FAQ: What is male privilege?
Before discussing “male privilege” it is first important to define what privilege means in an anti-oppression setting. Privilege, at its core, is the advantages that people benefit from based solely on their social status. It is a status that is conferred by society to certain groups, not seized by individuals, which is why it can be difficult sometimes to see one’s own privilege.
In a nutshell:
Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal. It’s about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal. It’s about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf.
[Betty, A primer on privilege.]
Since social status is conferred in many different ways — everything from race to class — all people are both privileged and non-privileged in certain aspects of their life. Furthermore, since dynamics of social status are highly dependent on situation, a person can benefit from privilege in one situation while not benefiting from it in another. It is also possible to have a situation in which a person simultaneously is the beneficiary of privilege while also being the recipient of discrimination in an area which they do not benefit from privilege.
Male privilege is a set of privileges that are given to men as a class due to their institutional power in relation to women as a class. While every man experiences privilege differently due to his own individual position in the social hierarchy, every man, by virtue of being read as male by society, benefits from male privilege.
When first dealing with the concept it might be easier to approach it from a systematic, rather than personal, approach. Consider what Lucy says here:
[T]rue gender equality is actually perceived as inequality. A group that is made up of 50% women is perceived as being mostly women. A situation that is perfectly equal between men and women is perceived as being biased in favor of women.
And if you don’t believe me, you’ve never been a married woman who kept her family name. I have had students hold that up as proof of my “sexism.” My own brother told me that he could never marry a woman who kept her name because “everyone would know who ruled that relationship.” Perfect equality - my husband keeps his name and I keep mine – is held as a statement of superiority on my part.
In this case the inequality is perceived, in part, because taking one’s husband’s name is considered “normal” for a woman, whereas choosing to keep one’s own name deviates from that. Popular culture often labels this behavior as “emasculating” to a man, but never bothers to question how a woman might feel being asked to give up something that has been part of her since her birth. This is an example of a culture of male privilege — where a man’s position and feelings are placed above that of the woman’s in a way that is seen as normal, natural, and traditional.
Going back to Lucy’s article, this is what she said in the paragraph directly preceding the one quoted above:
Male privilege may be more obvious in other cultures, but in so-called Western culture it’s still ubiquitous. In fact, it’s so ubiquitous that it’s invisible. It is so pervasive as to be normalized, and so normalized as to be visible only in its absence. The vast, vast, vast majority of institutions, spaces, and subcultures privilege male interests, but because male is the default in this culture, such interests are very often considered ungendered. As a result, we only really notice when something privileges female interests.
Most people do not think twice about a woman who shares the same name as her husband; they simply assume that the shared name is his family name. This is an illustration about how male privilege operates in stealth. When a wife does not share the same name as the husband, however, it often leads to confusion and even anger — as Lucy’s example illustrated. This is because the male-oriented option (wife taking husband’s name) is seen as default, and the neutral option (both parties keeping their original names) is a deviation from that norm and therefore comes across as privileging the woman because it doesn’t privilege the man.
It is important to keep in mind that the above example is not an outside incident; male privilege is an institutional problem that has a long history associated with it. In addition to her anecdote above, Lucy discusses how male privilege interacts with fandom; in “Occasionally Conversations with my Man Are Instructive” Ilyka talks about the impact of it in terms of male commenters on feminist blogs; and in her “Privilege in Action” series tekanji takes instances of privilege that she’s witnessed in various aspects of her life (both online and off) and deconstructs them, looking specifically at why they are problematic. All of which points to one thing: it’s not about one person saying or doing one thing, it’s about a whole lot of people saying and doing things that, collectively, end up giving men an overall advantage.
Related Reading:
Introductory:
- Ilyka Damen (Ilyka Damen): Occasionally Conversations with my Man Are Instructive [reprinted on this blog]
- Betty (Sturdy and Serviceable): IBARW: A primer on privilege: what it is and what it isn’t.
- tekanji (Official Shrub.com Blog): Privilege in Action [Ongoing series that illustrates how privilege works]
- Stephanie M. Wildman (NYU Press, 1996): Privilege Revealed: How Invisible Preference Undermines America
Clarifying Concepts:
- More on the different types of privilege:
Although different privileges bestow certain common characteristics (membership in the norm, the ability to choose whether to object to the power system, and the invisibility of its benefit), the form of a privilege may vary according to the power relationship that produces it. Male privilege and heterosexual privilege result from the gender hierarchy. Class privilege derives from an economic, wealth-based hierarchy.
[Wildman, p. 17.]
- An illustration of male privilege:
After a while, we began organizing “chick nights,” gatherings of just the four of us and maybe some other women we knew from outside the group. For reasons that were often kind of bizarre, some of the men in the group took exception to this. They never organized nights at which we were excluded. When we pointed out that by the law of averages, a good half of the various social outings ended up being guy-only, they replied that it was not the same thing.
