When reading this article, I was reminded of an enlightening conversation I had with a colleague a few years ago. I was totally clueless to what “male privilege” was and needed help understanding. She, in a simple yet profound way, explained to me that after class, she takes the train to Brooklyn alone. She often sits as still and quietly as possible, often looking as focused as possible at her book or phone but, all the while being keenly aware and watching the other men that are riding the subway with her.
Reason being, she knows that she can be approached by, or even worse, harassed or attacked by a man simply because she, a woman, was traveling alone. “That Joseph, is what male privilege is”, she ended with. It was at that point that I saw it clearly. As Johnson describes the history of gender roles within the article, the constant description is clear, men are to be dominant, aggressive and therefore – “manly”. Women, being the opposite sex, are to be the opposite; demure, submissive, therefore, feminine. When either strays from the societal expectations of this gender role, they are looked upon in a not so negative light. What was most interesting and I can agree totally with, is when Johnson discussed how when woman doesn’t follow the roles associated with woman, they tend not to be challenged as harshly as a man challenging the norms associated with men. Because when aligned with the patriarchy, it is easier to accept than say, a man who rejects the norms put upon them in this patriarchal society.


