28
29

The Origins of Privilege (newyorker.com)

skepticalbipartisan が 投稿

全 143 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]dermanus 32ポイント33ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think this is the most important part:

what I believe is that everybody has a combination of unearned advantage and unearned disadvantage in life. Whiteness is just one of the many variables that one can look at, starting with, for example, one’s place in the birth order, or your body type, or your athletic abilities, or your relationship to written and spoken words, or your parents’ places of origin, or your parents’ relationship to education and to English, or what is projected onto your religious or ethnic background. We’re all put ahead and behind by the circumstances of our birth. We all have a combination of both. And it changes minute by minute, depending on where we are, who we’re seeing, or what we’re required to do.

I try to avoid using the word 'privilege' because I feel it's been weaponized by certain people and as such it tends to create more noise than clarity but the concept itself is sound.

[–]workingclasswoman 49ポイント50ポイント  (13子コメント)

This was a great article. It inspired me to do a little unpacking of my own advantages/disadvantages.

I am not a strong woman. There are things that I just cannot do. The stigma that "women are weaker" is something I struggle with in real life. This does not mean pickle jars are a way of "the man" oppressing me. There are inherent disadvantages and advantages within this stereotype. It means that when I need help, I am likely to get it. There is an underlying sympathy that comes with asking for assistance.

I feel ashamed that I am feeding the notion that women need men to help them while simultaneously benefitting from it's existence. What is the alternative? What solution do feminists have for someone like me? If I was raised to believe women were supposed to be strong and not need the help of a man, I wonder if I'd be so comfortable asking for help.

Then it hit me. The parallel to men's issues become stunningly obvious. This is exactly what society expects from them. Knowing how embarrassing it is for me to admit I need help, I only now have considered how uncomfortable I've made some men feel when they were incapable of doing so.

To use the pickle jar cliche as an example here: The shame I feel when asking for help happens twofold to the man who attempts to open it and fails. I've seen this happen numerous times but I've never given it much thought.

With this newfound perspective, I'm starting to see parallels in other areas of Patriarchal Oppression that affect both genders.

I don't feel safe walking alone at night. When I see a man is about to cross my path I feel an instinctual fear for my own safety. I've never considered why I feel this way. Nothing has ever happened to me to illicit this natural response but it happens all the same. Where is this anxiety coming from?

At some point in my life I must have been taught this idea that men should be feared. I didn't wake up one day and decide that I should be scared for my life when passing a stranger. I did not choose to feel this way yet I feel it all the same.

Does this mean it is a privilege for men to walk down the street without feeling petrified? I cannot fathom the toll it would take on one's sense of humanity to be looked upon as a monster; something to be feared. I've personally crossed the street to avoid the possibility of becoming a victim. What does it say to those men that see people like me avoiding them like the plague? Is being feared a trait most men strive towards?

There are many other examples that are surfacing now that I'm seeing the bigger picture. A lot of the things being labelled as misogyny affect men in different ways. I'm starting to see how this word isn't a fair assessment of what is really happening here.

There is a certain sense of attachment to the idea that we women are oppressed. Feminist theory is a useful tool in opening our eyes to trends in society that lead to disadvantages. I've personally fallen victim to the tunnel vision that occurs when you focus on these discrepancies. We are still in the infancy of intersectional thinking and I believe the next step is abandoning our cling to academia that dictates our perception.

I will no longer argue whether "female privilege" exists because academia dictates that it cannot. I'm ready to accept the benefits that come with being a woman and understand the baggage that comes with being a man.

I am giving up the idea that women cannot be oppressors. I'm willing to take responsibility for the amount of control/options I've been awarded with that are not offered to other human beings. I cannot continue denying the privileges that come with my race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. To deny my own advantages is to dismiss the disadvantages someone will face for being different.

When a man tells me he has been discriminated for being a man, I will listen and I will believe. How can I in good conscience expect the same level of respect if I'm not offering it in return? We are more than the labels we choose or are forced to wear. Let's look past these superficial qualities and stop using them as weapons and shields.

Let's start treating each other as the equals we are claiming to be.

[–]skepticalbipartisan[S] 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thank you so much for sharing your opinion. You've put into words the sentiment that I've been feeling since getting wrapped up in the war for social justice. When I'm asking for equality as a man, I'm not trying to take away your equality as a woman.

Something you said triggered an awareness inside of me about how men and women can come together for true equality. I think institutional oppression only exists when society is made aware of disadvantages and is unwilling to help. We need to separate negative stereotypes from what we currently define as oppression.

I am no expert in these matters. I've seen people raise the question "how does feminist theory apply to men". In the case of oppression, it seems clear to me, that if there is an inherent disadvantage associated with a part of your identity, you should be afforded assistance of some kind. To deny the existence of such things and dismiss the needs of entire groups of people, really sounds like oppression to me.

