Why “Female Privilege List” Is Garbage

I’m sure many of you remember my deconstruction of the ridiculous “male privilege list” (if not, see here and here). Now I want to do the same for the “female privilege list” I found here. Before we begin, please note how this list is as filled with passive voice statements as the male privilege one.

1. I am physically able to give birth to another human being, and then do my best to mold her or him into the kind of person I choose.

Women spend over 40 years of their lives – the most productive years for any human being – worrying about getting pregnant. Since most of the women in the world are not that eager to give birth every year, this “privilege” becomes a harsh burden. And then what about all those women who are not physically able to give birth to another human being. The infertile, the menopausal, the transgender women. What does this make them? Men? Or shall we invent a third gender for them?

2. I am not automatically expected to be the family breadwinner.

The passive voice will drive me bananas one day. But leaving that aside, it is true that it’s easier for women in a few very rich countries to avoid working based on the shape of their genitals. This “privilege”, however, only favors those women who don’t want to develop professionally, intellectually, personally, socially, etc. Every other kind of woman suffers because of this “privilege.” How come, then, the list assigns as a privilege to all of us something that only a few are capable of wanting or enjoying?

3. I feel free to wear a wide variety of clothes, from jeans to skimpy shorts to dresses as appropriate, without fear of ridicule.

OK, this is plain weird. Since when are men not allowed to wear jeans? As for short shorts, in a wide variety of professional settings, neither men nor women can wear them. Women get ridiculed and slut-shamed for their clothes very very VERY often, so I’m not really sure what the idiot creator of this idiotic piece of arrant idiocy was trying to say here.

4. I can choose to remain seated to meet most people.

When was this written? In 1812? The habit of men getting up whenever women entered a room has been dead and gone for such a long time that not even my grandparents would have witnessed it.

5. I am not ashamed to ask for others’ perspectives on an issue.

The Dean and the Chair at my university keep sending out endless emails beseeching us to offer our perspective on a huge quantity of issues. I’m now realizing that they are not men, as I always supposed, but women who just don’t perform femininity very well. Or something. I have no other way to interpret this bizarre statement.

6. I feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.

It’s undeniable that men find it harder to express emotions publicly. But this idea is worded in such a clumsy way that this item on the list bothers me as much as all others. Who on earth tells men to shut up when they laugh?

7. My stereotypical excesses in shopping, clothes, jewelry, personal care and consumption of chocolate usually are expected, even the source of jokes.

So it’s a privilege to be the butt of a joke. How great! I’m now extending to the list’s author an invitation to come to my blog where I will subject her to the kind of ridicule that will make her feel like the most privileged creature on Earth. As for all those “stereotypical” excesses in clothing and jewelry, the spoiled brat who wrote this stupid list cannot even imagine how many women around the world don’t buy any jewelry at all because they have no money for it. And then there are all those women who hate chocolate and dislike shopping for clothes or jewelry. They must be joining the ranks of men, too.

8. Public policies generally offer me an opportunity to bond with my offspring.

A very mysterious statement, indeed. Which public policies would those be? The fact that the maternity leave is non-existent in this country?

9. I am among the first to get off a sinking ship.

Yes, we can finally figure out the actual age of the list’s author. She must have been one of the people who survived the Titanic sinking. The old lady must have gotten batty in her dotage. Well, that’s old-age privilege, I guess. You can always enjoy senility for all it’s worth.

10. I can usually find someone with superior strength to help me overcome physically challenging obstacles, such as changing a tire or cutting a huge Christmas tree.

It is sad that this person hasn’t found anybody to help her overcome the huge intellectual obstacles she is facing. Men and women can all usually find companies that provide tree-cutting and tire-changing services. Last week, I had two people deliver my new bed and install it. They didn’t do it because they were men or had superior strength. Actually, I could have easily lifted either of them off the ground. The reason why they performed this service for me was not that I’m a woman but that I’m a customer who paid them to do it.

11. Changing my mind is seen as a birthright or prerogative.

OK, now this is getting really offensive. Has this loser ever heard words “date rape” and “spousal rape”? Is she aware of how phenomenally hard it is still to prosecute rape in court precisely because of the idea that women cannot change their mind and withdraw consent to sex? As for all other areas of life, I suggest she put her wallet where her dirty mouth is and announce at work, “I have changed my mind about performing this assignment because that is my birthright as a woman.” I will enjoy seeing how fast she will land in the street.

