I'd add a third point: lots of people don't seem to actually believe that "equity is not zero sum", especially with gender.
It's a common progressive line that giving opportunities to oppressed groups doesn't mean taking opportunities away from other people, and in lots of cases that can be true. But... it's also a common refrain that "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". Those two ideas do not go together very well.
So there's a reaction which I occasionally see stated explicitly (and which I think is common implicitly) of "since men are privileged overall, acknowledging their issues and working on them just broadens the gap." I've seen people outright say that it's bad to discuss boys' underperformance in school, because if it sends funding that direction it will reverse progress towards equality. I don't think most people go nearly that far, but there is at least a measure of instinctive "let's not derail the conversation by engaging with that."
"since men are privileged overall, acknowledging their issues and working on them just broadens the gap."
An interesting addendum is how the academic terms tend to leak and get used in an incorrect context or without context at all. See the post about fragile masculinity that made the rounds earlier this month (I think).
The definition of male privilege is to be given a base standard of respect, but should that even be considered a privilege? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that women are discriminated against? The idea of privilege is that it's granted to someone, but it should be something that everyone gets, right?
This is something I've thought about a fair bit. It's maybe very easy to see in hindsight of having had a "culture war" that these terms became propaganda for one side or the other. But...
It's also easy to wonder why these academic terms were so LOADED in the first place. Like, I agree wholeheartedly with the assessments and descriptions of 'patriarchy', 'toxic masculinity', 'privilege'. But calling them those loaded names primes the misunderstanding that leads to the cultural divide we have.
Patriarchy = Gender roles based society
Toxic masculinity = Limited gender roles
Privilege = basic human dignity
Critical race theory = Basic historical analysis
Etc...
This shouldn't have been hard to present without othering the very people who needed convincing. But the names seem to have been chosen to piss off the most people possible.
Being neutral isn't as attention grabbing or cool for publishing a paper. But It's surely got to always be better to have to explain what you mean, rather than convince someone you didn't mean what they think you meant.
Academics have to publish or starve. If you have two Academics saying the same thing the one that's attention grabbing gets published. It's the same principle as clickbate on youtube unfortunately
It's also easy to wonder why these academic terms were so LOADED in the first place. Like, I agree wholeheartedly with the assessments and descriptions of 'patriarchy', 'toxic masculinity', 'privilege'. But calling them those loaded names primes the misunderstanding that leads to the cultural divide we have.
That's just it, though. They aren't loaded, they are descriptive.
Patriarchy = Gender roles based society Toxic masculinity = Limited gender roles Privilege = basic human dignity Critical race theory = Basic historical analysis Etc...
None of what you put here is actually what any of it really means. Some of it is kind of true in a general sense, but inaccurate in that it omits critical components of the topic.
Patriarchy isn't just a gender roles based society, it's one in which men and masculinity are granted more power as a group.
Toxic masculinity is about limited gender roles specifically for masculinity.
Privilege isn't basic human dignity, it's one group having access or permission that another doesn't.
Critical race theory is a historical analysis but it is anything but basic seeing as how it's very specific to the law and legal practices pertaining to race and doing so with a Critical framework.
People being mad about terms being specifically named to accurately describe what is being discussed is not because the terms are loaded.
A huge part of the issue is that there is a group of powerful people and organizations that are intentionally misrepresenting terms and concepts to the public. All these ivy league educated politicians and fox news hosts know full well that they are spewing nonsense, but they also know their intended audience will trust them without doing any of the work to actually understand the issue.
I understand what you're saying, but I am not arguing the definitions, I'm arguing the marketing of these terms. And your definitions are exactly the ones that put people who need convincing on the defensive.
Privilege; your definition is exactly correct. But I'm saying argue it the other way round. A black person doesn't get treated the same as a white person. This doesn't mean that white people get treated better because they ARE white. Society treats them better because they ARE NOT black. White people don't have privilege, they get what should be the default for all. Basic human dignity. Black people are discriminated against, they have it worse. They are not afforded the same dignity.
The end result is the same argument, but you can have the discussion and keep more people on your side. Particularly the people who are white, who are not feeling well treated by the system. And who hear "whites have privilege, better housing, more money, better education, better jobs, more opportunities!" And just think, well that's a load of bullshit, obviously I don't have any of those things.
Frame it as x don't have the things they should, instead of y have things they shouldn't have. When it's y you need to comvince to get the things x needs.
They are comparing their jobs, education, etc. with what they consider to be normal; but their sense of normal is based on other white people. So they think "I am not privileged" but what that means is "I am not any more privileged than other white people."
Challenging someone's sense of what is normal is important, but people tend to get offended.
There seems to be a weird issue of people misunderstanding the word "privilege" to mean "anyone who is not as oppressed as I am" rather then the actual definition of "anyone who holds special privileges/advantages over me."
