I read a reddit thread a few days ago defending the notion of “male privilege”. The thread intended to challenge someone’s critique of the idea, and given the left-leaning space, it devolved into mocking the position. No one there could understand why anyone would reject the concept. One person claimed that opponents to the theory treated “male privilege” as if it were a superpower.
That the feminist message about “male privilege” itself treats it as some sort of superpower, some inherent mutation that allows all males everywhere to benefit from unfair advantages regardless of the situation, never occurred to any of them. They were more invested in defending their ideology than understanding why men reject it.
Such is the case with an article posted on the Good Men Project. Author Mike Sliwa decided that the best way to address the issues men face is by arguing that men are bad and need to check their “male privilege” if they want to be good:
In a world built upon patriarchal principles and misogynistic tendencies a man may want to consider abandoning his domestication and subsequent indoctrination when it comes to being raised within the industrial model of civilization. Once confronted with the fact that our living arrangement doesn’t solve problems but instead creates them, every conscionable man must face the choice of staying the course or embracing humility. Humility is rarely taught to men. Those who become familiar with it usually have had it forced upon them by life. Men must search for humility or perish while continuing a course of action that has no future.
That sets the tone for the article. Men are not humble. No one teaches them to be humble. Men walk around clothed in pure arrogance marking everything as theirs as if they were dogs.
This is an absurd position, made all the more ridiculous because the person claiming that men are not taught humility is presenting himself as humble. Being a humble man, Sliwa knows the proper path to being a good man: Continue reading