Jennifer Lawrence teaches about male privilege

Jennifer Lawrence: Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence was once told that she'd be fired if she didn't lose weight. While girls and women have grown accustomed to being judged by their weight, men tend to be immune from such scrutiny.

Lionel Cironneau/AP
Jennifer Lawrence: In an interview with Harper's Bazaar Jennifer Lawrence revealed that she was once told she would be fired if she did not lose weight, a request she has since learned to brush off.

A great deal of understanding life involves understanding your own level of privilege. For example: Did you grow up the white child of married, college-educated parents in an affluent or comfortable neighborhood? Congratulations: You were born with a complicated and profound network of advantages that has helped you accomplish everything you've ever tackled since.

On a similar note: it can be difficult, at times, to remember that male privilege is a very real thing. Personally speaking, I spend a good 50% of my waking hours complaining at length about all the minor misfortunes and inconveniences that have befallen me, and I therefore tend to lose track of all the benefits that I wallow in daily. But then stories like this one come along: "Jennifer Lawrence Was Once Told to Lose Weight or Get Fired."

Here's the context: Oscar winner and blockbuster mega-star Jennifer Lawrence ("The Hunger Games") was once told that she'd be fired if she didn't lose weight, and the point was driven home using scantily-clad pictures of herself.

As a male, this hasn't happened to me. Ever. Even vaguely. And you might say to yourself (should you happen to be female), "well, wait – as a female, this hasn't happened to me, either."

Not with the explicit threat of firing and the explanatory photos, no doubt. But how often have you felt self-conscious about your weight, or judged, or under social or even professional pressure to maintain a certain look? Part of being a woman in modern American society (and others, too – but let's keep our focus at least somewhat constrained) is a feeling that appearances count, a lot, a feeling that is fed by the pervasive influence of Hollywood and television.

After all: If an by-all-accounts decent looking Hollywood actress can get bagged on and criticized for her appearance, what's to stop it from happening to almost any woman in any job? Ideally: the sensitivity of employers and peers. In real life: almost nothing at all.

There are a lot of things that I am worried about when it comes to raising my son, including but not limited to: whether he'll crash his bike into a car, whether he'll blow one or more digits off while playing with illegal fireworks, whether he'll use good judgment when it comes to drugs and alcohol, whether he'll drive safely or like a far-less-skillful Mario Andretti, whether he'll find a career he loves, whether he'll manage to do well in school or just muddle through like I did, and whether he'll stick around the Upper Midwest or ship off for distant parts.

But I'm not actively worried about his body image. I assume he'll be somewhere between thin and chunky, and ideally be fairly healthy and active, and he'll feel comfortable with himself. And that's about as far as I've really had to think of it, because I know for myself, body image was a much smaller part of the story than school, and friendships, and just generally figuring out life. And while that was also true for many of my female friends, it wasn't true across the board. And that, in a nutshell, is male privilege: the privilege to worry about something other than whether someone important thinks that you're a little too fat.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.