Why I agree with Ta-Nehisi Coats

As someone who grew up around, and came to loathe, a certain kind of working-class masculinity, I agree with Ta-Nehisi Coats's Atlantic piece on poverty, masculinity, and power. Granted, that loathing comes bundled with loads of internalized classism, but it merits discussion. Street harassment he says is, "is a kind of implied violence, a tool most embraced by those who lack the power to set laws, men who are in doubt of themselves. Real men objectify women with dignity and decorum."

Now, I take this to mean that real men -- men who have social or economic power and influence -- objectify women in more covert, socially acceptable ways: the subtle sexism when boss calls a female employee "sweetie," or the institutionalized kind when she's passed over for a promotion in favor of a younger male colleague. I'm still not entirely sure where Emily Heist Moss was trying to say with her critique of Coats's essay, but she provides an example that I think affirms what Coats was saying. The young, white law student might have hit the privilege jackpot, but by virtue of being a student, he's not exactly powerful. She also centers women's experiences -- a good thing -- but it misses the point of Coates's essay. I'm not making excuses -- all kinds of objectification and sexism contribute to the larger picture that as many inroads women have made, there's still a lot of work to be done. But as a person who's solidly working-class, I have no idea where my alliances are supposed to lie.