“Look,” I finally said to one of them, “when we get together Saturday night, we’re going to paint our nails and put goop on our faces and play with each others’ hair and watch movies with really hot guys and talk about how hot the guys are and probably talk about sex and periods and all that fun stuff. Do you really have any interest in that?”
“No,” he replied, “but we could do other stuff instead.”
At which point I walked away, because otherwise things would have ended either with a rant on how it was not only more socially accepted but socially expected for women to be interested in stereotypically guy things than for guys to get into stereotypically female things (which I didn’t want to do, because really, we all did love gaming and horror movies and science fiction all that fun stuff), or else with me banging my head on the table.
We live in a culture of male privilege.
[Gillam, Lucy (The Fanfic Symposium): When Worlds Collide: Fandom and Male Privilege.]
- On the powers granted by privilege:
When a group of people has little or no power over you institutionally, they don’t get to define the terms of your existence, they can’t limit your opportunities, and you needn’t worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go. What are they going to do next: deny you a bank loan? Yeah, right.
[Tim Wise (ZNet): Honky Wanna Cracker?
A Look at the Myth of Reverse Racism.] - On the gray areas of intersecting privileges:
As a man who identifies as a feminist, I think a lot about the oppression olympics, in part because my place(s) within feminist discourse and activism always involve my understanding, to whatever degree I am able, my places of privilege. But also, I am always trying to better understand the oppression of others, trying to empathize with the feelings that oppression brings, by noting the places in my life where I am not the person with the *most* privilege. This is a dangerous business, because one has to avoid the temptation, which is sometimes really non-conscious, to equate one’s experience of not-being-privileged in a certain respect with being oppressed in another respect. That is, I have to also be constantly aware that my experience as a man who tends to cry in private and public from time to time (say), and who therefore doesn’t experience as much privilege that comes with traditional masculinity, may provide me some insight and empathy, it also will not compare in some important ways with most of the ways people experience oppression.
[Jeff (Feminist Allies): Oppression Olympics: To Run or Not To Run?.]
- tekanji (Official Shrub.com Blog): “Check my what?” On privilege and what we can do about it
- Barry Deutsch (Amptoons): The Male Privilege Checklist: An Unabashed Imitation of an Article by Peggy McIntosh *
- Peggy McIntosh (Independent School, Winter 1990): White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
Filed under: FAQ, clarifying-concepts, privilege

For a privilege primer, I would highly recommend Conversations with my Man. It’s usually a lot easier to swallow than the checklists, and even my privilege list raises a lot of hackles.
Thanks, tekanji. I just reposted that post here in fact, since the original blog is now private. [new link]
[...] FAQ: What is male privilege? « Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog “Privilege is conferred by society to certain groups, not seized by individuals, which is why it can be difficult sometimes to see one’s own privilege.” Short and to the point. (tags: privilege feminism society faq men reference) [...]
Just a note: I updated this entry, adding to the existing links and quotes. I also wrote up a more in-depth definition of the male privilege in order to try and foster a better understanding of the concept and how it operates.
[...] If you’re interested in getting a better understanding, I would recommend starting with this page and visiting the links after you’ve read the [...]
[...] and continued imbalance of power, where men as a class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus [...]
[...] Recent Comments FAQ: What is “… on Feminism Friday: The origins o…tekanji on FAQ: Isn’t the Patriarc…tigtog on FAQ: Isn’t the Patriarc…Official Shrub.com B… on FAQ: What’s wrong with s…Official Shrub.com B… on FAQ: What roles should men pla…FAQ: What is “… on FAQ: I’ve got nothing ag…FAQ: What is “… on FAQ: Isn’t the Patriarc…MansVoice on FAQ: Isn’t the Patriarc…FAQ: Aren’t fe… on FAQ: What is “sexismR…tekanji on FAQ: Why are you concentrating…tigtog on FAQ UpdatesFAQ: What is “… on FAQ: What is male privilege?… [...]
[...] sexist messages from the day we are born to the day that we die (see FAQ entries on the patriarchy, privilege, and why feminism is still needed for more information on this topic). The way that these messages [...]
[...] you should read. And in case you never got around to understanding male privilege, here’s this for you - actually that site is where I will start recommending all the Liberal Men I run into in my [...]
[...] that you should read. And in case you never got around to understanding male privilege, here’s this for you - actually that site is where I will start recommending all the Liberal Men I run into in my [...]
The italicised part of the above sentence, appears to introduce a conceptual element to “male privilege” not explicitly present in the definitions of “privilege” given at the start of this FAQ (the “general definition”). It is possible to conceive of advantages, status, and benefit which is conferred by society to certain groups, but which which is not due to the group’s institutional power. Children, for example, enjoy many such advantages, etc., but do not have institutional power.
