Article Analysis of The Men We Carry in Our Minds

Early feminist theories suggest that men are invariably more privileged than women. Given the patriarchal structure of both modern and historical society, it seems like an obvious conclusion; however, contemporary scholars postulate that privilege must be understood within the context of racial and socioeconomic differences. This principle, known as intersectionality, considers the notion that race, class, and gender are interconnected, and states that privilege is not a black and white issue. In his essay “The Men We Carry in Our Minds,” Scott Russell Sanders addresses the importance of intersectionality by suggesting that all men are not more privileged than all women. He develops this argument by comparing the unique impact of gender, race, and class on privilege and addressing the complex synergies between them.

A critical aspect of Sanders’ essay is his comparison of men and women’s roles during his childhood, which highlights differences in class and social power. Here, he uses pathos, painting a harsh picture of life as a man in the less-affluent areas of the Midwestern United States. During Sanders’ childhood, a lack of opportunity “bound [men] to work as their fathers had worked, killing themselves or preparing to kill others” (para. 16). This lack of opportunity for working class men highlights the lack of social power these men hold––unlike men in middle- or upper-class communities. Sanders also describes the prevalence of substance abuse in his community, stating that “most [men] drank cheap wine or whiskey” (para. 13), a form of escapism from their mundane existence. In contrast, Sanders describes how he envied women, who were “the only ones who ever seemed to enjoy a sense of ease and grace” (para. 18). Sanders also remarks that, within the context of his blue-collar community, “only women lived into old age” (para. 13), further exemplifying the stark contrast between men and women’s lives. This dichotomy communicates how Sanders’ working-class background influences his perception of gender privilege, leading him to conclude that, in impoverished communities, women are more privileged than men. 

One of Sanders’ key ideas is that gender privilege must be understood in the context of race. He states that “the first men, besides [his] father, [he remembers] seeing were the black convicts and white guards” (para. 11), neither of which Sanders viewed as privileged. Despite this view, the juxtaposition of the “black convicts and white guards” suggests that Sanders recognizes the hierarchy of privilege within an already disadvantaged group. Additionally, Sanders alludes to the United States’ history of slavery, stating that “when [men] came home at night they looked as though somebody had been whipping them” (para. 12). Parallel to how black Americans were dehumanized and viewed as property, Sanders likens men’s role to a hammer driving nails (para. 14): merely a means to an end. Therefore, the synergism between gender and racial privilege complicates the notion of a hierarchy of privilege. Sanders believes that this form of social stratification can be seen “in dirt-poor farm country, in mining country, in black ghettos, in Hispanic barrios, in the shadows of factories, [and] in Third World nations” (para. 19), a diverse set of circumstances all resulting in equally grim opportunities for men and women.

Sanders takes his argument a step further by adding that class impacts gender roles in a community on top of race. Sanders contrasts his perspective, which was shaped by his experiences as a man from an impoverished community, with the wealthy women he met in college. Here, Sanders notes a critical difference in their outlook: the men they carry in their minds. As a child, Sanders thought that men were chiefly destined to be toilers and warriors (para. 15), a stark contrast to the affluent women who “thought of their fathers, who were bankers, physicians, architects, stockbrokers, the big wheels of the big cities” (para. 20). Sanders elaborates on this schism through the metaphor of “the brute toiling animal and the boss” (para. 11). Here, Sanders suggests that the dehumanization of the working class constitutes a modern form of slavery, in which a lack of opportunities for young men has made the notion of social mobility utterly infeasible. Just like the wealthy women, these men want to share in the power and “[make] decisions that matter” (para. 20); however, they are proscribed by their class or race. And despite their shared desire for an egalitarian society, women view these men as “[enemies] to their desires” (para. 21) and not what they truly are: allies.

Scott Russell Sanders’ “The Men We Carry in Our Minds” is a groundbreaking essay designed to challenge people’s preconceived notions concerning privilege. Sanders effectively articulates the complex relationship between gender, race, and class, concluding that a framework of intersectionality is essential in understanding social privilege. Change cannot happen without a mutual understanding of people’s unique challenges; Sanders urges his audience to reflect on their own privilege and discover how they can work together for social reform. Men are not the issue; women are not the issue; racial divides are not the issue; it is precisely this entrenched social antagonism that keeps us from making real change––and it needs to end.