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.

[Lucy, When Worlds Collide: Fandom and Male Privilege.]

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.

[Lucy, When Worlds Collide: Fandom and Male Privilege.]

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:

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

* The Male Privilege Checklist link is to a googlecache for a reason. Details.

86 Responses

  1. (Since I don’t know, what formatting can be used here, I’ll use UBB codes. Sorry, if that doesn’t work).

    [quote]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.[/quote]

    What advantages do I have that I think are normal? Am I being normal — and which others am I supposed to consider being the deviation from the normal.

    When I was married, my wife and I each kept our ‘own’ family names, which is quite common here in Denmark. Since it is common, it is — in a manner of speaking — normal, though not really normative. I don’t consider people that arrange otherwise to be deviations from the norm, except perhaps in a statistic sense.

    I happen to be member of the Lutheran Church just like 84% of the rest of the population, so I’m quite normal in that respect. But I don’t actually consider people that aren’t members of the Lutheran Church to be deviants; they are simply not members of the Lutheran Church.

    I am now divorced. Around 60% of all marriages in Denmark end with divorce, so I’m quite normal here too, but I don’t consider people that don’t divorce deviants.

    Since the divorce I have remained single. Around 25% of the adult Danish population are singles, so while not the most common, it’s not something extremely exceptional to be single. It’s actually quite normal, but I don’t consider non-singles to be deviants.

    In short, I find the above definition of privileges rather useless. What is ‘normal’ supposed to mean?

    best regards
    Poul Willy Eriksen

    • You are confusing advantages with other characteristics. Many of the characteristics you list as “normal” don’t give you any particular advantage.

      But some of them do. Even if you personally don’t consider variations from the norm to be deviants, many other people will do so, and will display prejudice and discrimination against people who are clearly variant from the norm. Those who are or who “pass” as normal have the advantage of not being subject to such prejudice and discrimination.

      It’s not about whether you personally practice prejudice and discrimination. It’s about whether you are subject to it from a large subset of your fellow citizens or not. If you are not subject to prejudice and discrimination, you have the privilege of society treating you as normal.

  2. [...] likely to be pressured into caring for elderly or disabled relatives than their male counterparts? Constantly dealing with people who deny or don’t recognize the existence of male privilege? That advertising is often tremendously sexist? That victims are blamed for being victimized? [...]

  3. One comment I like to make when the subject of privilege comes up is that privilege is a way of performing systemic analysis, but it is mostly useless for determining relative inequality at the individual level. (Yes, that’s essentially similar to what other people have said, but I prefer my phrasing because it focuses on the process of analysis without leaving room for quibbling about using privilege to talk about individuals.)

  4. I can def feel male privilege around me. Just by walking around campus I notice it. To me this is an example of male privilege that I see everyday and feel. If a man looks another man up and down, what does that imply? Usually its one guy trying to intimidate or start some thing with this guy. Thats powerful, men usually don’t do that on a day to day basis. BUT; if a man looks at me and looks me up and down its ok. I’m the one that has to look away or walk away because its uncomfortable. That is one form of male privilege.

  5. To me this is an example of male privilege, and I see this on campus all the time. When a man looks at another man and looks him up and down what does that inply? Usually it means that he want to intimidate him or start some thing with the other guy. BUT when a man does that to a women? Not only do they feel like its ok, but that it is expected! This is one form of male privilege.
    That is power, to use just your eyes to discriminate a body.

    • This may not be especially relevant but your mention of the power of a look reminded me of it and I want to mention it anyway.

      I’m a slight male, a good portion of women are taller than me. The point is I’m not particularly threatening looking. As a PhD student I used to spend a lot of time on campus very late at night (I’d often leave after midnight). Occasionally, as I was leaving, my path would cross with women who were also on campus at that time. On a number of these occasions I had these woman look at me not as a student who was just working late but fearfully, as if I was a predator that they needed to be wary of.

      I know that there have been instances of attacks on campus late at night and women had been encouraged to be vigilant, but I have rarely felt so much like a monster as on those occasions. It was distinctly unpleasant.

      Ever since I’ve been especially critical of men who stare at women, I felt that their actions directly precipitated that feeling of being hunted that was clearly in the minds of those women.

