Male privilege

Male privilege is a concept used to examine the social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are made available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may also depend on other characteristics such as race, sexual orientation, and social class.[1][2][3]

The use of male pronouns in language to refer to both sexes is often cited as an example, as well as the preference for sons in some cultures.

Male privilege is often examined alongside the concept of patriarchy within the feminist movement, while many men's rights activists dispute the existence of male privilege and patriarchy in modern western society.


In legal cases alleging discrimination, "sex" is usually preferred as the determining factor rather than "gender", because it refers to biology rather than socially constructed norms which are more open to interpretation and dispute.[4] In "Defining Male and Female: Intersexuality and the Collision Between Law and Biology", Julie Greenberg explains that although gender and sex are separate concepts, they are interlinked in that gender discrimination often results from stereotypes based on what is expected of members of each sex.[5] In J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., Justice Scalia distinguishes sex and gender:

The word ‘gender’ has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.[6]

Thus, biologically "male" privilege is only one of many power structures that may exist within a given society,[7] and levels/manifestations of male privilege differ among both similar and disparate societies, as well as in different contexts within the same society. The term "male privilege" does not apply to a solitary occurrence of the use of power, but rather describes one of many systemic power structures that are interdependent and interlinked throughout societies and cultures.[8]


Peggy McIntosh, a feminist literary scholar, has discussed male privilege with respect to white privilege, stating that "the denial of men's over-privileged state takes many forms". Privilege is not a result of a concerted effort to oppress those of the opposite gender, however, the inherent benefits that males gain from the systemic bias put women at an innate disadvantage. Male privilege may be viewed as an invisible package filled with unearned privileges that are constantly at work, but which are unspoken and most people remain oblivious to. The benefits of this unspoken privilege are often described as special provisions, tools, relationships, or various other opportunities. In fact this privilege may actually negatively affect men's development as human beings, and few men question society’s constructs or that the existing structure of advantages may be challenged or changed. Some people dispute the existence of male privilege and claim that specifically male privilege within the realm of white privilege is a myth perpetuated by feminists and that both men and women have privileges and disadvantages.[9]

As discussed by Paula Rothernberg in her novel Invisible Privilege: A Memoir About Race, Class, and Gender, male privilege often takes institutionalized and embedded forms from which men may directly benefit. These instances of male privilege systems may attribute to male over empowerment and can help explain man’s sense of centrality in some of the most powerful institutions. An example of male privilege in institutionalized academic settings can be observed by the prevalence of men in how curriculums are formed and history and literature is taught across the United States.[10] Men are over-represented in the academic presentation of history while women who have served a significant part in the past are often overlooked. Historically, all those who have held the title of President of the United States have been male. American government on the national level, including the United States Senate and the United States Congress, is predominantly male.

Gender neutrality in English

Some linguistic conventions have privileged men and the male perspective and suggested that maleness is the societal norm.[11][12][13] In English, nouns such as "man" or "mankind"[14][15][16][17] and forms of address like "you guys" are routinely used for women while it is not accepted to refer to men as women.[18] Associating a man with something feminine and calling him girl or sissy is usually considered an insult.[19] Expressions like "freshmen" or occupational titles such as "chairman" are supposed to apply to both sexes[13][18] and many prestigious occupations are implicitly associated with men so that people use modifiers such as "woman doctor" or "lady doctor" to signal deviations from the norm that doctors are usually men.[20][21] Male images and exclusively male language for deities such as referring to God as "he" or "father" have been argued to have reinforced male privilege.[22][23][24][25] Men's greater resemblance to God has been used to justify men's religious and cultural position.[22][23][24][25]

Similarly, the third-person singular pronoun "he" is used as a sex-indefinite, generic form for all people (e.g. "anyone can do it if he tries") whereas the use of "she" to refer to people in general is not allowed.[11][13][18] Masculine generics were first introduced by prescriptive grammarians in the 19th century who argued that "he" was the only correct sex-indefinite referent.[26][27][28] Prior to that, singular "they" and "he or she" had been widely used in written and spoken English.[26][27][28] In 1850 a special Act of Parliament was passed in the United Kingdom that legally proscribed singular "they" and "he or she" in favor of "he", especially to shorten the language used in Acts of Parliament.[26][27][28]

Other languages also have similar issues with gender neutrality; both languages with grammatical gender and without grammatical gender.

Global perspective

Within the book The Agony of Masculinity, Pierre Orelus uses his personal life experience growing up in the Caribbean in order to create "a form of self-critical reflection and interrogation to talk about ... maleness, heterosexism, and homophobia". Orelus speaks of how society shaped his development and taught him to "be a man". The patriarchal practices passed from generation to generation perpetuate gender roles and hegemonic masculinity, which both contribute to the extent of freedom enjoyed by men. In some areas, such as in Haiti, the stereotype and societal definition of being a man leads to many instances of domestic abuse and the use of women as sexual objects. This abuse stems from a sense of justification in part due to male privilege and how the patriarchal norms encourage male dominance over women.

