3 ms·
There's a massive difference between high-status men and low-status men. This is called "intersectionality". Sometimes people have advantages from being one th
by rmc 13y ago
There's a massive difference between high-status men and low-status men.
This is called "intersectionality". Sometimes people have advantages from being one thing (e.g. male), but they also have disadvantages due to being other things (e.g. a low-status person). You could have a gay white low-status male. They're male, so they have some advantages there, they're low status, so they have some disadvantages, white, so they have some advantages, and gay, so they have some disadvantages. Not everyone who is male automatically is disadvantage free. It's the intersection of all these things that are important in different situtations.
You've discovered intersectionality, doesn't mean male priviliege and the patriarchy doesn't exist. It just means that for many people "It's complicated"
- lhnz 13y ago>> You've discovered intersectionality I read about that years ago and I don't take kindly to others trying to humiliate me with condescending statements like that. >> doesn't mean male priviliege and the patriarchy doesn't exist That is why I said: "So, yes, there is a patriarchy." But you miss the whole point as what I said has nothing to do with intersectionality. I'm trying to make the point that "men" even without some kind of obvious status disqualifiers are not always on the top of the status hierarchy. This is the case with almost all big groups. It's not so simple. I was also trying to point out that it's the lowest status men that get derided for being patriarchal as high status is attractive and untouchable.