This is getting too long, so I will put the rest of the post under the fold. Make sure you read it because it’s very good.

12. I feel free to explore alternate career paths instead of being bound to a single career ladder.

If you honestly believe that the freedom to explore different career paths depends not on having money but on possessing a vagina, you need to have your head examined. One of the most constant readers of this blog, a brilliant, talented, highly educated woman, has been dying to change her career path but has been prevented from doing that by lack of resources. And believe it or not, the magical career-changing vagina has not been of any help to her whatsoever.

13. I am used to asking for help, around the kitchen table or the proverbial water cooler or the conference room.

Good for you. I, on the other hand, have had to struggle with my incapacity to ask for help to the point where I now have a psychoanalyst who is trying to fix this issue for me. I must be a man, too. It is starting to sound like you are the only woman on the planet.

14. People I’ve never met are inclined to hold doors open and give up their seats for me.

Unless you are physically disabled, I don’t see what is all that privileged about somebody holding a door open for you. As for giving up seats, this all stayed back on the Titanic.

15. I can be proud of the skill I have worked to develop at stretching limited financial resources.

So poverty is a privilege? Good to know, you condescending prick.

16. I am not ashamed of using alternatives to positional power to reach my goals.

Finally, I can happily exclude you from being a woman because I have no idea what positional power even is. How do you like that, you. . . man?

17. I know how to put a new roll of toilet paper in use and am not above doing it for the next person.

As ridiculous as this point on the list sounds, it is actually very important because it reveals the intention behind the use of the word “privilege” and the creation of these privilege lists. It is extremely enjoyable to imagine a huge group of people as being incompetent, useless, and stupid and to convince yourself of your own superiority based on this invented difference.

18. I am not ashamed to admit that the decisions I make reflect my personal values.

Neither do Obama, Romney, and every other male politician in existence. Those stupid broads!

19. I am not afraid to create and maintain honest relationships with others.

Oh, that sense of superiority is so sweet, especially when it’s so baseless. I’m guessing all those “others” are 100% female because if men can’t maintain honest relationships, not even the biggest, best-appointed vagina in the universe will save a relationship where honesty is one-sided and contempt for another human being so deep.

20. I do not fear being accused of having an ethic of care in my professional life.

You obviously don’t fear being accused of having very poor writing skills. I don’t know what your profession is and whether anybody would want to employ such an unintelligent creature, but in my profession, having my evaluations or recommendations say that I’m caring and nurturing would condemn me professionally. I guess if you had an actual job, you’d know that.

21. When I enter an office, I am likely to encounter those who can help me “in low places.

OK, I will let my readers help me decipher this incomprehensible statement. What are these mysterious “low places” you encounter when entering offices? When I enter my own office, I don’t normally encounter anybody. Well, there was one dead bird once but it was hardly helpful.

22. I am more likely to get hugs than handshakes, depending on the situation.

And that is supposed to be a GOOD thing? Because all people invariably dig being groped as a form of greeting?

23. I am less likely to be seen as a threat, which allows me more subtle alternatives.

Why am I so cursed that I have to put up with such crappy writing in the midst of grading equally crappy writing by my students? Alternatives to what? And what the fuck is a subtle alternative?

24. I can use men’s “sheer fear of tears” to my advantage.

Life must be hard when you are so stupid. Don’t you see, you stupid thing, that this statement directly contradicts the previous one? If you can threaten a man with your tears, didn’t you just say that men can in turn threaten you with other things?

25. I can complain that these female privileges are relatively minor compared with the vast assortment of dominant male privileges, but I wouldn’t change places for the world.

And so we, the women, are stuck with idiots like you among our ranks. Yes, what a privilege!

What can we conclude from all these privilege lists (other than how useless the term “privilege” is, of course)? That all of these “privileges” only benefit people who can and want to follow the strictest traditional definition of gender roles. Any departure spells loss of this so-called privilege both for men and women. Those of us who, irrespective of our gender, don’t want our lives, choices, behaviors, beliefs, thoughts and feelings to be ruled by the shape of our genitals don’t enjoy any privileges whatsoever in the traditional system of gender roles. This isn’t about men having an easier existence than women or women having an easier existence than men. It is, rather, about a reality where people of both gender who comply with certain gender roles win out and those who don’t end up losing.

