various workshops while I was in college.
My thoughts when I was presented with such lists were:
"Whoa, I came here to help and learn...not to be condemmed, talked down to or manipulated into feeling guilty".
I was not the only man....or woman who walked OUT of those forums feeling that way.
I think it is very important to be alert to how people are approached, even/especailly the few that might already be predisposed to listen. Everyone has their boundaries.
The list is not intended as a persuasive argument for those who disagree with feminism (at least, that's not how I intend it).
Then what is the point? If feminists want to change the world than they have to reach people who are not already on board.
The resistance people experience to these lists seems to be an equally powerful starting point for discussion.
I think that is true for people who enjoy provactive discourse, but I think those people are in the minority.
I think the people who need to start thinking about such issues if the world is to change would be more likely just to walk away from someone giving them such a list.
I do believe it is possible to reach such people about such issues, but lists like that will not do it.
I'm not talking about the few, the predisposed...I'm talking about the masses.
Before finding this site I was really, really, ignorant of femenist type issues. I was under the (mistaken?) impression that things had gotten better.
I'm sorry it's still so hard to compete on the same level still. 
Sadly, I thought that it was going to be a satirical list that included Big Screen TV's and doing the dishes once in a while. My wife gets on me about these types of things - with good reason I suppose... Anyway, I need to ask her about this and see what her opinion is on the subject. Wow, I would be angry if I found out it happened to her or someone I know!
Ummm, carry on. Sorry this is happening.
A guy.
aspazia 06.12.06 - 12:15 pm | #
SteveR--
What do you do in D.C.? You can respond via email aspazia@gmail.com.
Not much. My vocation is apolitical. The leafletting I do is a weekend/weeknight warrior thing.
I remember the first time I was introduced to the idea of privilege (in this case white privilege). It wasn't with a checklist like this, but it was in the context of a group discussion on racism. I was VERY defensive! I was too busy trying to defend myself from what I understood to be charges of bigotry, to really understand what was being said.
Ampersand's male privilege checklist and that other white privilege checklist that it's based on did a lot to help me understand what actually went on there, years after the fact.
So, yes, it's true, failures of communication happen, and people get defensive, and talks break down. And sometimes, later, the person gets it - and sometimes, they don't.
But SteveR, you're saying... what? that despite the fact there are real injustices occuring here and now today, people should not talk about that because it will only hurt your feelings and you'll get defensive?
human | 06.12.06 - 1:19 pm | #
But SteveR, you're saying... what? that despite the fact there are real injustices occuring here and now today, people should not talk about that because it will only hurt your feelings and you'll get defensive?
First you are asking what I am saying and then you are telling me what I am saying.
You are telling me what I am saying with a senetence that seems to be constructed to make my view look silly.
I don't think you have reading comprehension issues nor do I believe that I expressed myself in a confusing way.
Nonetheless, this is what I am saying:
The goal of an activist is to change the world. In order to change the world an activist needs to convince other people to adopt her/his views. That only happens if people are willing to listen to the activist and consider the views. Therefore it is in the best interest of an activist to give thought as to how they present their case to maximize the chances it will be listened to and adopted by other people.
Lists, such as the ones we have been discussing do work (well) towards those ends. It is my opinion that the same issues can be communicated to the public in ways where people would be more likely to listen to them and consider adopting them.
That is what I am saying.
Please let me know if any of that is not clear.
In regards to my note above I meant to type:
Lists, such as the ones we have been discussing do NOT work (well) towards those ends.
Thank you for the reply, SteveR. Here is what I was getting at: in the whole wide world, there are lots of people who are in lots of different places, and there is no one method of communication, list or otherwise, that will reach every single person at any given time.
As activists, we try to construct our message so as to communicate effectively with as many people as possible in our audience (which is a smaller subset of people than everyone in the whole world, obviously). But it's not possible to communicate effectively with everyone at once, and we already know that.
Which makes your point sort of... weird. I mean, I get that you think lists aren't helpful because they make you defensive at this moment in time. But to say that therefore nobody should use them means either that you're generalizing from yourself to the whole world, which is kind of goofy, or else that you just want feminists and their supporters to shut up. A very common tactic on the part of people who want us to shut up is to say, "Oh, dear, this communication method doesn't work very well! You really shouldn't use it." If we take that advice we have to totally rework our communication strategy. Only to be told that /it/ doesn't work... so, no thanks on that score.
human | 06.12.06 - 2:25 pm |
As activists, we try to construct our message so as to communicate effectively with as many people as possible in our audience.