[–]workingclasswoman 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for posting the article!

I like the overall sentiment behind your argument, though I feel it could be more nuanced. I hope you keep working on it and continue to share what you've learned. (:

[–]Semaug 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well men are still higher on the rings of the hierarchy of power than women. But people saying a martriarchy doesn't exist in any form are wrong too.

[–]azazelcrowley 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you think of a reason why you didn't notice the duality nature of sexism before? Out of curiosity.

(By the way: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/images/408154aa.2.jpg )

The perceived lack of people having this insight you are talking about is a huge driving force in anti-feminism and the MRM.

I'm aware this is a feminist sub, and i'm only just back, but I think this is worth mentioning for this post, because the thread here is great.

I think a lot of peoples understanding of sexism has a female gaze problem.

Women developed and codified the theory of sexism and how to view it. This led to people interpreting each sexism event as one that victimizes women in favor of men, when as you point out that's not really the case, and that view may well prevent actually solving the problem. I also think this contributes to the lack of men in the feminist movement, because what it's talking about is a completely alien perspective to men. Not only that, but as I point out elsewhere, it encourages men to view the issue in terms of how it effects women, and to act on sexism to help women. Almost like, you know, their wellbeing was your responsibility. As opposed to allowing men to develop an internal framework to view sexism and oppose it out of self-respect and such. I think this problem means a lot of men just give in when women make appeals to traditionalist sexism, with no woman to protect, there's no problem, and even if you think there is, arguing you are being discriminated against to a woman as a man is something a lot of men just give up at the thought of, some don't even consider it, some try and have women who DO know this but still knowingly abuse their social power to derail the criticism, some try and women who lack this perspective on sexism dismiss the idea, and some try and succeed. This ALSO drives anti-feminist sentiment and the sense that it is a supremacy movement. Allowing men an internal framework changes that.

There's been a problem of people insisting over and over that it's a vase. Then men take a look and say you're a liar, it's two faces. Both fail to understand that the existence of one brings forth the other.

All sexist incidents are a matter of interpretation on whether they are misogyny or misandry. I think the feminist movement has made the mistake of asserting a particular interpretation as gospel, for understandable reasons, but that this has caused it to make big mistakes in terms of policy, as well as alienated potential converts. I've seen some feminists agree with the duality model, but not as many as i've seen asserting All Is Misogyny And The Patriarchy. Then again, i've also seen the former view grow slightly over time.

From your new perspective, would you agree that prior to you realizing this, your old worldview now seems quite hateful, or apathetic towards mens problems?

You now understand why people say feminists hate men and don't care about their issues. It's because a lot of them don't, because of this problem you just overcame. What they care about is womens perspective on mens issues. If you want to know how to get a much better wave of feminism going, it's to emphasize this point.

Now, this is where it gets real hairy.

You pointed out the academia is clung to.

How we'd put it in the MRM is,

Feminism has been institutionalized, and this results in the oppression of men. Do you see how they could think that?

What we mean is, a bunch of people who do not understand this revelation of yours are enforcing their view on society and indoctrinating people into believing it. Added to that is the cultural idea that you should be hostile to people challenging this system. And then you just how good old vested interests and money to keep it all together.

(Difficult to say "Gender studies was all only half the story, my degree is almost pointless without talking to men about their experiences too, unless i'm aiming to just entrench biases for women." Far easier to say "No, what I learned at university is the whole truth. It has to be. My paycheck depends on it." And when the latter sort of people start piling up in a profession, especially one where your peers have influence over your success, you've got a big problem for anyone who wants to tell the emperor he's naked. This dynamic has happened with a lot of stuff before. Feminists on the ground may be wildly different to what "Manufactured" feminists are.)

And now you've got a bunch of professionals pushing the same flaw in the media and in institutions and such. Then you throw on the penance overtones that occasionally rear their head of "Well, mens complaints about anything are meh because women have it so hard and have for centuries, so anything that happens/we do is just payback." in some women, though not many (And more depressingly, some men say this type of crap too), but it still forms a part of mens experience of feminism as an idea, that women can and some have used this to justify doing things that they acknowledge are petty and sexist bullshit, but that they don't care, something which is impossible to justify without lacking this insight, the feeling of demonization for all problems, all of the problems stemming from your old perspective, basically, drive the notion that feminism is a hate movement.

Now add that, from our perspective, feminists actively campaign against and shut down or try to discredit people who reject the patriarchal model of sexism, thus keeping the flawed view in place.

From that perspective, do you now understand why the MRM and anti-feminists think the feminist movement is oppressive to men and such? Because I think understanding why they think that, in addition to encouraging people to have this revelation, will probably be necessary for gender equality to ever succeed. Normally I see shit like "they are just afraid of losing their privilege." or "They just don't understand feminism.", but as you're now aware, that's not the case. I think feminists who believe in the duality model need to be a lot louder in their advocacy and pro-active in challenging feminists who don't. I don't think we've got much of a chance otherwise.