Let’s stop the gender wars, people. Seeing women / men as the enemy does not benefit you or me. It benefits the system of gender roles that hurts me and you.

About these ads

62 comments on “Why “Female Privilege List” Is Garbage

  1. 9. I am among the first to get off a sinking ship.

    There was a study done recently on the ‘women and children first’ policy on old ships, and apparently it was put into practice rarely:

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/11194/20120731/ships-sinking-shipwreck-titanic-survival-rate-psychology-altruism.htm

    If you were a woman you were on average less likely to survive a shipwreck.

    6. I feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.

    Also not true. You’ll be labeled as hysterical or jeered at for a display of strong negative emotions, or they’ll be written off as hormonal. Women also aren’t supposed to express anger forcefully.

    Anyway, this is a silly list, so your takedown is much appreciated :)

    • If you were a woman you were on average less likely to survive a shipwreck.

      As my coblogger has pointed out, the study fails to distinguish between crew, who are mostly male, and passengers, who include many female. In fact male passengers are not much more likely to survive than female ones even if the Titanic is excluded. Survivability inheres largely to naval experience, not gender.

      Moreover the phrase “sinking ship” has a metaphorical meaning. Srebrenica was a sinking ship in 1993. The pattern of the war already established at the time, and well known to the UN, was that the Serb forces would capture a town, execute all the men and older boys, excluding perhaps the very elderly, and expel the rest to uncontested territory. The expulsions were conducted in horrendous conditions, with many rapes, but it was survivable, and there was no systematic attempt to rape all the women.

      Yet the UN organized evacuations in 1993, men under the age of sixty were excluded – precisely the demographic with zero survivability in the event of capture. See this paper for more details. It took two years for the ship to sink. But when it did the only adult male survivors were those who managed to complete an arduous three-day trek to safety, with inadequate supplies and weaponry, and subject to constant attack. Most of the women and children were put on buses and transported to safety.

      I’m not trying to minimise the suffering of the women. I note for example, that not all the buses arrived, and the suggestion is that some women were taken into sexual slavery and may have been murdered subsequently. My point is that women’s chance of survival was much greater than men’s, that this was abundantly clear to the UN, but that the UN nevertheless gave women priority over men.

      This was 1993, and while I’m not aware of any similar mass evacuations organised by the UN since then, neither do I have any sense of any great cultural shift that would prevent this from happening again. To the contrary, there is constant emphasis, within UN literature on the need to protect women. This is no more than a reflection of the wider culture which privileges women’s victimisation over men’s. I have no doubt that it’s “women and children first” in the myriad mini-Srebrenicas throughout the conflict zones of the world, and that this is part of the explanation of why adult men, typically 25-30% of the civilian populations within these areas, are nevertheless 60-90% of the civilian casualties.

      • Note how my list rebutts every single point without slipping into gender wars rhetoric.

        Was this intended to suggest that I did slip into it? If so, how?

        • “Note how my list rebutts every single point without slipping into gender wars rhetoric.

          Was this intended to suggest that I did slip into it? If so, how?”

          – No, not you. Privilege-list creators. I haven’t seen a single instance where such discussions haven’t degenerated into people listing their gender resentments and claiming that either men or women have “it” better. Nobody seems to care what the magical “it” is supposed to be.

      • I think though that there’s a difference between the sinking Titanic and the example you cited: in the case of actual sinking ships men’s attempts to get women to safety would involve self-sacrifice whereas the decision to focus on women in evacuation cases isn’t made by the men who will die as a result. The point of the article is that “chivalry” among men isn’t as widespread as the myth of “women and children first” suggest.

      • The point of the article is that “chivalry” among men isn’t as widespread as the myth of “women and children first” suggest.

        You seem to be defining “chivalry” as “self-sacrifice in favour of women”. I define it as “sacrificing men in favour of women”. This subsumes self-sacrifice where the self-sacrificer is male. It includes both Srebrenica and Titanic type scenarios.

        You are correct that self-preservation is a very strong instinct, and that cultural norms mandating self-sacrifice often don’t win out. I would nevertheless also point out that in the case of the Titanic, the captain and crew, as well as sacrificing themselves, also sacrificed a lot of other men.

        • “I define it as “sacrificing men in favour of women”.”

          – So who’s sacrificing them?

