White Privilege and Male Privilege - Essay Example

?Insert Section Introduction Privilege refers to immunity which is granted as a unique benefit. It can also refer to an advantage, a favor, a prerogative particularly when such a prerogative or immunity is pegged specifically on a given socioeconomic construct such as gender, race, creed, ideology, ethnicity or religion. It is for this reason that privilege may be seen as a special immunity or entitlement that is granted by socioeconomic and political systems to individuals, based on gender, race, creed, ideology, ethnicity or religion. There seems to be a strong correlation between privilege and Protestant work ethic. The correlation is based on the fact that privilege modifies or encourages Protestant work ethic. Particularly, gender-related socioeconomic privilege encourages Protestant work ethics by placing work and responsibility on male shoulders, while the woman is sidestepped. The situation is compounded by a patriarchal society [as was in the case of pre-1950s America] where the forces of production such as capital, land and labor and even opportunities are inordinately in the hands of the male industrialists and capitalists. According to McIntosh, normally, the male industrialists, entrepreneurs and capitalists were white American. Specifically, given that Protestant work ethic stresses that people should be seriously dexterous and taking their social security into their hands, the socioeconomic marginalization of women and non-White Americans has appeared somewhat justifiable, given that white men were the ones appropriating the means of production, accessing opportunities and shouldering responsibilities (McIntosh, 126, 127). In almost the same wavelength, there also seems to be a strong correlation between privilege and the bootstrap myth. Particularly, also known as the meritocracy myth, the bootstrap myth postulates that any person can go to the US with nothing and through the application of virtues such as diligence and upright living; the same could rise into the middle class within three generations. The concept of privilege relates with the bootstrap myth, by compounding it. This is because; those that are socioeconomically advantaged in the society use the bootstrap myth to explain away the reality of socioeconomic disparity that exists between race-based and/ or gender-based social classes. The gravity of the matter immediately above is that the bootstrap myth and the inordinately and unfairly distributed privileges easily conjoin to serve as a tool in the hands of the dominant culture or class. For instance, in the pre-1950s America, Caucasian males used the same to support the idea that the American society was fair and egalitarian and that race-based or gender-based or ethnic-based discrimination and segregation had been faced out. To this effect, the underdogs such as women and African Americans were underprivileged simply because they were shiftless sluggards. Another way in which the bootstrap myth seems to propound sexist ideas against women is its penchant for overlooking the considerable degree of success that women have made. More than half of women in the US are presently middle class, though this is never mentioned in the bootstrap myth, and thereby helping underscore the suspicion that the theory is always amenable to sexist mindsets. A critical observer will find the bootstrap theory objectionable on the ground that success in America is a culmination of several factors such as education, political rights, knowledge of English, gender-based hiring and promotion practices, growth of the labor market, family support, parents' class and education and internalized sexism and/ or racism. Also, the idea of Protestant work ethic can be seen to be neither supportive nor compatible with the truth on the socioeconomic realities of gender-based discrimination. The Protestant work ethic assumes that diligence and being upright are the chief and sole ingredients of success, while this is not the case. On the contrary, there are other factors that determine success and empowerment. The crux of the matter herein does not only lie in these factors determining success, but also being distributed in a gender-biased manner by the structural systems in a patriarchal society. Some of these determinants of success include labor market [women were shunned from employment, on the account that they were physically weaker], the police force [women were largely left out of the forces, on the account of being physically weaker, in the pre-1950 America], the Homestead Act [this Act relegated the woman to domestic spheres and saw her work as comprising cooking, washing, nurturing children and taking care of the family. Men were legally entitled to these services from women, since they went to work], the 347 years of slave labor [this epoch shortchanged African American men and women alike, to the benefit of the rich industrialist, entrepreneur and capitalist], the concept of manifest destiny and the press [the male-dominated-and-owned press propounded the idea that women were weaker intellectually and physically and that her place was confined to domestic spheres where her work comprising cooking, washing, nurturing children and taking care of the family]. Section 2: Personal Engagement through Journal Writing Reading through, I Promise I Won't Say 'Herstory', which was originally written by Joshua Holland and later on by Janelle Ruswick and Alycia Sellie, one cannot help second the standpoints that are advanced therein. Basically, the article is an excerpt from an ongoing conversation among feminists who are discussing Full Frontal Feminism: a Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters (Ruswick and Sellie, 165-167). I find it agreeable that the history of the American feminist movement is always underrated. I agree that the present generation wrongly thinks that the attainment of women's rights and freedoms was merely a culmination of women burning their bras and then getting voted for the same. The truthfulness of this standpoint is underscored by my personal knowledge on how the patriarchal society through its male-dominated-and-owned media sought to undermine feminism by not covering it as a part of the American Civil Rights Movement, portraying it as a movement belonging to middle class white American women and as a movement being propounded by a cabal of women who were after perfectionism. Another point of concern that catches my attention in the article is the present back-patting and self-congratulations that are being made in the feminist circles. However, these present back-patting and self-congratulations being exchanged are indicative of other deeper problems; namely, complacency and a false sense of attainment. Usually, feminism is discussed in terms of waves: first, second and third [waves]. However, presently, there is no fourth wave. This indicates a lack of favor in the present-day feminist movement. The reason behind this could be the felling that most of the goals being clamored for in the first, second and third waves have been apprehended, chief among these being: the empowerment of women [through radical initiatives such as shattering the glass ceiling]; the liberalization of the media; and judicial reforms that allowed women to be more self-determinate concerning their lives, sexuality and health [especially in matters such as abortion, the use of contraceptives and divorce]. To this effect, it is nevertheless important that women remember that since feminism is a movement that seeks to secure the attainment of their needs, feminism is progressive and not a feat that was conclusively attained in the first, second and third waves. Works Cited Ruswick, J. & Sellie, A. (2009). “Full Frontal Feminism.” I Promise I Won’t Say ‘Herstory’, 13 (3/4), 166. Print McIntosh, Peggy. White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies. MA, Wellesley: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 1988. Print Read More