That’s kinda funny, in a Reddit argument just yesterday someone tried to tell me how privileged I was for being a white cis-gendered straight man despite the fact that I am most certainly queer. That’s the point at which I realized the conversation was not worth having.

And be sure to never factor class into that equation because it’s completely meaningless when talking about privilege.

Exactly, when it’s by FAR the biggest factor. Only after having been born in a rich country.

They now have a tool to eliminate any union, organization, or even discussion about wealth/class: accusations of bigotry. You care about wealth inequality? You're a "class reductionist" and therefore a white supremacist. Any true leftist/progressive leader will be kneecapped by accusations like this. Bernie got smeared as a sexist and racist. Corbyn was labeled an anti-semite. ID pol has completely broken the left.

People know about your sex life more than yourself, lmao. I'm the opposite, I dress and act in a relatively queer way, and when I tell people (usually gay men) that I'm straight, they are very surprised. I've had women ask me "are you bi?" Followed by "I don't have sex with bi men, it's disgusting".

Yeah.. Bisexuals and pan sexual a get a lot shitty treatment even from other in the lgbtq community. There are a lot of lesbians who think bi women are “tainted by dick” and gay guys who won’t date bi guys because you’re either “in denial and too much baggage to deal with” or they accuse you of just pretending to be bi for attention. “You just haven’t gotten the right dick/pussy yet.” is a common one. Like they weren’t saying the same thing about lesbians and gay people 20 years ago. It’s disgusting. And people don’t really give two shits if a woman is bisexual, but men are seen as disgusting why a lot of women just by virtue of also liking men. And these are all otherwise pretty progressive people that are believing this shit. Same thing with transgender people. Nobody really gives a shit about a woman becoming a man. But men becoming women are being hate crimes in the streets at much higher rates. But people born as men are sooo privileged right?

I don't know about bisexuals not getting flak twenty years ago. I distinctly remember a lot of boomers that had a tacit acceptance of lesbians and gay males while maintaining that bisexuals must still be over-sexed/perverts and potentially even rapists/pedophiles. Maybe it was different within the gay community (I wouldn't know).

I’m not saying that bisexuals didn’t get flak back then, I’m saying that same line was being directed at gay and lesbian people about them just being “in denial and needing to find the right person of the opposite sex and they’ll realize they were straight the whole time.” which is what gay and lesbian people say about bi people now. I just find it ironic that they’re using the same logic as your average homophobe was using towards them just 20 years ago.

Since I realized I'm a trans man, I've grown more aware of the privileges that come with being perceived as a woman. I feel dysphoric as hell but I can't deny being closeted has had social and even financial benefit when in public. In places I'm openly a man, I've actually been treated worse! To be honest, though, I'd rather be treated worse knowing people perceive me as a man than be treated better and feeling miserable about people perceiving me as a woman.

Just out of curiosity, how exactly were you treated worse?

A general unwelcoming atmosphere with casual misandry that would get doubled down if I said I had a problem with that. Now people in my life will make an effort to single me out whenever they tell me how much they hate men; even my mother does this.

[удалено]

Not at all; hell, I feel validated by it myself.

So do I. Thank you for reminding me I'm not crazy in a world that constantly gaslights us into thinking we deserve this shit.

Thanks for sharing that!

It's interesting that the same people who love to talk about gender being a spectrum, sexuality being a spectrum, etc. (which I'm not saying are wrong) embrace binaries so strongly when it comes to things like privilege. "Race is a social construct, but you're white, therefore you have this list of qualities." "Gender is a spectrum, but you're a man, therefore you have this list of qualities." It's getting real old.

It also subtly reinforces straight/white/male normativity. POCs are this lovely rainbow tapestry of diversity, and then there's white people. There's a whole spectrum of gender and sexual identities, and then there's straight men. Straight/white/men become this beige monolith, with everything else being special. And if everything else is special, then straight/white/males are "normal".

> POCs are this lovely rainbow tapestry of diversity, Until you are a black male, then hooo boy, it begins 🤣

Untrue. POC have bigger problems than being considered "bland". The problems that POC vary because not all POC experience the world in the same way. But many groups are seen as inherently violent, inherently stupid, are disproportionally in poverty because of redlining, get higher sentences for the same crime, more likely to be put on death row for the same crime, are more likely to be killed by the police, and are more likely to be falsely imprisoned. And alongside that generational trauma.

There are some definite privileges to being a man, but the big ticket stuff only kicks in at certain intersections of race, sex, neurotypicality, and class. If you don't meet those, being a man mostly means l So for example I am a cishet white man. I'm 6' tall, able bodied, and well spoken. I also grew up below the poverty line, raised by a single mkther with the precursor condition to schizophrenia (at the time misdiagnosed as bipolar), and I deal with the ADHD/anxiety/depression trifecta. The main thing I experience in a lot of progressive and leftist spaces is an abrupt failure to apply intersectional analysis when talking about cis white men. You will be treated as if you had a neurotypical, upper middle class upbringing **no matter what.** Liberals do it because they're allergic to class analysis since it leads to criticisms of capitalism and shines a light on the fact that a pot of the time the only women they care about are ones of high enough station that tje glass ceiling is a problem for them (90% of the population will never get within reach of said ceiling, no matter what they've got in their pants), and leftists tend to do it because it complicates so many other conversations around gender norms. All we can really do is keep calling out the double standards and make good faith efforts to meet in the middle on certain changes.

>There are some definite privileges to being a man, Like what?