          “I would nevertheless also point out that in the case of the Titanic, the captain and crew, as well as sacrificing themselves, also sacrificed a lot of other men.”

          – I fail to see the point of this argument. Are you now starting a male privilege list of your own where men have the privilege of making such decisions for other people?

      • No, not you. Privilege-list creators. I haven’t seen a single instance where such discussions haven’t degenerated into people listing their gender resentments and claiming that either men or women have “it” better. Nobody seems to care what the magical “it” is supposed to be.

        I dare say that in the 750 comments my coblogger’s post has generated so far, there has been some degeneration, but that doesn’t imply that he engages in this kind of rhetoric either. My experience with him is that he doesn’t.

        I have a couple of problems with the “women have it worse” side. One is that it is very often used as a basis to argue that women are entitled to privileged treatment of their own. For example, this written by the Male Privilege Checklist’s author:

        all men have a special responsibility to support feminism and fight sexism – because we owe women for our unjust gains.

        Of course, by “feminism” he means his brand of it, and by “sexism” he means sexism against women.

        By contrast, those arguing on the “men have it worse” side don’t, in my experience, make such demands.

        The other problem I have with the “women have it worse” side is that sometimes “it” is sufficiently well defined, and the statement is false. For example the claim that 80% of war casualties are women and children, when in fact the opposite is true.

        • ” dare say that in the 750 comments my coblogger’s post has generated so far, there has been some degeneration, but that doesn’t imply that he engages in this kind of rhetoric either. My experience with him is that he doesn’t.”

          – I haven’t read that post because it’s the last week of the semester and I have barely enough time to see to my own blog. I have to say that I’m not eager to read that post because I have very little confidence that it will not be yet another enumeration of grievances against an entire gender.

          “By contrast, those arguing on the “men have it worse” side don’t, in my experience, make such demands.”

          – You are either completely mistaken or refuse to see reality on purpose. I have, at this point, lost track of the purpose of the argument. Are you trying to say that male privilege lists don;t have a right to exist while female privilege lists do?

          “I have a couple of problems with the “women have it worse” side. ”

          – But not with the “men have it worse” side?

      • - I haven’t read that post because it’s the last week of the semester and I have barely enough time to see to my own blog. I have to say that I’m not eager to read that post because I have very little confidence that it will not be yet another enumeration of grievances against an entire gender.

        It’s a list of some of the ways things are better for women than men. I don’t agree that these constitute grievances against women. You’ve probably noticed that I’m a bit angry at the way our culture values female victimisation over male, extends greater protection to women than men, even when men are objectively more at risk, etc. But I’m not angry at women for this. I’m angry at the culture. I’m also angry at feminists who reinforce this culture. I recognise that there are some that don’t, and that you’re one of them, so I’m not angry at you.

        “By contrast, those arguing on the “men have it worse” side don’t, in my experience, make such demands.”

        – You are either completely mistaken or refuse to see reality on purpose.

        I already posted a link to a prominent feminist blogger who 1. argues that “women and not men .. are, on the whole, given the short end of patriarchy’s stick.”, 2. argues that “all men have a special responsibility to support feminism and fight sexism”, by implication sexism against women”, and 3. Links the two by arguing that this is “because we owe women for our unjust gains.”

        Can you post a link to a similarly prominent blogger or other person who has made “such a demand”, on behalf of men, and linked it explicitly to men having it worse in general?

        I have, at this point, lost track of the purpose of the argument. Are you trying to say that male privilege lists don;t have a right to exist while female privilege lists do?

        Of course not, and I find this mode of argumentation tiresome: “Are you saying <foo>” when the person has been saying something completely unrelated to <foo>

        “I have a couple of problems with the “women have it worse” side. ”

        – But not with the “men have it worse” side?

        Not these specific problems, no, because as I said (and you’ve disagreed without rebutting) the “men have it worse side” don’t exhibit the same behaviour. I have other problems with both sides. Neither side backs up its claim with any kind of reasonable analysis. Both sides tend to mininise and erase the gender-based injuries to the sex they claim is favoured. And of course, there are lots of ways in which many of those arguing that “men have it worse” are unpleasant that don’t specifically relate to the “men have it worse” argument.

  2. “4. I can choose to remain seated to meet most people.

    When was this written? In 1812? The habit of men getting up whenever women entered a room has been dead and gone for such a long time that not even my grandparents would have witnessed it.”