The MRM considers "Feminism" to be your view, prior to your revelation. Lots of MRAs would deny you are a feminist now.

I personally don't care what people call themselves, but do personally use feminist the same way the MRM does, because there's not a word for it otherwise that i'm aware of.

This is also why the menslib sub was received both well and mockingly. To the MRM, the notion of a mens movement that utilizes the female-gaze ideology is laughable, especially since you cannot reject fundamental parts of that gaze as innacurate, despite the fact it's regularly speculatory about mens reasons for behaving certain ways (A direct consequence of trying to build a complete narrative from only one genders perspective while still trying to figure out the other ones motivations, rationales, etc. Feminism fails to properly evaluate men, but is true of womens experience of sexism and their thought process in response to it. And yes, even their speculation on the motivations of men are interesting when they differ from mens actual motivations and rationalizations for behavior and stuff is good. That's useful. It's interesting data. We can use that to get clues for where sexism may be lurking in our behaviors and outlooks. It's why I support the mens rights movement too, even when they speculate on why women sometimes do things and some of the speculation is that they are just evil and hate men/are totally selfish. I think those moments are interesting, because they show a disconnect between the genders. There is very little point in trying to combat a problem if you don't allow yourselves to openly talk and engage in it. We should be saying out entire opinions about the other gender without fear of sexist remark, so that the data can be looked over, compared, and then we can discuss why certain things are inaccurate, or hurtful, etc. We shouldn't be avoiding the appearance of being sexist, if we're trying to fix sexism. It's counter productive. It restricts us from being totally open and frank with our opinions. I think the call out culture prevents progress.). Their assertion that feminism being challenged is a mens rights issues entirely true, for their conception of feminism.

I've previously said that whether or not the feminist movement is the movement for gender equality depends on whether it can adapt to duality. If it insists on retaining a gynocentric view of sexism, it isn't the movement for gender equality and never was, we merely mistook it for one. If it adapts, then this is just another evolution of the movement.

[–]jeanralph 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thank you very much for this post.

Your last paragraphs in particular are illuminating. I'm a man who has experienced first-hand a glimpse of unfair treatment on account of my gender. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but just enough to understand that yes, there is a such a thing as being treated unfairly because you're male. More importantly, I've also heard of fellow men who have been through much worse than my firstworld middle class self.

Having had those intimate experiences, sometimes you're trying to explain them but can't quite formulate them in a way that fits neatly with feminist theory, especially at first when you're not used to that world and do not master its many codes. And then somebody simply throws at you the full might of what -or so they claim- academia says, in an attempt to invalidate every point you made. It stings and that feels particularly unjust, it's infuriating really.

Academia and social sciences are ultimately just powerful tools through which we can make sense of the world by identifying recurrent patterns, using more or less rigorous methodologies.

When updated frequently whenever new information comes to light and wielded by unbiased minds, they're great. When they're used with an inaccurate, distorted axe to grind... Well, then it merely hampers the proper identification and conceptualization of issues that actually exist in the real world.

[–]workingclasswoman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're welcome. It was nice to put down what I was feeling, I'm glad it helped.

Reading your post made me think of something I read in that article from the thread talking about tension:

Achieving or avoiding

We respond in two ways to tension, depending on how we view the two factors that are creating the tension. If we focus more strongly on a desirable future then this will pull us towards it as we seek to achieve that future. On the other hand, if we focus first on the undesirable present, then this has the effect to push us away from it as we seek to avoid a future where the discomfort remains.

Satisficing

If the tension is strong enough, we will not search for the best solution, we will simply grab at the first one that comes along that will do the job, even if there may be better solutions out there. This is called satisficing.

[–]TheoremaEgregium 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Does this mean it is a privilege for men to walk down the street without feeling petrified? I cannot fathom the toll it would take on one's sense of humanity to be looked upon as a monster;

It can be even worse. Boys get fed the same message, that men are dangerous. So then if you are a timid character even as a man you feel afraid sometimes. Not everybody is an MMA fighter. Imagine that: You are petrified at night in a bad neighborhood or an empty subway station or in front of a riotous pub, and at the same time you feel like a monster. Worst of both worlds. Between a rock and a hard place.

[–]workingclasswoman 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately we live in a world where random acts of violence do happen. Awareness and education are a must. I wish it were as easy as teaching people that it's wrong but reality doesn't work that way.

I personally take the necessary precautions to avoid situations where I could be a victim. Things like not walking alone at night and making sure people know where I am going to be. It's not ideal or even fair to have to think this way but that's life!

[–]Vio_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is something about"strength" levels often being calibrated by men for men. Pickle jars come to mind. I do struggle opening them at times especially as I have smaller hands, but I wonder if men have a much easier time without recognizing the strength gap. That's a very minor thing, but then how does it translate elsewhere in let's say blue collar jobs. Does something have to be calibrated to that level of required force or is it calibrated to accommodate average male strength levels?