I don't think that is true of many activists efforts I have seen.
Which makes your point sort of... weird. I mean, I get that you think lists aren't helpful because they make you defensive at this moment in time.
I don't have a problem with lists and I don't believe I wrote that. I think the way the content of this particular list could have been written in a more effective manner.
But to say that therefore nobody should use them means either that you're generalizing from yourself to the whole world, which is kind of goofy, or else that you just want feminists and their supporters to shut up.
human, your use of the word "you" in your replies to me and the text it is in is giving me ( mistakenly? ) the view that you are trying to make this discussion personal.
My opinion is that this particular list and similarly expressed content ( in lists or not ) is not the most effective means of propagating ideas.
This is an informal discussion on the internet not a meeting of researchers. Given that I offered my own experiences and what I have witnessed to make my point.
You are of course free to think that may not be valid.
Well, SteveR, I'm all about effectively communicating that privilege sucks and is unfair, and that women (and racial minorities) should be treated like people. So why don't you write up an essay showcasing your ideas about how this could be written more effectively? I'd love to see it, and I'll bet aspazia and Ampersand would, too.
Well, SteveR, I'm all about effectively communicating that privilege sucks and is unfair, and that women (and racial minorities) should be treated like people. So why don't you write up an essay showcasing your ideas about how this could be written more effectively? I'd love to see it, and I'll bet aspazia and Ampersand would, too.
human | 06.12.06 - 2:50 pm | #
LOL! I've never been told to fuck off in quite that way before.
LOL! I've never been told to fuck off in quite that way before.
Wha..?! SteveR, how did you infer that from human's reply?
Also maybe the greeks had it right and writing isn't the best form to convey ideas and thoughts!
I have to say I'm completely with SteveR in this exchange. What an annoying list, and what a response to him, reinterpreting his points about effective communcation to make him sound like he is being recalcitrent.
I think one of the reasons the list is so ennervating to me is that it is put in the first person, so it makes it sound like it applies to every single male. It also makes it sound like a male is saying these things, and thus that he must be proud of these statistics. Some of the points are framed in terms of averages, but many are not. Furthermore, it suggests that every man's primary identification with with the group of men. When someone says "you men, you always do X," that's just as offensive as generalization says "women always..."
I'd never use this list in a classroom, at least not at my current college. Of course, students are very reluctant to identify as feminist anyway, because of the usual reasons -- women don't want to be thought of as lesbian men-haters, or shrill, or too judgmental, or whatever. A list like this just confirms their prejudices about the rhetoric of feminism. What's more, while my students are sensitive to some gender issues (date rape was a recent topic that came up recently), most classes have more women than men, and the women don't give any indication of being feeling disadvantaged compared to their male counterparts.
I'd also say several of the points are plainly false as written: 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 22, 23, and 24. Others seem pretty simplistic.
I'd definitely say there is a place for outrage at discrimination and oppression, and even righteous indignation can be productive. Over-simplifications and untruths can also be helpful to a political movement (see the GOP). But one has to be careful with such rhetoric, because it can also alienate potential allies.
Metapsychologist--
I appreciate your response, and particularly your point that this list is an over-simplification. I guess the list doesn't impact me in quite the same way that is affects you and SteveR. And, I don't think this is because it is designed to piss off men or make them feel alienated from feminism. It might tap into that male privilege guilt, which can be quite unhelpful, and alas here I think your comparison to GOP rhetoric is interesting.
But, the reason that this list doesn't hit me the same way is because the orignal list, the one that McIntosh wrote, was targeted to get me to think about my white privilege in ways that I had never ever thought of before. I could've just been pissed off or taken that list as a clear message that I was not welcomed in any political movement to fight racism. But, I didn't. Instead, it helped me get, really get, why many women of color are uninterested in feminism.