    I was certainly taught to do that. I still do it, mostly, unless the woman is much younger than I am. I suspect that I am younger than your grandparents.

  3. There is, in fact, a plethora of female privilege lists, including one by my coblogger.

    All these lists appear to be responses to Ampersand’s male privilege checklist. Any flaws in the reflection which are also present in the original are not the fault of the mirror.

    The purpose of the male privilege checklist was to establish the orthodox feminist position that gender privilege unidirectionally benefits men. The female privilege lists are intended to rebut this, not to establish the reverse position.

    • I believe that my deconstruction of both lists is a lot more useful than creating a competing list in response because:

      1) creating a list in response recognizes the validity of the method and its central concept (privilege);
      2) any privilege list reinforces the gender wars. The only people who gain as a result are the supporters of the most traditional gender definitions available.

      “The female privilege lists are intended to rebut this, not to establish the reverse position.”

      – I rebutted it beautifully and avoided reinforcing the original idea in the process.

      Conclusion: I rock. :-)

      • 1) creating a list in response recognizes the validity of the method and its central concept (privilege);

        I don’t agree. Demonstrating that an assumption or a method produces contradictory results is the classic reductio ad absurdum refutation of that method or assumption.

        I wouldn’t throw out “privilege” entirely. The problem with it, in most formulations, is that two notions are conflated.

        1. There exists social dynamics which advantage some members of particular groups in some circumstances, and that the advantaged individuals very often do not appreciate the extent to which they are advantaged, the impact upon those not so advantaged, or that the advantage is a social grant.

        2. As above, but with the additional assumption that these advantages apply to the entire class and are unidirectional.

        Idea 1 applied to gender simply says that some men in some circumstances benefit as a result of gender assumptions about them, while other men, or the same men in different circumstances are disadvantaged. Ditto women. As far as I can tell, you don’t disagree with this.

        Idea 2 is also valid in respect of race, for example, in those countries where the dominant culture is of European heritage, Almost all white people are advantaged over almost all non-white people in many circumstances, and very few white people suffer significant disadvantage because of their race. Again, my impression is that you don’t disagree.

        The problem with the female privilege checklist is that it purports to demonstrate Idea 2 in respect of gender, but it really can only demonstrate Idea 1.

        2) any privilege list reinforces the gender wars. The only people who gain as a result are the supporters of the most traditional gender definitions available.

        Conclusion: I rock. :-)

        On that, there is no disagreement.

    • OK, I glanced at this list you provided and I’m sorry to say that it is as silly, reductive, and useless as the rest of them. After “being driven to suicide”, it makes no sense to read the rest. There is a limit to how much Dr. Phil-type pop-psych I can take.

  4. The list of inanities speaks for itself, but a couple of flippant comments anyway:

    9. I am among the first to get off a sinking ship.

    Perhaps so, but are you first into the nuclear bunker? :p

    17. I know how to put a new roll of toilet paper in use and am not above doing it for the next person.

    Aha, amongst the so-called “privileges” I spy a personal gripe about having to change the toilet paper all the time. It’s like the “always leaving the toilet seat up” gripe. Well, put it down again then! Are you incompetent or what?! As for changing the toilet paper: perhaps she has to do it more because she uses more?

    From my own conclusive survey of one, when living with a woman who suddenly took a fancy to Aloe Vera toilet paper. Aaargh, no, I don’t want that horrible stuff on my hands. So I got my own separate plain paper. She had finished her two rolls when I was halfway down my first.

      • Historical evidence suggests that women and children were the first into the stewpot, ranging from the Puritans’ butcher of wives during a bad winter, and, of course, the Donner party, where a distant cousin of mine was the main course.

  5. Positional power is the power gained by being in a position of authority, e.g. the power a boss has over a subordinate, a teacher over a student, or a parent over a child.

    All those non-CEO men who persuade or trick their bosses into thinking that the subordinate’s idea was always exactly what the boss wanted must be living sad lives, filled with shame for using alternatives to positional power. Even the male CEOs who persuade or trick employees into believing that what the CEO wants is what the employees want must be ashamed for not just commanding employees to do things.

      • It’s really frustrating for me to see someone make a pathetically weak argument, when there’s a strong argument sitting right next to it.