[–]workingclasswoman 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am not an engineer but the ones I have seen tend to pride themselves with efficiency and ease of function. I think most calibrations would be set to the level of required force. I actually looked up why pickle jars are so hard to open and it makes sense. I'd definitely be interested in seeing cases where something needs to be calibrated to the strength of the average man. Maybe someone more knowledgeable will have an example!

[–]Sortarius 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I 1000% wish I could give you gold. As OP stated already, you succinctly stated a feeling I've had for a long time about privilege.

[–]workingclasswoman 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was extremely apprehensive about sharing my perspective in a space dedicated to men and their issues. It's nice to know my words were well received.

[–]Pennwisedom 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bit late here, but I just wanted to say I'm glad you wrote this.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, because certainly people I know have shared certain articles recently, including this one and when I read this the overarching feeling I get isn't really the one I think I'm supposed to get. What it is is the worry that I am going to do something and I am going to be perceived to be the same as these people. And if anything all that does is just scare me and make me afraid of any contact.

[–]derivative_of_life 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

But what I believe is that everybody has a combination of unearned advantage and unearned disadvantage in life. Whiteness is just one of the many variables that one can look at, starting with, for example, one’s place in the birth order, or your body type, or your athletic abilities, or your relationship to written and spoken words, or your parents’ places of origin, or your parents’ relationship to education and to English, or what is projected onto your religious or ethnic background. We’re all put ahead and behind by the circumstances of our birth. We all have a combination of both. And it changes minute by minute, depending on where we are, who we’re seeing, or what we’re required to do.

Isn't that usually just called "being an individual?" Honestly, it seems to me that the only way this wouldn't be immediately obvious is if you subscribe to some sort of weird philosophy that sees people primarily as members of a group rather than as individuals.

[–]censorshipwreck 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think a lot of people do. I do. It's tough to switch from "I'm stuck in traffic" to "I am traffic".

Walking down the street, I get confused why someone would avoid me - until I remind myself that I'm a big 6' tall guy and it's 2am. All of which is a product of societal issues and not me personally. But I have to remind myself, still.

Edit: realized I switched perspective on you, but I think it's still the same point.

[–]skepticalbipartisan[S] 15ポイント16ポイント  (10子コメント)

We need to start focusing on compassion instead of competition.

[–]mach-2 26ポイント27ポイント  (9子コメント)

A fair platitude that gets overlooked because many people can't even acknowledge privilege in the first place. How is there going to be compassion without acknowledgment of inequality?

That's the very basis of feminism and every other facet of civil rights and egalitarian movements. The minute people bring up inequalities that discomfort the silent majority, suddenly everything is perceived as a zero sum game and an attack.

[–]dermanus 15ポイント16ポイント  (8子コメント)

To be fair, there are activists out there who do use the word to attack people. I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying it happens.

Compassion means helping people see that 'privilege' in this context has a lot more on common with empathy than guilt.

Part of the education and outreach side of things is making allowances for people.

I'm in IT. When I'm explaining a new concept I actively avoid using jargon because it puts people on edge. Many people have had a bad experience with some tech guy (it is almost always a guy) who made them feel stupid for not knowing why their Word document wouldn't open. I have to acknowledge I'm going to meet people like that and adjust myself to them rather than insisting they adjust to me.

[–]HephaestusToyota 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have done the same thing as well, and then I got accused of "mansplaining". It can be a difficult line to walk when you work in certain environments.

[–]dermanus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Certain environments see these discussions more as a game of 'gotcha' than an effort to improve society. I don't have much patience for them.

[–]TagPro-Left 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

I hear what you are saying, but I have to disagree. Sometimes people need to be put on edge. Tension is a productive emotion. Sometimes overcoming privilege, I.e. acknowledging privilege, can be a huge step in the process that is liberation. People being made to confront their privilege is a good thing. You cant build an intersectional movement without that happening.

[–]Leinadro 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

But as your "sometimes" implies there is a big difference bewteen "putting you on edge is an unintended consequence of trying to get you to see whats going on" and "i want to put you on edge i order to end the conversation".

[–]Terraneaux 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not like tension really creates productive shifts in viewpoint, anyway. People are more likely to be understanding if they're relaxed. The only way to get someone to change by stressing them out is bullying.

[–]skepticalbipartisan[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Tension principle

[–]dermanus 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Tension can be helpful, but only after they feel they aren't going to be attacked. It's intermediate level, not beginner.

[–]Terraneaux 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I hear that a lot, but it oftentimes just seems like justification for antagonistic behavior; after pissing someone off someone using 'privilege' as a rhetorical attack tool can run back to their dugout for hi-fives. And no progress will have been made.