Additionally, men benefit from some common double standards while women suffer. For instance, Orelus describes how women who were caught cheating were beaten, shamed, insulted, and reviled. On the other hand, when men cheated they were praised and their status rose. Ironically, men who were known to be smooth talkers who had past experience with sexual exploiting women have a greater appeal to women in the Haitian communities. By the same token, these so-called freedoms of male privilege can become barriers as some men may feel pressured by societal norms to conform to certain expectations associated with the stereotypical male gender role.

However, Orelus also mentions how male privilege may actually be detrimental to males' social development and gaining a sense of self. Since in a strictly traditionally sense men are often considered more knowledgeable and able-bodied than their female counterparts, in many cultures men must struggle to maintain this expectation. Men who cannot live up to these societal standards are prone to face criticism, lose respect from their peers, and have a lower sense of self.[29]


Main article: Sex selection

In many societies including India and China male offspring are privileged and favored over female children.[30][31][32][33] Some manifestations of son preference and the devaluation of women are eliminating unwanted daughters through neglect, maltreatment, abandonment, as well as female infanticide and feticide despite laws that prohibit infanticide and sex-selective pregnancy termination.[33][34][35] In India some of these practices have contributed to skewed sex ratios in favor of male children at birth and in the first five years.[31] Other examples of privileging male offspring are special "praying for a son" ceremonies during pregnancy, more ceremony and festivities following the birth of a boy, listing and introducing sons before daughters, and common felicitations that associate good fortune and well-being with the number of sons.[36]

Reasons given for preferring sons to daughters include sons' role in religious family rites, which daughters are not permitted to perform, and the belief that sons are permanent members of the birth family whereas daughters belong to their husband's family after marriage in accordance with patrilocal tradition. Other reasons include patrilineal customs whereby only sons can carry on the family name, the obligation to pay dowry to a daughter's husband or his family, and the expectation that sons will support their birth parents financially while it is regarded as undesirable or shameful to receive financial support from daughters.[33][34]


Some men's rights activists dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege[37][38] and believe that men are often victimized and disadvantaged relative to women.[39][40][41][42] For example, men's rights activists Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg believe that men are disadvantaged and discriminated against and that power is an illusion for most men. In response, Sarah Maddison of the University of Technology, Sydney said that these men "mobilize discourses of power as relating purely to individual experience, with little conceptualization of social structures or spaces beyond those involved in daily personal and family life (although even within the family gendered power relationships are often invisible or denied)."[43]