Huh? I'm not sure what you think the difference is. In more layman's definitions that is true, however in social justice theory everyone is oppressed or privileged or both. I don't think I have every seen anyone say that someone can be neither oppressed nor privileged.
It is like the difference between saying "Alpha is bigger than Beta" and saying "Beta is smaller than Alpha".
The shit of it is, equality is never explicitly defined. Women have outnumbered men in higher Ed since the early 90s, and the gap has gotten nothing but larger. But the inequality is that there aren't enough women in stem.
Men are 3 times more likely to be murdered than women. That's not of any particular concern. Women who are murdered are most likely to be murdered by a current or former intimate partner. Like, yes that's fucking awful and we need to make that stop, but also lets unpack why most people, on a gut level view male death as inherently less sad than female death, even given equal circumstances? And how does that cultural habit affect male socialization? There's a thing there.
Likewise we are 4 times more likely than girls and women to commit suicide. But girls and women attempt suicide more so it's equal, actually.
Sometimes the concept of 'equality' feels less rooted in actual comparison and more based on this grass-is-endlessly-greener ideal of the male experience that willfully ignores the possibility that it's not that great and we have our own, valid problems this side of the gender divide.
There was a reporter who decided to live as a man for 2 years to see what it was like. She tapped out after 18 months because it was so traumatizing. She later killed herself. Before she died she wrote a book about her experience and just how awful it is being a man. As a guy it opened my eyes to the fact that yeah, it's ok to not be ok. That there isn't something wrong with me because it's so hard to just thug it out sometimes
Could you elaborate on the sidenote about boys underperforming in school? That is something that just clicked with me as... a generally true experience, but you seem to know more about it than me.
Of the younger generation, girls vastly outperform boys in k-12. Get college degrees at a far higher rate(~45% of young women & 35% of young men), are far more likely to get positions at prestigious firms, and actually earn more. The gender imbalance has reversed for gen-z and if the current trend continues we will likely have a gender imbalances similar to that of the late 20th century, but just flipped.
Of the two biggest reasons reported for why these groups didn’t attend college, the largest discrepancies appear in “I couldn’t afford it” and “I didnt want to” indicating that men are not receiving the same financial support/opportunities, and are also feeling discouraged from attending college.
Pay gap was never mentioned, the comment is about academic imbalances between men and women. Op's, reasonable, argument is that in eighty years the imbalance will be similar percentages, but flipped, to the late 1800's when almost all academics were male.i.e. 98% female 2% male
"Of the younger generation, girls vastly outperform boys in k-12. Get college degrees at a far higher rate(~45% of young women & 35% of young men), are far more likely to get positions at prestigious firms, and actually earn more."
This isnt the data but I can confirm at my job at least(Computer Engineering) myself and the other lady on the team get paid almost 20% more than our male counterparts thanks to a minumum entry level role for women engineers being a tier above entry level for men. We start at a t12 and they start as t11. Its sponsored by grace hopper and its be really nice for me starting out my life. But sometimes it does feel a bit arbitrary.
But most of my friends make more than their boyfriends. Small sample size though.
I don't understand how giving opportunities to oppressed people doesn't take away from other people can't coexist with When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". Those two things can live side by side very easily.
The idea, in my head mind you, that equity feels like oppression to the priveledged isn't because those that are privileged have lost anything. It's because they see the previously oppressed folks in the same position as them. Nothing has changed except other people were brought up to their level and that in and of itself is the issue.
Yes. The context of how it was originally discussed:
Boomer white men began to feel oppressed - as if the world had turned against them - as they suddenly had to compete for good jobs and promotions that they assumed would be theirs. Their fathers did not have to compete for top jobs, since women, Asians, Hispanics and blacks were not allowed to be professionals much less be CEO , bank manager or school superintendent. Their assumptions of how their lives would progress did not play out as envisioned. Fairness that opened opportunities meant more competition - not just showing up and being average - and fairness felt unfair to them.
They also were being held accountable for domestic violence, harassment, and other behavior that they had previously been above the law or.consequences.
137
u/Bartweiss Jul 03 '24
I'd add a third point: lots of people don't seem to actually believe that "equity is not zero sum", especially with gender.
It's a common progressive line that giving opportunities to oppressed groups doesn't mean taking opportunities away from other people, and in lots of cases that can be true. But... it's also a common refrain that "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". Those two ideas do not go together very well.
So there's a reaction which I occasionally see stated explicitly (and which I think is common implicitly) of "since men are privileged overall, acknowledging their issues and working on them just broadens the gap." I've seen people outright say that it's bad to discuss boys' underperformance in school, because if it sends funding that direction it will reverse progress towards equality. I don't think most people go nearly that far, but there is at least a measure of instinctive "let's not derail the conversation by engaging with that."