Do men need to check their privilege? | FACTUAL FEMINIST

I really enjoyed this video by The Factual Feminist on male privilege. Your thoughts are always welcome.

I think she presents a refreshingly balanced view, but what do you think?

Do you agree or disagree with her?

Advertisements

13 Comments

  1. She’s right. I see women who refuse to put so much as a stick of wood in the stove and whine because the house is cold. “That’s not my job” she says,” he’ll take care of it when he comes in.” And where is he? Cutting up wood, stacking it, milking the cows, mucking out the stalls, doing ‘men’s work”.

    I think she may be putting a bit too much of a shiny gloss on things, but in general I agree with her, at least about the fault finding and gender privilege anger.

    • I’m currently running through her series. It’s really interesting and I like how she takes in both sides. It’s a different sort of feminism from what I’m used to running into on the interwebs. If modern feminism looked more like this, I’d likely identify as one, because a lot of what she says makes sense.

  2. Am I surprised that you find Ms.Sommers, a breath of fresh air?

    She is an anti-feminist, and many of her positions align with the male rights movement who tend to use her as a figurehead for their particular set of ideals.

    It may be wise to take her points of view with a grain of salt.

    An analysis (linked above) of her scholarly work on the education angle –

    “Examined carefully, Sommers’s case does not hold up well. She persistently misrepresents scholarly debate, ignores evidence that contradicts her assertions, and directs intense scrutiny at studies she opposes while giving a free critical ride to research she supports. A few examples of her style of argument will have to stand for a much larger pattern.

    Let’s look first at education. Sommers says that feminists have ignored the educational problems of boys, starting with How Schools Shortchange Girls. This argument runs into the inconvenient fact that the first and best-known study documenting patterns of male underachievement in school was sponsored by none other than the AAUW, in a follow-up to their study of girls’ performance. It’s an inconvenient fact that a women’s organization led the way in studying the problems of boys, so Sommers attacks the AAUW for underpublicizing the study (she cites no data to support this charge). As for Sommers’s claim that “girls and young women are thriving” academically, there have been many studies since Shortchange that contradict her, but she does not examine them. She describes studies that support her position but does not subject them to the same critical scrutiny to which she subjects Shortchange. Indeed, the AAUW follow-up study that included boys (and which Sommers strongly approves) reached the following conclusion, as quoted by Sommers: “Inequity can (and does) work in both directions.” Sommers’s own Table 2 shows that girls lag behind boys in percentages taking calculus, physics, AP/honors chemistry, engineering and astronomy at the high school level. Sommers applies a zero-sum model to gender concerns in education. It doesn’t seem to occur to her that each sex faces significant problems that need redress.

    In the end, Sommers fails to prove either claim in the title of her book.

    So, to answer your question, I’d have to disagree with her.

    • “An analysis (linked above) of her scholarly work on the education angle – ”

      So a message board that’s ‘restricted by policy to those who are supportive of the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates?’

      That’s your evidence.

      “She is an anti-feminist, and many of her positions align with the male rights movement who tend to use her as a figurehead for their particular set of ideals.”

      An anti-feminist who has a site called ‘factual feminism’ that talks about feminism non-stop and who self-identifies as a feminist.

      You mean a feminist who doesn’t agree with the mainstream feminism. Or radical feminism, such as yourself.

      • @GC

        “So a message board that’s ‘restricted by policy to those who are supportive of the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates?’”

        The source is the Democratic Underground. One of the first hits that came searching for counter-arguments to CHS.

        CHS has been around for awhile, and her academic positions and pedigree are fairly well known.

        “That’s your evidence.?

        Given a certain penchant for not looking for contextualizing information that has occurred in the past, some context was offered.

        More context available here at fair.org – on her anti-feminist leanings.

        “In fact, like anti-“p.c.” writers before her, Sommers relies heavily on a handful of oft-repeated anti-feminist anecdotes–or folktales.”

        Perhaps a bit more on CHS and the arguments she makes

        “That this feminist (as described by the civil article above) thinks that feminists have ‘silenced women and men alike’. She doesn’t challenge this. Of course she doesn’t. She has a nice gig in being the un-feminist.

        That she got completely wrong basic rape stats, resulting in her ballooning a relatively minor decrease in supposed rapes into an enormous one that doesn’t exist. She doesn’t challenge FAIR’s account.

        That she completely misrepresented the story of why a professor who took down a painting of a nude in a public classroom – she challenged that, but the professor backed FAIR’s account.

        That she claimed that wife-beating was not allowed in English common law, but this is the opposite of known history. Sommers doesn’t challenge this.

        […]

        Controversial to say the very least. The wikipeida article on anti-feminism also sources her work, and an evaluation on alter.net places her in league with other anti-feminists of note.

        From the above link –

        “Sommers is a pioneer in the art of arguing that it’s men who are actually the oppressed class in modern society. Her 2000 book The War Against Boys tried to argue, falsely, that feminists are ruining young men’s lives by oppressing them through the educational system. “

        GC – “An anti-feminist who has a site called ‘factual feminism’ that talks about feminism non-stop and who self-identifies as a feminist.”

        Again, how exactly would you know if what she is saying is true or not as your knowledge of feminist theory and praxis is quite…er… limited.

        On the surface it would seem that you have stumbled across someone who has views that generally concur and align with your own; and thus you endorse said views.

        So, given that fact that you have stated that you are most definitely *not a feminist*, it would follow that the views *that you agree with* are then necessarily also not feminist.

        • “The source is the Democratic Underground. One of the first hits that came searching for counter-arguments to CHS.”

          So the first hit means that’s the best source?

          “Controversial to say the very least. The wikipeida article on anti-feminism also sources her work, and an evaluation on alter.net places her in league with other anti-feminists of note.
          From the above link”

          So Wikipedia…and alternet. Jeez.

          She even says in that very video that it’s not men who are the oppressed class. Jesus.

          “On the surface it would seem that you have stumbled across someone who has views that generally concur and align with your own; and thus you endorse said views.”

          I’ve run across both. After all, I still read your work. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.

          I did agree with much of what she said.

          “So, given that fact that you have stated that you are most definitely *not a feminist*, it would follow that the views *that you agree with* are then necessarily also not feminist.”

          That’s not a very well made point, mate.

          I don’t agree with Christianity and don’t identify as a Christian.

          However, I still read Christian material and sometimes I agree with their conclusions.

          The same can be said about feminism.

          You’re also using the No Scotsman fallacy, much like a religious person would. She’s a feminist. She self identifies as one and is known as one. She’s just a feminist that doesn’t necessarily agree with your type of feminism. Like all ideologies, there are different strains or ideas within the movement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s