Sure, I had been told countless times that women of color saw feminism as white women's movement, but I was mostly bewildered as to what this meant. As a good philosopher, it seemed that all women were included in this cause. It was easy for me to not get the daily barrage of racist crap that many women of color endure, even from the well-meaning feminist like myself. McIntosh's list really changed all of that for me.
Sure, the list will piss of students. I taught the same students you do when I was a graduate student at Stony Brook. And, I taught them McIntosh's piece. Surely it really pissed some of them off, and yet others' eyes were really opened. So, perhaps this rather phenomenological approach to male privilege which was compiled by a man, not a woman) will not resonate with all readers. This is always a risk when you proceed phenomenologically and not logically.
Alas, I can't help but be baffled by your and SteveR's response that this list is antithetical to recruiting allies for feminist causes. I have exactly the opposite reaction. Were a man to read this list and find it illuminated a bit more why women are still not happy with the state of the world, and that insight made him far more focused in how he structured his work environment or made political choices, then woo hoo, a success.
Another question that this discussion has left me with is: do you and SteveR believe that men do not get certain "bonuses" or "privileges" by virtue of being men in a "man's world"?
Fundamental to my feminist outlook is the insight that the generic individual, whom we imagine in talks about rights, duties, and around which we structure institutions, is always already an unecumbered male. Such a male is the "norm" against which all women are judged. To my mind, this list does a good job bringing home that insight.
Aspazia
To take the second question first, do I personally benefit from male privilege? In some ways, definitely. I can feel more able to walk around some areas of cities at certain hours of the day. I don't have to wear panty hose. I don't have to dress up in smart clothes in order to maintain an aura of seriousness -- I can be my usual untidy self without losing the respect of my colleagues, and it is pretty clear that my female colleagues feel a need to always maintain a "professional" apprearance. In grad school, I was never subject to sexual harassment from senior members of the department, while at least one of my peers was. (Although in another department around the same time, a male grad student was I think pressured into sex with a male professor, so it is less clear that statistically speaking in my environment then that female grad students were at greater risk of harrassment than the males.)
However, in my day-to-day life, compared with my female colleagues and friends, I see little or no evidence that my male status gives me significant advantage in terms of my career or personal life. I get some advantages from being male, but I get some disadvantages too. Overall, I don't think my life would be much easier or more difficult if I were female, given my relatively comfortable academic middle class environment. In contrast, living in a racially segregated part of New York, I'm more aware that being white is much easier than being black or Hispanic, not so much professionally but certainly in day to day life. On the street where I live, I don't think there are any black families, and while I don't expect that there would be overt racist behavior here, I would imagine that it could still be rather difficult to be the first black family on the block here.
As for ways of making men more aware of their advantages, and the global oppression of women, there are many ways to do this. I guess the male privilege list has a tone full of guilt. It reminds of the title of John Stoltenberg's book "Refusing to Be a Man." There's something very negative about the approach. I'm all for consciousness-raising, and making men more aware of the ways in which power is established in many small social ways using silent threats as well as obvious uses of force. And I'll concede that the List might be an effective way to introduce the issue in some contexts. But not many.
So that gets me to pedagogy. I'm all for using provocative texts and videos in the classroom. Philosophy professors do need to use tools that will make students unhappy, and indeed, adopting a philosophical attitude means being ready to question one's most cherished beliefs, and sometimes students get very defensive when asked to do this. But, if I can make a point in a way that does not piss off half or more of the class, and still makes most of them see it clearly, then that's what I'd go with. To discuss the thousand small and subtle ways that male privilege can pervade everyday life, I would probably look for a narrative of women's experience, fiction or memoir, combined with feminist analyses of the many forms of female disempowerment. Ultimately, I think that would be a more powerful way of conveying the point too.
Excellent. I've just had a thought.
This isn't so much an addition to the list, but I think it illustrates the premium we place on this list. If we, as men, grow old without marrying, we are "committed bachelors." Women in the same position? "Spinsters."
Furthemore: Take any circle of young, single, male friends. Give one a girlfriend/boyfriend/wife. What happens to that individual when he places the interests of his partner above that of his friends? He is "whipped." So not only is this a checklist of male privilege, I think it's an example of how males can expect to be responded to should they refuse the benefits of any such part of the checklist.
Interesting.
Commenting by HaloScan