  6. male privilege differ from culture to culture,in most western cultures,it is as obvious as it is in some other places but still there are forms of it that are practised indirectly.

  7. I understand the general point, but I have to say that some of the examples above might just be about having friends/relatives who are idiots. Getting mad at you for not taking your husbands last name, or for having a girls’ night out? That’s just insecure BS.

    And it’s natural that if 50 people are cool with you keeping your name, and one guy yells at you, you’re going to remember (and talk about) the yeller.

    Might be regional, too — I’m in Portland, OR which is pretty progressive. I’ve heard some pretty shocking examples of stuff like this from people who live in the South, or Texas.

  8. I find the example above, by Lucy Gillam, to be a little confusing. It obfuscates the issue at hand by placing it in an equitably questionable scenario.

    Before I explain why that is, I can see that the male response “No, but we could do other stuff instead,” is privileged. The assumption that the women in the group must invite them and must provide the activities the men want is privileged – and wrong!

    The problem I have is this: the ‘chicks nights’ are described as events at which the group’s men were excluded because they are men. Initially Gillam has assumed that the men wouldn’t be interested in make-up, ‘chick flicks’ and hair styling (either that or she just doesn’t want men present on the basis of their sex rather than their characteristics and interests). Then, when the guys have complained about not being included she has phrased her ‘invitation’ as a challenge to their sexuality in a patriarchy reinforcing way.* The way it reads to me is, ‘Men shouldn’t be interested in female interests. There will be female interests at these events so you’re not included.’ This can’t be helpful.

    Reading the full reference, Gillam makes it clear that her main issue is that women are expected to take an interest in men’s interests, but not the other way around. Yet, by her response, it is clear that she has done nothing to encourage the men to develop those interests. There was an opportunity with the guys wanting to be involved to have a romantic movie night etc. and help then develop those interests that wasn’t taken. By her own actions Gillam has actually helped reinforce patriarchal stereotypes.

    From what we are told, it seems that the women were never explicitly excluded from any other group event. Presumably, the group just had gaming nights, or football nights or whatever, and anyone male or female was welcome if they shared those interests. It would seem that ‘half’ of these events were stereotypically male interest events, since half of them ended up being male only. Yet the fact that no one was explicitly excluded is important – as Gillam says women really do like all that cool stuff. So, no one should think of a recreational activity/subject of discussion as being explicitly/exclusively male or female.

    *The reference to periods, while not critical to the argument, is particularly telling here. At the risk of setting up a straw-woman argument here, (note: not straw-feminist since I wouldn’t presume this view was prevalent amongst feminists) it seems that women are the ones who are reluctant to talk about periods with men. Many men I have met are curious about periods; maybe I am biased, most of my friends are scientists and are therefore curious about anything, but particularly information that seems hidden from view. The prevailing view amongst society (men and women) is that periods are private women’s business – forbidden to men – men who listen in are being rude and ungentlemanly. Thus, invoking periods as a topic for discussion at the ‘chicks nights’ plays on societal stereotypes in order to force any polite man to back down. Not cool.

    In fact, many of you may be interested to know, that research has shown that women whose partners are knowledgeable about the female reproductive system are less stressed during that time of the month. It seems pretty obvious really, that men who are knowledgeable in this area would be more sensitive, and their partners would have an easier time of it. Invoking periods as women’s private domain, thus actually has a negative impact on women’s health (and probably on the health of relationships in general).

    • Interesting points, kandela. Exclusivity is itself a kind of privilege, and sometimes in the face of true oppression I can see how it would be something you wouldn’t want to give up. I’m thinking of a woman who told me about living in Morocco, where women are often hassled on the street (especially if not veiled), telling me how wonderful the single sex public baths were as a refuge. Sure, but of course if you didn’t have the harassment in the first place….

      In a more open society like the U.S., less understandable. Being coed does change an event, even if the non-traditional gender is open to it, but I generally think of that as a good thing. As a dad staying home with each of my infants, I learned tons about childbirth etc. from chatting with moms at the playground and loved it, but it may have been a bit disconcerting to the moms sharing their intense experiences. I’m in a long-running coed poker game, for another example, but I think it’s all to the good. The all-male, cigar-smoking, macho games seem way corny to me.

Leave a Reply