        The point isn’t that the members of one sex and not the other feels ashamed to use non-positional power. The point is that non-positional power exists, and that analyses of power which ignore it are flawed. I have yet to see a justification of the concept of unidirectional male privilege which doesn’t boil down to “men occupy most positions of power”.

        • And I have yet to see one use of the word “privilege” that would not be egregiously unintelligent. This is used to be a good word but now it has been degraded beyond belief by being used as an identity-building mechanism that, by definition, needs to exclude and marginalize.

      • And I have yet to see one use of the word “privilege” that would not be egregiously unintelligent.

        You wrote this before my “two ideas” comment above. I hope you did not find it “egregiously unintelligent”.

        This is used to be a good word but now it has been degraded beyond belief by being used as an identity-building mechanism that, by definition, needs to exclude and marginalize.

        The same objection could be leveled at the word “Patriarchy”, which you nevertheless accept.

        • “The same objection could be leveled at the word “Patriarchy”, which you nevertheless accept.”

          – No, it can’t. There are mountains of scholarly volumes that use and discuss this legitimate term. As for “privilege”, I am yet to see a single respectable scholarly source that would use it seriously.

          “Idea 2 is also valid in respect of race, for example, in those countries where the dominant culture is of European heritage, Almost all white people are advantaged over almost all non-white people in many circumstances, and very few white people suffer significant disadvantage because of their race. Again, my impression is that you don’t disagree.”

          – I disagree that using the term “privilege” in this situation is justified or useful. Here is a good explanation why: http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-slave-privilege-list.html

      • There are mountains of scholarly volumes that use and discuss this legitimate term.

        I don’t interact with feminists in the ivory towers of scholarly volumes. I interact with them in the sewers of the blogosphere. Down here “Patriarchy”, like “privilege” is “used as an identity-building mechanism that, by definition, needs to exclude and marginalize”. Moreover, it’s operation definition as almost all blogofeminists use it – society viewed as unidirectionally privileging men – admits no other interpretation than the most egregiously divisive form of “male privilege”. “Privilege” is a broader concept.

        - I disagree that using the term “privilege” in this situation is justified or useful. Here is a good explanation why: http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-slave-privilege-list.html

        Echidne is here arguing againsts lists as a rhetorical/didactic form. It’s not clear whether she rejects “privilege” as a concept per se. Moreover, according to Echidne: “I could make up a slave privilege list and some people would find it credible.” Except that it isn’t. Even the “serious” and “satirical” black privilege checklists she cites are indistinguishable.

        I actually found Echine’s post a few hours before you cited it. I was prompted by this discussion to repeat an exercise that I do every few years, namely to search for black privilege list. Until now, I have never found any. The three I turned up this search all look like satire. The impossibility of creating a serious-looking one, contrasted with the plethora of serious female privilege lists, however flawed some may be, is an indicator that white privilege is a valid concept, while male privilege isn’t.

        • “I don’t interact with feminists in the ivory towers of scholarly volumes. I interact with them in the sewers of the blogosphere. Down here “Patriarchy”, like “privilege” is “used as an identity-building mechanism that, by definition, needs to exclude and marginalize”. Moreover, it’s operation definition as almost all blogofeminists use it – society viewed as unidirectionally privileging men – admits no other interpretation than the most egregiously divisive form of “male privilege”. “Privilege” is a broader concept.”

          – Are you suggesting that every term that has been debased by the congenitally stupid should be abandoned? This should mean I must never use the word “socialism” because I haven’t seen a single post or article in the past 5 years that would have used this term correctly. Or forget about terminology, should we stop using words like “it’s” and “its” because so many people use them incorrectly?

          “The impossibility of creating a serious-looking one, contrasted with the plethora of serious female privilege lists, however flawed some may be, is an indicator that white privilege is a valid concept, while male privilege isn’t.”

          – There is this very good term that can be used to describe this phenomenon. It’s called racism. Why abandon it in favor of this dubious “white privilege”? Because it’s too aggressive? Too direct? Because it draws attention away from the white people who are so obsessed with being the center of the universe that they have to begin even a dicsussion of racism with the word “white”? Because the white people need to make it all about them?

    • I disliked the male privilege list more ideologically, probably because there were more points for me to hate. But this list slayed me with its bad writing. I found it on a website called Women in Higher Ed. It scares me to imagine that anybody in higher ed could be such an incredibly poor writer.

  6. I was going to rebut this list point by point but instead am just going to ask why all these women who love being stepped on won’t just admit they have a foot fetish and leave the rest of us alone.