My two questions are as follows: Is this omission from the definitions given at the start of this FAQ erroneous? I.e., is it intended that the word “privilege” - as generally defined - applies only to those advantages etc., which are due to the group’s institutional power?
If the answer is no, then what is the status of this additional element in the quoted sentence? Is it definitional, i.e., intended to restrict the term “male privilege” to a subset of the generally-defined privileges enjoyed by men as a class? Or is it indicative, i.e., is it intended to make a statement of fact about male privilege: is it claiming that the subset - so restricted - of generally-defined privileges enjoyed by men is in fact substantially the whole set?
Pardon me for phrasing these questions in so many different ways, but they are subtle and I wanted to be clear about what I’m asking. The questions are important because I consider “privilege” as defined here to be a coherent and useful lens through which to examine societal structures, but the idea that men as a class have institutional power is hugely problematic in ways which have largely or completely gone unexamined by feminists. Usually when I broach the subject, feminists refer to “male privilege” which is clearly begging the question. A google search of this site turns up a handful of instances of the phrase “institutional power”, but all of them simply claim that men have it, without any justification.
[...] Feminism 101 says the following in its Male Privilege FAQ: Before discussing “male privilege” it is first important to define what privilege means in an [...]
Daran, I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking here, and the phrasing you are querying dates from tekanji’s update of the FAQ, so I can’t answer you as to her intent. However, you seem to be a bit woolly on the whole class analysis concept, as (if I read you correctly) you are arguing that some men being disadvantaged in some ways means that men don’t have power as a class. So I’ll just address that.
Firstly, every person belongs to many classes which intersect in various ways to affect the status that any one person is perceived to own. We are a hierarchical species, and we have developed a tendency to console ourselves for low status in one hierarchy by working to enhance our position in another hierarchy. Of course, some hierarchies have a larger effect on us than others.
Secondly, it is absolutely undeniable that until last century men did have de jure institutional power as a class: women were literally second class citizens (and still are in some countries). It seems absurd to claim that we have erased the legacy of those traditions entirely in just a few generations of legal sexual equality when the de facto situation is that men still hold, and still expect to hold as their right, the vast majority of positions at the top of the social hierarchy (including the position of decision-maker in the household, who is deferred to by the rest of the family).
If members of one class overwhelmingly hold the positions at the top of social institutions, then that class has institutional power. Those actually heading the institutions define what is Normal, and those who don’t share aspects of their class become regarded as the Other. Obviously, the more class attributes you share with the Hierarchs (gender, race, ethnic/religious heritage, wealth, education, etc) the more Normal you are regarded as, whereas if you only share one or two attributes you fall uneasily between the Normal and the Other - however, those attributes you share with the Normal will give you social advantages over Others who do not share them.
(The same analysis holds to whites having institutional power over non-whites despite legal equality.)
Thanks for going to the trouble of answering. Unfortunately you didn’t understand my question, and consequently your answer, while certainly addressing some of where I am going, didn’t answer where I was at with my questions. This was my fault; I asked way too much in one go. Please permit me to have a second go.
Forget about “male privilege”, for a moment, and concentrate on “privilege in an anti-oppression setting” as defined in the first paragraph and the Betty quote. I notice that the concept of institutional power isn’t part of these definitions. My first question is: Is this omission an error? Is it the intention that the word “privilege” apply only to those advantages, benefits, and status which are due to the group’s institutional power?
Here’s a concrete example. It is not disputed, I assume, that children do not have institutional power. It also cannot be disputed that children enjoy “advantages that [they] benefit from based solely on their social status [as children] … that is conferred by society.”
So should we call these advantages “privilege”?
I think it’s disingenuous to try and call children privileged, the same way it’s dishonest to trot out, say, that ‘female privilege checklist’ and claim it compares to male privilege. Children don’t have privilege. They’re not adults. They don’t have privileges; they don’t have power, they just have protection provided by their adults.
Childhood is a stage of life. Sex is not. It’s static, unless one undergoes a series of operations.
It’s not erroneous; the institutionalized aspect was implied in the part about “social status”.
tekanji, the annual showering of presents on children is an “advantage that [they] benefit from based solely on their social status [as children] … that is conferred by society.”. It meets the definition of “privilege” as given at the start of this article. But ginmar says it isn’t a “privilege” and you say the definition is correct. I can’t reconcile these two positions. (Of course you may simply disagree with ginmar on this point.)
ginmar, you are mistaken if you think I’m “try[ing] to call children privileged”. What I’m trying to do, is pin down what the word “privelege” means “in an anti-oppression setting”. The impression I get is that meaning shifts according to the speaker’s need at the time.
SarahMC, there’s nothing in the definition of the word privilege that says it can’t apply to groups defined by their stage of life.
My last comment should have read