[–]PermanentTempAccount 3ポイント4ポイント  (114子コメント)

Idk "privilege is complicated, situational and conditional" isn't really a groundbreaking observation. Nor is the idea that we all exist at what you might call...intersections...of different privilege gradients.

It almostfeels like there should be a word for it. Perhaps...intersectionality?

[–]NotDrewJustDrewish 8ポイント9ポイント  (41子コメント)

I think the problem many people have with intersectionality, as it has been done so far, is that it doesn't introduce much new to the conversation, but relies on repeating the same things, only taking them from conversations and putting them together.

So one conversation is "women are oppressed" and another conversation is "people of color are oppressed", so intersectionality is "women of color are oppressed differently than white women are oppressed".

More uncomfortable topics, such as "If it's okay for women to generally assume men to be dangerous, and the assumption that black people are dangerous is oppressive, what happens when a white woman assumes a black man to be dangerous? Is it oppressive?" don't seem to get as much traction in the conversation.

[–]Leinadro 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

More uncomfortable topics, such as "If it's okay for women to generally assume men to be dangerous, and the assumption that black people are dangerous is oppressive, what happens when a white woman assumes a black man to be dangerous? Is it oppressive?" don't seem to get as much traction in the conversation.

I see this generally avoided by specifically separating black and male.

But then i think its pretty common (but nowhere near universal) to split black men on issues like this where either their gender or their race matters in the the topic at hand.

[–]NotDrewJustDrewish 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

But then i think its pretty common (but nowhere near universal) to split black men on issues like this where either their gender or their race matters in the the topic at hand.

I agree, I've seen the same trend. I just think intersectionality should start from the idea that you cant split anyone up on any issues because they're all interconnected.

[–]Leinadro 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the reason that happens is that even before the intersecting came along people were already ideologically set against certain people.

Look at sentencing disparity.

How often outside of mra sites is the gender disparity actually acknowledged in sentencing?

[–]PermanentTempAccount 5ポイント6ポイント  (34子コメント)

It's interesting, because I think that question itself isn't as broad as it needs to be. "Oppressive/not oppressive" is a very binaristic approach to the issue, when people make these decisions for many different reasons.

I would also disagree that the average person would agree that "it's okay for women to generally assume men to be dangerous"--on the contrary, given the amount of consternation that old "Schroedinger's Rapist" article caused, people are still struggling to accept that women do in fact navigate structures of fear and violence daily. I'm not even sure your average feminist would accept it unconditionally--on the contrary, I find that the circles I run in have definitely moved past the oppressive/not oppressive dichotomy and are asking much more interesting, valuable questions about what the effects of such a decision or attitude might be, rather than blanket condemning or accepting it.

[–]NotDrewJustDrewish 9ポイント10ポイント  (33子コメント)

"Oppressive/not oppressive" is a very binaristic approach to the issue, when people make these decisions for many different reasons.

I agree. However, as someone else said, the academic definitions have been created in such a way as to be self perpetuating; if you're in the oppressor group, what you do is oppressive, nothing you do can not be oppressive. If you're unoppressed, nothing you do can be oppressive (or even immoral in any meaningful way).

I would also disagree that the average person would agree that "it's okay for women to generally assume men to be dangerous"--on the contrary, given the amount of consternation that old "Schroedinger's Rapist" article caused, people are still struggling to accept that women do in fact navigate structures of fear and violence daily.

I would disagree to that, though, given the number of times I've heard the argument that "Women are afraid to walk around at night" as an example of women being oppressed. That, essentially, their fear/discomfort, regardless of where it came from or why, was, in and of itself, a form of oppression which was being done to them.

And, to be honest, considering men are three times more likely to be assaulted and four times more likely to be killed, I would say that men navigate structures of violence more than women do - I mean, consider if the genders were reversed: would anyone accept the argument that men's lives are worse because they fear something which actually happens more to women than to men?

[–]PermanentTempAccount 2ポイント3ポイント  (32子コメント)

I agree. However, as someone else said, the academic definitions have been created in such a way as to be self perpetuating; if you're in the oppressor group, what you do is oppressive, nothing you do can not be oppressive. If you're unoppressed, nothing you do can be oppressive (or even immoral in any meaningful way).

what? who on earth are you reading?

I would disagree to that, though, given...

Actually that's an interesting question. Katie Roiphe's The Morning After (a book that has some definite problems) does contain a very illustrative discussion of the emergency call-boxes placed outdoors on a lot of college campuses in the late 80s/early 90s as a theoretical rape deterrent (i.e. if someone attacked you or a creepy weirdo was following you you could use the call box to notify the police). She argued that, in making this big sweeping gesture of putting up these big, blue-lit boxes, the universities sent an entirely unintended message: You (women) are not safe outdoors and so we must protect you. She argued this message was itself a kind of policing of public space, a tacit endorsement of the view that "out in public" is not a suitable environment for women--an endorsement doubly troubling because assaults themselves so rarely happen in public, anyway, so the call boxes couldn't even prevent the assaults that were most common anyway. For the record, I do tend to agree that this policing of space--even unintentionally--is a facet of patriarchy, just as much as city with a reputation as a sundown town is a facet of white supremacy, whether or not the reputation is deserved.