  7. Those who make privilege lists are working from a strange premise. Sure, some people have privileges, but what does it really mean? I imagine that in the minds of those who make up these lists it means that the privileged ones OWE something to the unprivileged ones. It implies a relationship of debt, much like what David Graeber talks about in his recent book:

    So, if males are privileged and women are not, this implies that males owe women something. If it is the other way, the relationship of debt is reversed. If both men and women have privileges, only of a different sort, then debt flows in both directions and both parties are responsible for covering their debts in relation to the other.

    But, honestly, is that what you want? And, if so, why do you want it?

    To be owed something by someone means they become effectively your slave. To concede that one owes another person something means one is in slavery to them — until such time as the debt is paid off.

    Is that what you’re after? You don’t like men or women, but you think they should work for you? The relationship becomes ever more binding in this way.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that some people don’t manage to glide through turnstiles that lock for the rest of us. That inconsistency in permissions, that happens when people subconsciously block others, whilst allowing only certain sorts of people to gain most of the power in society, is real.

    The thing is, turning to the nearest person who seems to fit the definition of those more often allowed through, and declaring to that person, “You owe me big time!” doesn’t seem a useful way to solve the problem of systemic inequalities.

    I do think the issue has to be addressed in other, more rational ways.

  8. Clarissa, you are hard headed and hearted. You have refuted very little here as flippantly dismissing a statement without proving the statement to be untrue is not a method of proving something to be invalid. You are so childish it is sickening.

    So, let me say this and be done with you. Being a man requires excessively high emotional burdens. When you are male you are frequently in childhood and sometimes in adulthood beaten, emotionally neglected when it does not fit enough into a role of stoicism, ridiculed for not be manly or strong, seen as a thing rather than a person because your skills are more important than than your emotions and so forth. The fact that women’s emotions ARE VALUED while men’s are often not (nearly to the same degree) is the root of the social disability of men. And then because we live in this rigid social roles and have women like you screeching about your cushy “plight” we get no sympathy outside of from our mothers (if they are good people). So, forgive me saying this (but I don’t care if you don’t.) but you are a terrible and insensitive person and if you the incarnation of all women then you would deserve to be subjugated. Your ego-maniacal way of dismissing men is appalling.

  9. FIRSTLY, DO MEN AND BOYS HAVE NO RIGHT TO SURVIVE AT ALL???

    WOMEN ACTUALLY ARE AMONG THE FIRST TO BE RESCUED! WHY?
    READ THESE LINES FROM THE SAME LINK THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED:-

    The notable exception was the Titanic disaster, in which the captain ordered
    a women-and-children-first evacuation, and officers had reportedly shot men
    who disobeyed, resulting in a survival rate of women that was three times
    higher than that of men with more than 70 percent of female passengers
    surviving compared to less than 20 percent of men.–> WHY DID YOU
    IGNORE THIS PARAGRAPH?

    IF THE ABOVE IS MADE INTO A COMPULSORY DISASTER-MANAGEMENT
    RULE, WHERE IN, IT IS NECESSARY TO SAVE WOMEN AND CHILDREN
    FIRST, THEN OBVIOUSLY, THE SURVIVAL RATES OF WOMEN WILL
    DEFINITELY BE MORE THAN THAT OF MEN!!

    WOMEN AND FEMINISTS HEAVILY PUSH FOR THE ABOVE EXCEPTION
    TO BECOME THE NORM OF TODAY!! (Read the disaster-management
    textbooks that are used in schools. You will CLEARLY understand. )

    THAT IS WHY, WOMEN ( and children ) HAVE HIGHER CHANCES OF BEING
    RESCUED FIRST EVEN IN PLANE CRASHES OR HURRICANE EVENTS.

  10. Thank You for replying to my comment, Ms Clarissa.

    I am sorry if this has offended you in any way, but still I have questions
    to show why men and boys are still considered disposable:-

    –>Why are MOSTLY men still required to work in front lines, while women
    get the safe positions in the army, that do not involve risking of life?

    –>Why are MOSTLY daughters saved by the mothers during the times
    when there is a choice to choose the child of only one gender, when
    faced with natural calamities or disasters?

