But they’re related. They’re different facets of the same thing: the roles and expectations that society forces people into.
Setting aside what you do and don’t think is impactful, the point is that these are expectations that society puts on people, and where these expectations come from is complex. Have you ever heard of the Five Whys? It can be a helpful way to look at these problems; it can’t capture the complexity but it illustrates that the causes run deep.
For example, there are some pretty easily accessible YouTube videos (podcasts?) on the history of the women’s fashion and cosmetics industries, and how they pivoted their marketing to great effect to sell products to women by pressing these kinds of expectations into society, and those marketing teams contain a lot of men. This doesn’t explain all of history, but it’s an example of what I’m talking about.
Yeah, I understand all of that, I just don’t think we should be using the term “privilege” for every little echo of history. Are men’s pockets a form of privilege? Women are privileged to have more variety of tops? At a certain point, the term loses all meaning.
If by “loses all meaning” you mean “loses significance” then there is some truth to that, but I leave it up to the general opinion of the people who are put at risk by that loss of significance to decide when it becomes a problem.
Realistically I think that it was probably meant as a half joke, as in its funny in how unserious it is, but also a real criticism in how pervasive this kind of toxic behavior is.
I think that the reply, that men aren’t involved in it, is taking an willfully ignorant stance.
But they’re related. They’re different facets of the same thing: the roles and expectations that society forces people into.
Setting aside what you do and don’t think is impactful, the point is that these are expectations that society puts on people, and where these expectations come from is complex. Have you ever heard of the Five Whys? It can be a helpful way to look at these problems; it can’t capture the complexity but it illustrates that the causes run deep.
For example, there are some pretty easily accessible YouTube videos (podcasts?) on the history of the women’s fashion and cosmetics industries, and how they pivoted their marketing to great effect to sell products to women by pressing these kinds of expectations into society, and those marketing teams contain a lot of men. This doesn’t explain all of history, but it’s an example of what I’m talking about.
And always remember; hurt people hurt people.
Yeah, I understand all of that, I just don’t think we should be using the term “privilege” for every little echo of history. Are men’s pockets a form of privilege? Women are privileged to have more variety of tops? At a certain point, the term loses all meaning.
If by “loses all meaning” you mean “loses significance” then there is some truth to that, but I leave it up to the general opinion of the people who are put at risk by that loss of significance to decide when it becomes a problem.
Realistically I think that it was probably meant as a half joke, as in its funny in how unserious it is, but also a real criticism in how pervasive this kind of toxic behavior is.
I think that the reply, that men aren’t involved in it, is taking an willfully ignorant stance.