Also, to be quite clear, the fear that is being stoked in women is not fear of being assaulted, it is fear of being raped. Now, we both acknowledge that fears or experiences of assault can be just as debilitating as anything else--but the reality is that rape carries a very different kind of social weight, both immediately and long-term, than does assault/battery.

[–]AnarchCassius 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

Also, to be quite clear, the fear that is being stoked in women is not fear of being assaulted, it is fear of being raped.

A fair point, but the real issue is whether this fear is based on legitimate reasoning or if it is simply an unfounded fear.

For women or men rape is a far less frequent crime than assault. In 2008 roughly twice as many women experienced aggravated assault at a stranger's hands as experienced rape. There were over six times as many simple assaults of women by strangers as rapes. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf

The actuality of the structures of violence people navigate is very different from the narrative of women needing to fear rape at night which has been sold by traditionalists and progressive activists alike. If anything women being raped by strangers at night is about the only structure of violence people don't struggle to accept and it's largely a myth.

[–]PermanentTempAccount 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I actually think the fact that it is unfounded is even more interesting. The reality is women are cautioned not to walk home alone at night alone etc. etc. but the truth is that we are more likely to be sexually assaulted at home, by the person who walked there with us, than be caught alone in a dark alley.

That we are taught to fear and avoid being alone in public space is a fascinating phenomenon because as a socially endorsed fear it doesn't even actually keep us safe, so I have to ask, what purpose does it serve? If it isn't working, why does it propagate? Why is such a manufactured fear deployed in such a gendered way? Why is there no comparable use of scare tactics around simple assault/battery?

Also I find it weird that people keep acting like the fact that men are more likely to be assaulted is a clear indicator of structural inequality when the majority of offenders targeting men are other men. It raises questions about whether or not we live in a so-called "culture of violence", but it doesn't mean the same thing as the vastly imbalanced gendered perpetration of sexual violence, for example.

[–]workingclasswoman 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I can only speak for myself here but when I get scared it's not specifically rape I'm scared of. There are a number of awful things a person is capable of doing, rape is just one of them. Just because it might be the worst thing that could happen doesn't mean things like theft, assault, and murder aren't a concern.

I'm just reading this conversation and I don't see the point in arguing about the differences between physical and sexual assault. It's not like we're thinking the best thing that can happen is getting beaten up or having our purse stolen.

[–]AnarchCassius 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Another good point.

I'm mostly pointing out when considering overall risks men have very good reasons to fear strangers and the idea that women specifically should be afraid at night is mostly cultural (the last being something everyone in the thread seems to agree on).

On the other hand most of such violence, though not all, is perpetrated by men and so there is still a question of "is it okay for people to generally assume men to be dangerous?" or for that matter simply "is it okay for people to generally assume people to be dangerous?"

[–]workingclasswoman 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is where knowledge of prevention becomes relevant. Ultimately we are responsible for our own personal safety. The fear is lessened when the likelyhood of threat is reduced, which is doubly useful. There are studies that suggest the type of person who would commit these crimes are likely to prey on the more timid or frightened individuals.

I'm not sure where I fall on the "should people generally be feared" scale; I guess it depends on the situation.

[–]NotDrewJustDrewish 6ポイント7ポイント  (21子コメント)

Now, we both acknowledge that fears or experiences of assault can be just as debilitating as anything else--but the reality is that rape carries a very different kind of social weight, both immediately and long-term, than does assault/battery.

Great, another sub where we can discuss men's issues so long as we keep in mind that women's issues are always worse.

Do you wonder why subs like these always fail?

[–]PermanentTempAccount 1ポイント2ポイント  (20子コメント)

I didn't say that. I said your swap-the-genders exercise wasn't good because you were comparing two different fears: assault/battery and rape. Lord, you people are sensitive completely incapable of taking criticism.

[–]workingclasswoman 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

Lord, you people are sensitive

Do you want to reinforce the stereotype that men shouldn't talk about their feelings?

Saying insensitive shit like that is a good way to do it!

[–]PermanentTempAccount 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

You know, that's a fair criticism. Edited.

[–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]NotDrewJustDrewish 7ポイント8ポイント  (13子コメント)

    Not accepting the "women always have it worse" shtick on a sub about men's issues is "being sensitive".

    But, yes, of course fear of rape is worse than actually being assaulted. The two are totally incomparable and the thing women fear is worse! Silly me, thinking everything isn't always worse for women.

    Edit: See, this is exactly what I mean. The problem women have on the street is that they feel feelings of fear, and the problem men have out on the street is that they actually get assaulted.

