novapsyche | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

I want to encourage all of my friends to take my latest poll. It's been interesting to read all of the different discussions in various posts this week in my journal. Thanks to all of you for making this journal an active (I even want to say vivacious) place.

So, after you've taken the poll, please read further:

I did a bit of Google digging and found out that "B. Deutsch" is indeed a man, or at least that's what I assume from the person's name. B stands for Barry. The list was published online here at Expository Magazine in 2004 (although some versions of it were known online before then, because I saw a discussion of it dated to 2003).

Here is Mr. Deutsch's biography.

For those who thought that the author of the article was a woman, does your reading of the article change now that you know otherwise?

Threaded | Flat

Not overmuch, for me, though that may be because even though I am male, I see the world through a non-heterosexual lens... **shrug**

For those who thought that the author of the article was a woman, does your reading of the article change now that you know otherwise?

In ways that do not change my conclusions. I look at it rather in the same way I look at Heinlein's Friday; I'm impressed that he nailed down the psychology that well. That said, with Heinlein, I have feminine backup (I know a few women who insist no male could get it that right, and thus Friday must have been ghostwritten), and with this, it could just be me looking through male eyes and seeing what I think is the correct psychology.

I could also be making assumptions because you, being female, posted it-- that you thus agreed with it, at least in part, and thus validated my view of the psychology of the writer as feminine in some essential way. But I'm reaching with that.

As I recall, there was one particular passage that said to me "this is a female author," rather than assuming it from the subject matter-- I'll have to go back and re-read to see if I can pick it out.

do those of us who thought the author was a man get to do a little victory dance now?

Incidentally, it did make me come up with a companion list for women. It needs more work before becoming a common list, but I think it points up some mirrors to the priviliges men get:

Privileges of Women in American Society:

I can hit a man and reasonably expect not to be hit back.
I can leave my career to raise my children and not be called a lazy bum.
If I wish, I can spend hours in front of a mirror playing with my appearance & experimenting with makeup, and not have my gender identity questioned.
I have a much wider selection of clothing options available to me. It doesn't matter to the vast majority of people whether I choose to wear a dress or slacks.
I can go on a date with someone of the opposite sex and not be surprised if he pays for everything. Conversely, people will think it's exceptionally nice of me to "go dutch" without being asked first.
If I learn to do tasks that are non-stereotypical for my gender, such as changing the oil in my car, I am being independent and self-sufficient.
Being a homemaker is considered an acceptable career option.
People do not consider it strange if I don't know the rules of football or baseball.
I am more likely to graduate from college.
I am less likely to be a victim of violent crime. [1] Also, if I commit a violent crime, I am less likely to be found guilty and more likely to have a shorter jail sentence.
If I divorce my spouse, and I want custody of our children, I will probably get it.
If I abuse my male partner, people will assume that he is the actual abuser and I am just defending myself.
I can consciously choose not to advance in my career and not be considered "wimpy", an underachiever, or non-competitive.

It doesn't change my opinion at all. Men can write articles with a bias toward women just fine. The sex of the author has nothing to do with the content of the article.

I think it is ironic that in a discussion of the *Male* privilege checklist written *by a man* that a man was accused of derailing discussion of *women's concerns*.

The thing about the checklist: what is it's purpose?

If it was for Mr. Deutsch to examine his own privilege, well bully for him. But, it seems to me the purpose of making it public is to point out the privileges that men, collectively have.

The reaction of men is going to fall into three main categories:

1. Sexist pig. He's going to dismiss it as not reflecting reality or he's going to say, "So what? This is just life."

2. The sensitive feminist man. He's already going to be aware of most of these privileges. He's going to feel terrible about them. He's going to be doing everything in his power to address the areas that he can. Other issues are institutional, and not something the individual man can *do* anything about.

3. The average guy. He's already got some feminist awareness and generally agrees with the idea of equality. Maybe he feels that women were given a raw deal in the past, but he thinks we've come a long way and things are a lot closer to equal than they've ever been. He's going to see this huge list as an attack against him. He's going to look at every item that doesn't apply to him (say, if he's gay) or every item that's overstated or overgeneralized, and he's going to want to pick the list apart.

In none of those cases have you started a meaningful dialogue with men that is going to create change, either internally or societally.

I've been thinking about what you said about bringing up the idea that "women have privileges too" is off the topic, and that picking apart and deconstructing the list point by point is more on topic.

I understand where you're coming from, and I think your objection makes sense.

However, I don't think that bringing up female privilege is so much a derailment of the discussion as a different way of looking at privilege.

The man who brings up "Well, women have privileges too!" is looking at "privilege" in terms of "which sex has the advantage in society"?

From that viewpoint, it's like comparing the chances of two people in a car race.

If you say, "Well, obviously person A is going to win the race, because he has a slightly bigger engine, and he's young and has fast reflexes."

If the other person disagrees, he has two tactics: he can pick apart the so-called advantages of person A, explaining why his engine isn't really that much better or explaining why his reflexes aren't that great.

Or, he can explain that while, yes, Person A has these advantages, Person B also has advantages in the race. Person B has more experience in racing, and she's lighter, and so the car will go faster even with a slightly under-powered engine.

The second tactic is what I see going on when men point out women's privileges.

Furthermore, I think that a lot of women in the discussion started out with pre-conceived ideas of why men would object to the list. I recall the phrase "howls of protest" and women saying they see this kind of reaction all the time in feminist venues.

Either you and I can assume that every man who replied with objections (either on your posts or on my related ones) is a sexist pig who doesn't want to examine his own privilege, or at the least is not very evolved and self-reflective. Or, you can make the assumption that something is not quite right about the presentation or the content of the list.

A lot of women in the discussion leaped to the "Sexist Pig" conclusion without even allowing that some of the items were even arguable.

For those who thought that the author of the article was a woman, does your reading of the article change now that you know otherwise?

No. People born male are perfectly capable of achieving feminist awareness.

A couple other random things:

1. A big positive out of the discussion, for me, is that I found some really interesting people to add to my Friends List.

2. Have you read anything by Andrea Dworkin's partner, John Stoltenberg? If you're interested in men who are feminists, he's a facinating read. I've read at least one of his books, maybe two, though it's been years now.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/LivingWithAndrea.html

change my opinion of the article? No. I see no reason why it should.

Threaded | Flat

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

did knowing the author's gender