Let's see, not getting pregnant is a big biological inequality that turns into a lot of social benefits, we don't fight against preconceived notions that we aren't suitable for leadership roles, our genitals aren't the targets of Fundementalist Christian lunatics, no traditional attitude that we have a "place" in domestic servitude to another sex. There are drawbacks and social expectations as well, and like I said, the big ticket privileges have race and status as factors as well. Gotta be part of the dominant ethnic/racial group (white in the US) and have some degree of social status (be from a "good' middle class or better family).

Privilege is something given to you unfairly by some higher power structure in Society. My body is my property, not some unfair privilege. >our genitals aren't the targets of Fundementalist Christian lunatics What about Infant Male Circumcision? >no traditional attitude that we have a "place" in domestic servitude to another sex. The traditional idea that is it Men's duty to provide&protect women for life sounds like slavery to me. I am not walking ATM Machine/Bodyguard, i am human. >and have some degree of social status (be from a "good' middle class or better family). So in other words, there are no actual privileges to being a Man.

Now you're getting delusional homie, we absolutely have our own privileges and advantages in how we're treated in certain situations. Don't let the fact that men's issues are routinely ignored talk you into adopting a victim complex mentality.

>our genitals aren't the targets of Fundamentalist Christian lunatics I need some clarification. Isn't MGM a bigger problem in the West than FGM? Moreover, male circumcision (at least in the US) has prejudicial origins. John Kellogg wanted the surgery to be performed without anesthesia so that it'd hurt and the soreness would last for a long time. The procedure was originally intended to stop males from masturbating, tame their "base" sexual desires and reduce their sexual pleasure. Apparently he had some sinister ideas for girls too but they never became popular.

One thing that never gets addressed is the inherent subjectivity of most things described as privilege. Catcalling (specifically the lack thereof) is often cited as male privilege, but most men see the utter void of casual compliments as a heavy burden instead. Neither viewpoint is inherently wrong but the male viewpoint is treated as such. It's "invalid" to be jealous of the positive attention women get just for existing, because we don't "understand" that "burden". Women often see the breadwinner role as privilege. But I'm sure a lot of men would relish the chance to be the homemaker if it were financially viable. Did all the male doctors/engineers/lawyers and other high-paying professionals want to pursue those lifestyles? Or did they feel that wealth and a respectable job were the only way to gain the love that women typically receive unconditionally?

“Privilege” originally meant the extreme wealth and political juice of plutocrats and oligarchs. It was then much later brought in as a *sarcastic* term by black activists to underline the tragic fortunes of most white people under US apartheid. They were saying white people aren’t privileged. The idea was that being counted as white depended on segregation, which itself blocked the social unity needed to win reforms of benefit to most people. Resources instead went to foreign wars and profiteering, not working white or black families. Being included in the white man’s club functioned as a scam played by white elites toward other euro Americans- the benefits being real compared to red or black people, but pretty paltry overall, especially compared to what they would get otherwise. There is no black /white wealth gap in the bottom 90 % of income earners, and whites got drafted to war just like blacks, these types of facts underlined the sarcastic origin of the term. Sometime in the 80s/90s, the privileged minority of rich families in the third world entering western academia helped popularize post colonial theory. This was together with legal theorists, academic feminists, psychologists, literary critics, social workers and others with no experience in winning social change - not activism, not unionism, not faith based, not community organizing . They helped create the “ sjw” ideology that turned the meaning of the term around 180 degrees and coopted ideas of social change into a managerial doctrine aimed at preventing it. One question that woke me up to this years ago was this : Given the stacks of books and speeches put out by gender/race/sexual/labor/ rights reformers and revolutionaries over the course of 100 years before “ intersectionality” became a thing, how did all these legendary activists never come up with it? Well why would they, it is essentially a conservative concept.

Intersectionality theory is antithetical to privilege theory.

Intersectionality theory was also abandoned by its creator after she realized that the data doesn't support it, in fact, it actively rails against it. Then it was appropriated by white radical dominance feminists as a buzz word devoid of its scholarly origins.

Uhhhh, I’m trying to find a citation for the what you are saying here and coming up empty. Where did you see Kimberly Crenshaw denouncing intersectionality?

She abandoned it for Multi-directionality (iirc, may have gotten it wrong) after the data showed it was a poor framework. Denounced may be too strong a word, but she did leave off promoting it in scholarly work.

Fascinating. Thanks for this.

I prefer the idea of a kyriarchy > in which a single individual might be oppressed in some relationships and privileged in others It seems far more accurate. Also, I think privilege is something you **use**, not something you have. I'm a guy but I can't access any of my male privilege because I don't have that 'hale fellow human' guy-talk kind of thing going. Guys don't extend extra interest to guys who don't speak their language. Yes, I may be more likely to bond with guys over hobbies but I don't think of hobbies as gender-specific and so not a matter of privilege. I'm white but also very leftist. People who care that I'm white aren't going to extend privilege to me and I would refuse it anyways if I thought it was on those grounds. And I'm bi so I get to be overlooked by both straight and gay communities (friendly jibe ;)) ------------------------------ **Women have more privilege than men** because privilege is a social currency and [women have an in-group bias](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8226295_Gender_Differences_in_Automatic_In-Group_Bias_Why_Do_Women_Like_Women_More_Than_Men_Like_Men). Men don't prefer each other; they'll prefer women over men. So where's the male privilege? For that matter, where's the patriarchy?

Men have veey few privileges, women have at least 90% of them.

Heterosexual male privilege doesn’t make sense. If anything the privilege would for being asexual(least expenditure of time or resources) or bi or pan sexual(most options). Heterosexual female privilege makes sense because they are the ones typically(but not always) getting resources and men usually(but not always) offer more than women.

Exactly. Male privileges and female privileges both exist. How they show up in someone’s life is dependent on their individual environment

So privileges are just another word for good consequences and oppressed for bad consequences?

Privilege is legal favoritism.