See also


  1. Phillips, Debby A.; Phillips, John R. (2009). "Privilege, Male". In O'Brien, Jodi. Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Volume Two. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. pp. 683684. ISBN 978-1-4129-0916-7.
  2. Coston, Bethany M.; Kimmel, Michael (2012). "Seeing Privilege Where It Isn't: Marginalized Masculinities and the Intersectionality of Privilege". Journal of Social Issues. 68 (1): 97111. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01738.x.
  3. McIntosh, Peggy (2003). "White Privilege and Male Privilege". In Kimmel, Michael; Ferber, Abby L. Privilege: A Reader. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 325. ISBN 978-0-8133-4056-2.
  4. Render, Meredith. (2006) "Misogyny, Androgyny, and Sexual Harassment: Sex Discrimination in a Gender-Deconstructed World". Harvard Journal of Law & Gender. Vol. 29(1) (Winter). pp99–150. p102
  5. Greenberg, Julie A. (1999). "Defining Male and Female: Intersexuality and the Collision Between Law and Biology". Arizona Law Review. Vol. 41. 265.
  6. J.E.B. v. Ala. ex rel. T.B., 114 S. Ct. 1419, 1436 n.1 (1994)
  7. Foucault, Michel (1976). The History of Sexuality, Volume I. Vintage. ISBN 0-679-72469-9.
  8. Narayan, Uma (1997). Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third-World Feminism. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-91419-1.
  9. McIntosh, Peggy (1988). White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack. Wellesley: Wellesley College. pp. 1–19.
  10. Rothernber, Paula S. (2000). Invisible Privilege: A Memoir About Race, Class, and Gender. U of Kansas.
  11. 1 2 Wildman, S. M. (1996). Privilege revealed: how invisible preference undermines America. New York: New York University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-8147-9303-9.
  12. Barnett, M. (2012). Rastafari in the new millennium: a Rastafari reader. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. p. 234235.
  13. 1 2 3 Briscoe, F.; Arriaza, G.; Henze, R. C. (2009). The power of talk: how words change our lives. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-4129-5601-7.
  14. Roman, C.; Juhasz, S.; Miller, C. (1994). The women and language debate: a sourcebook. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. p. 451. ISBN 978-0-8135-2011-7.
  15. Davies, D. (2005). Varieties of modern English: an introduction. Harlow: Pearson Longman. pp. 7879. ISBN 978-0-582-36996-2.
  16. Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Diversity in sport organizations. Scottsdale, Ariz.: Holcomb Hathaway. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-890871-77-2.
  17. Anderson, K. J. (2010). Benign bigotry: the psychology of subtle prejudice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 203. ISBN 978-0-521-70259-1.
  18. 1 2 3 Kleinman, S. (2002). "Why sexist language matters". Qualitative Sociology. 25 (2): 299 304. doi:10.1023/A:1015474919530.
  19. Rosenberg, R. (2001). Women's studies: an interdisciplinary anthology. New York: Peter Lang. p. 78. ISBN 978-0-8204-4443-7.
  20. Flood, M.; Pease, B. (2005). "Undoing men's privilege and advancing gender equality in public sector institutions" (PDF). Policy and Society. 24 (4): 199138. doi:10.1016/S1449-4035(05)70123-5. Retrieved April 17, 2013.
  21. Powell, B. (2010). Counted out: same-sex relations and Americans' definitions of family. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-87154-687-6.
  22. 1 2 Lindley, S. H. (2006). "Gender and social roles". In Keller, R. S.; Ruether, R. R.; Cantlon, M. Encyclopedia of women and religion in North America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-253-34685-8.
  23. 1 2 O'Brien, J. M. (2008). Challenging prophetic metaphor: theology and ideology in the prophets. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-664-22964-1.
  24. 1 2 Chandler, K. J. (2007). How to become a 'blackman': exploring African American masculinities and the performance of gender. Detroit: Wayne State University. p. 184.
  25. 1 2 Lorenzen, L. F. (1999). The college student's introduction to the Trinity. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-8146-5518-4.
  26. 1 2 3 Henley, N. M. (1987). "This new species that seeks a new language: On sexism in language and language change". In Penfield, J. Women and language in transition. Albany: State University of New York Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-88706-485-2.
  27. 1 2 3 Bodine, A. (1975). "Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular 'they', sex indefinite 'he', and 'he or she'". Language and Society. 4 (2): 129 146. doi:10.1017/S0047404500004607.
  28. 1 2 3 Hegarty, P.; Buechel, C. "Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals 19652004" (PDF). Review of General Psychology. 10 (4): 377389. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.10.4.377. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
  29. Orelus, Pierre W. (2010). "Unmasking Male, Heterosexual, and Racial Privileges: From Naive Complicity to Critical Awareness and Praxis". Counterpoints. 351: 17–62. JSTOR 42980551.
  30. Ryju, S.; Lahiri-Dutt, eds. (2011). Doing gender, doing geography: emerging research in India. New Delhi: Routledge. p. 212. ISBN 978-0-415-59802-6.
  31. 1 2 Weiner, M.; Varshney, A.; Almond, G. A., eds. (2004). India and the politics of developing countries. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-7619-3287-1.
  32. Joseph, W. A., ed. (2010). Politics in China: an introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 308. ISBN 978-0-19-533530-9.
  33. 1 2 3 Lai-wan, C. C.; Eric, B.; Hoi-yan (2006). "Attitudes to and practices regarding sex selection in China". Prenatal Diagnosis. 26 (7): 610613. doi:10.1002/pd.1477.
  34. 1 2 Singh, K. (2012). "Man's world, legally". Frontline. 29 (15). Retrieved May 13, 2013.
  35. Koop, C. E.; Pearson, C. E.; Schwarz, M. R., eds. (2002). Critical issues in global health. San Francisco, Calif.: Wiley. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-7879-6377-4. Across the world, male privilege is also variously reflected in giving sons preferential access to health care, sex- selective abortion, female infanticide, or trafficking in women.
  36. Croll, E. (2000). "Ethnographic voices: disappointing daughters". Endangered daughters: discrimination and development in Asia. London: Routledge. pp. 70105. ISBN 978-0-203-17021-2.
  37. Kimmel, M. S. (1987). "Men's Responses to Feminism at the Turn of the Century". Gender & Society. 1 (3): 261283. doi:10.1177/089124387001003003.
  38. Clatterbaugh, K. (2007). "Men's rights". In Flood, M. International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. London: Psychology Press. p. 430433. ISBN 978-0-415-33343-6.
  39. Messner, M. A. (1998). "The Limits of the "Male Sex Role": An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movement's Discourse". Gender & Society. 12 (3): 255276. doi:10.1177/0891243298012003002.
  40. Dunphy, R. (2000). Sexual Politics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-7486-1247-5.
  41. Flood, M. (2007). "Men's movement" (PDF). International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. London: Psychology Press. pp. 418422. ISBN 978-0-415-33343-6.
  42. Clatterbaugh, K. (2007). "Anti-feminism". In Flood, M. International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. London: Psychology Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-415-33343-6.
  43. Maddison, S. (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia" (PDF). Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies. 4 (2): 3952.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/1/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.