    –>Why do newspaper or internet headlines mention WOMEN AND
    CHILDREN, whenever a bomb blast, a terror attack or a natural disaster
    takes place? Agreed that the perpetrators of those attacks are mostly men,
    but still, there are INNOCENT men too, that have to be saved, isn’t it?

    A few examples to show that only WOMEN AND CHILDREN are mentioned:-

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/lampedusa-migrant-boat-

    capsizes-leaving-2362868

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/29/world/asia/pakistan-attack/

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/madhyapradesh/women-and-

    children-among-at-least-109-killed-in-madhya-pradesh-temple-stampede
    /article1-1134509.aspx

    Please Reply. This is very important.

    Thank You Once Again :)

    • “Why are MOSTLY men still required to work in front lines, while women
      get the safe positions in the army, that do not involve risking of life?
      –>Why do newspaper or internet headlines mention WOMEN AND
      CHILDREN, whenever a bomb blast, a terror attack or a natural disaster
      takes place?”

      – Because women face horrible discrimination. These are the results of that discrimination. Feminists have been fighting against this for centuries. Few things are more offensive to a feminist than this disgusting set phrase of “women and children.” And feminists have been working hard to ensure that women are not discriminated against in the army.There is an enormous opposition to this fight from male sexists, but we’ll get there.

      • Thank You for replying Ms Clarissa.

        Do you know that men too are EQUALLY LIKELY to be discriminated
        against in the army, because of a LARGE number of GAY-RAPE
        cases that happen to them? Women face the fear of rape too.
        But that doesn’t mean that you should ignore men, isn’t it?

        Please Reply.

        • “Do you know that men too are EQUALLY LIKELY to be discriminated
          against in the army, because of a LARGE number of GAY-RAPE
          cases that happen to them? Women face the fear of rape too.
          But that doesn’t mean that you should ignore men, isn’t it?”

          – What makes you think that I ignore men? What a strange comment to make.
          And what makes you equate rape with discrimination???

    • I can find you a gazillion more links with the sexist ‘women and children” crap, so what? I wrote a book about the infantilization of women, so there is very little you ca tell me about the subject.

      • I am sorry Ms Clarissa, but I couldn’t understand what you are trying
        to say. Are you trying to say that using only WOMEN AND CHILDREN
        in newspaper and internet headlines is NOT sexist against INNOCENT
        men who have been victims of war and terror attacks?

        Please Explain this properly.

        • “Are you trying to say that using only WOMEN AND CHILDREN
          in newspaper and internet headlines is NOT sexist against INNOCENT
          men who have been victims of war and terror attacks?”

          – It’s sexist against women. If men dislike this expression as well, then they should stop using it already and join the feminist fight against it.

  11. OK thank you for clearing the idea. I was confused :)

    How is using WOMEN AND CHILDREN in headlines sexist against
    women? Women should be proud that they get the first preference
    for life rescue. How is this benevolent sexism? How does this
    infatilize the women?

    Doesn’t this actually SHOW idea of MALE DISPOSABILITY that
    men are useless and should sacrifice their lives to save women
    and children in times of danger?

    What do you have to say?

    Please Reply.

    • “How is using WOMEN AND CHILDREN in headlines sexist against
      women? Women should be proud that they get the first preference
      for life rescue.”

      – Maybe women can figure out what they will be proud of on their own, eh?

      “How is this benevolent sexism?”

      – There is absolutely nothing benevolent about this.

      “How does this
      infatilize the women?”

      – Do you understand the meaning of the word “infantilize”? Here is the word’s definition from the dictionary: “treat (someone) as a child or in a way that denies their maturity in age or experience.”

      • So rescuing women and children, actually INFANTILIZES them? How?
        Kindly Answer shortly if you are not having enough time :) :)

        • What we are discussing is ““using WOMEN AND CHILDREN in headlines.” This is a direct quote from you. You suggested we talk about headlines, so I’m talking about headlines. And now it seems like you wanted to talk about something completely different, namely rescuing, from the start?

          It is very important to be careful with words, otherwise people will not understand you.

  12. OK perhaps I’m beating around the bush. :| :|

    Anyways, it was nice talking to a powerful madam like you :) :)

    Can you please add an EDIT COMMENT option?

    Then, we need not unnecessarily post comments after comments
    again and again to correct the mistakes made.

    On a final note, if I have ANY DOUBTS in the future regarding
    feminism or sexism, can I post the question here?

    Please reply for a final note :) :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s