    And, somehow, the fact that women feel afraid is evidence that women are oppressed, and the fact that men actually get assaulted is ignored.

    [–]AnarchCassius 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

    I am not sure they said women have it worse, they pointed out one detail that was different.

    [–]NotDrewJustDrewish 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    but the reality is that rape carries a very different kind of social weight, both immediately and long-term, than does assault/battery

    "Carries a very different kind of social weight" certainly sounds like "is worse".

    Or do you think they meant "carries a different, less bad, social weight"?

    [–]PermanentTempAccount -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

    oh, I get the problem

    I am talking to you

    but you are talking to a bizarre parody of me that says weird things that real me did not

    wait

    unless I'm the parody

    am I Bizarro-Me? oh god no

    [–]NotDrewJustDrewish 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Okay, let me be exact in seeing that I read you right:

    According to you, comparing fear of rape and fear of assault is an unfair comparison because fear of rape is different (and worse) than fear of assault because being raped is worse than being assaulted.

    Is that your position?

    [–]NotDrewJustDrewish 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

    I agree. However, as someone else said, the academic definitions have been created in such a way as to be self perpetuating; if you're in the oppressor group, what you do is oppressive, nothing you do can not be oppressive. If you're unoppressed, nothing you do can be oppressive (or even immoral in any meaningful way).

    what? who on earth are you reading?

    Realized I should have responded to this part earlier.

    I'm talking about the way certain terms, like sexism, are defined in an ideologically gerrymandered way as to always produce the result that one group is (no matter what they do) and one group is not (no matter what they do).

    Defining sexism as "a system of oppression wherein one sex has power over another", and within that definition defining "power" as "representation in positions of power", then, yes, all men are sexist simply by existing in such a system, and no women can ever be sexist, no matter what she does.

    I also find that the metrics for considering a group disadvantaged or oppressed seem to be highly inconsistent. For example, many people will argue that black people are oppressed because they face sentencing disparities against them in our legal system. But when you point out that men, relative to women, face sentencing disparities - suddenly "facing sentencing disparities" is no longer a valid metric for pointing out disadvantage.

    Or child custody. In the past, men were preferentially given custody of children in divorce. This was considered oppression of women, because a man could leave and take her children away, which was an awful thing to do to a parent. So the tender years doctrine was introduced. Now, our current state of custody preference is to give custody to the mother in a divorce - and now, again, "almost always loses their kids in a divorce" is no longer a valid metric of disadvantage (in fact, I've seen many argue that, since getting custody comes from patriarchal notions of women's role as caretakers, women getting custody is an expression of oppression of women).

    There are plenty more examples. Women are oppressed because we live in a rape culture where rape is normalized, but pointing out that prison rape of men is considered a joke, female pedophiles are said to be doing their victims a favor, men who have sex with unattractive women when blackout drunk are mocked for it, and women are legally unable to rape a man through PIV sex, and suddenly "normalization of rape against a group" is no longer a valid metric for disadvantage.

    [–]PermanentTempAccount 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

    that is such a bizarre misreading of the concepts you have cited and an impressive collection inaccuracies, half-truths, and misrepresentations that I cannot at this point believe that you are engaging in good faith, because (as evidenced by your complete failure to actually cite anyone who holds these views) you are clearly arguing with and apparently scoring points off of someone who doesn't actually exist, and I will not be a party to this intellectual masturbation

    [–]workingclasswoman 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    There are people who will take this: Rational

    And turn it into this: Irrational

    [–]jfpbookworm 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    So one conversation is "women are oppressed" and another conversation is "people of color are oppressed", so intersectionality is "women of color are oppressed differently than white women are oppressed".

    Except that intersectionality doesn't mean "the oppression of people of color + the oppression of women = the oppression of women of color."

    In fact, the key insight of intersectionality is that that "equation" doesn't hold true, which is why saying that a male-centered civil rights movement and a white-centered feminist movement don't adequately represent the interests of women of color.

    [–]NotDrewJustDrewish 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    In fact, the key insight of intersectionality is that that "equation" doesn't hold true, which is why saying that a male-centered civil rights movement and a white-centered feminist movement adequately represent the interests of women of color.

    I think you may have mistyped this sentence, or I'm having trouble understanding your meaning.

    [–]jfpbookworm 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I accidentally a word. Thanks.

    [–]skepticalbipartisan[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (47子コメント)

    Are you implying that Peggy McIntosh isn't "groundbreaking" enough for you? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth so please correct me if I am wrong.

    [–]PermanentTempAccount -1ポイント0ポイント  (46子コメント)

    It's mostly a reaction to the people in here being like "omg this person gets it".

    Well, yeah, and she did it in the late 80s, people. Get with the program. This should not be news to you.

    [–]Ciceros_Assassin[M] 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Inserting a higher level comment to say: pistols down, gentlemen. Let's see a bit more good faith here.

    [–]PermanentTempAccount 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I acknowledge that my tone was hostile, possibly inappropriately so.

    I honestly don't think feminism 101-level stuff is a productive discussion to have here, though, as it gets twisted to validate the "oh I just hate tumblr feminists" stuff, and doesn't attract the kind of discussion I think is most productive for this space.

    [–]Ciceros_Assassin 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Fair enough. My perspective is that, given the woeful state of the gender discussion on reddit and the net in general, we need to be charitable with people who are just learning these concepts, or, more importantly, unlearning bad information about them (while of course being discerning about who's here in good faith and who isn't).

    Thank you for your understanding.

    [–]mrsamsa -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Just be aware that being charitable to these people (who often turn out to be JAQing off) means that most of the people the sub is aimed at will leave in frustration.

    This is what happens to all of these subs. Trolls and anti feminists are given the benefit of the doubt, the feminists get frustrated trying to explain basic concepts over and over again then eventually leave, and you have "feminist" spaces that are filled with misogynists and anti feminists.

    [–]Another_Dupont -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Trolls and anti feminists are given the benefit of the doubt, the feminists get frustrated trying to explain basic concepts over and over again then eventually leave, and you have "feminist" spaces that are filled with misogynists and anti feminists.

    So, this subreddit already?

    [–]skepticalbipartisan[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (40子コメント)

    Why do you seem so aggressive? Think of who you're trying to attack here. Why do it? What are you hoping to gain?

    [–]Another_Dupont 5ポイント6ポイント  (11子コメント)

    They aren't being aggressive, but your comment is certainly quite pointed. They aren't attacking anyone by saying "this isn't new research, don't be shocked by its conclusions, folks have been saying this for decades".

    Acting startled by this kind of work is frustrating to people who have been involved in this struggle for far longer. I'm not saying that frustration should be expressed as "Well, fuck you ", but since no one is saying that here I think you can chill out.

    They're making the valid point that this is essentially "old hat", and that many people who attack the concept of privilege haven't actually learned what it means or how its applied. The notion of intersectionality isn't all that new at this point, having formally entered academic discussion in or around 1989. Here's some other stuff that happened then, to give this a chronological context for you.

    Hopefully, their comments help people who think stuff is revelatory to realize how "behind the times" their thinking is, and thus encourages them to research more. Then they could actually participate in the contemporary discussion of gender-related interstices of oppression.

    [–]PermanentTempAccount 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

    I would consider myself mean, but not aggressive, for the record :)

    And my feelings are complicated here, because the interview is mostly pretty middle of the road "yeah, cool, seems right" stuff and yet people are taking some really weird totally predictable messages away from it.

    Like, it feels like a lot of it is people who are just now getting that, no really, intersectionality means that probably most of us are oppressed along some axis, and that means they too get to feel Officially Oppressed and thus aren't The Bad Guys, but all of those assumptions are based on weird caricatures of the feminist movement to start with.

    It's sort of like when people throw around "radical feminist" like that's not a phrase with a meaning, context, and history in the world of gender politics. Part of me feels like it's the leftist/liberal thing again and we might as well let it go, but part of me--the part that considers myself a radical feminist--just can't. So maybe that's a personal failing, IDK.

    [–]Another_Dupont -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

    but all of those assumptions are based on weird caricatures of the feminist movement to start with.

    Literally this, all over this thread. This whole sub, really. For a feminist/pro-feminist space there sure is a lot of JAQ-ing off going on.

    [–]skepticalbipartisan[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (8子コメント)

    I'd like you to remember that this is our space. It was created for a reason. We are not encouraged to talk about these things in your spaces. I understand it's frustrating that this is new to some of us. There's no need to come in to a space designed for men with what comes off as an elitist attitude.

    [–]nightride 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I'm really put off by your use of "us", "our", and "we" in this thread. Why do you think you have more claim to this sub than others?

    [–]skepticalbipartisan[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Looking through your post history:

    There's already a whole bunch of less than ideal comments in there. I don't think the moderators are jaded enough for this job.

    Women are more than welcome to participate here and a ton have. This does not give you the right to moderate us because the "mods aren't jaded enough". If you have an issue with this I suggest you bring it up to one of them instead of trying to police reasonable conversation.

    [–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]Man-jusri 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Outreach is part of the mission of this sub. Exposing people to new ideas is encouraged. What's wrong with people exploring ideas they're not familiar with?

      [–]mrsamsa -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I'd like you to remember that this is our space. It was created for a reason. We are not encouraged to talk about these things in your spaces.

      Yes, this is our space, where "our" refers to feminists.

      [–]crankypants15 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Both men and women have privilege, but they are different things. Both men and women have problems, and they are different things. Unfortunately, the word "privilege" is often used as "men all have privilege and women have none because patriarchy"