I Have Female Privilege

It’s a woman’s world, Rachel Goodchild writes, and they now have all the privilege.

I was raised a feminist. My mother was a feminist, and my father was too. When I was a girl, feminism was a noble pursuit- a drive to gain the equality (though now I prefer the word equity), that our mothers and grandmothers had not experienced. And it was needed. I do not doubt it, nor take for granted the ground that they took. We have perhaps forgotten how hard it was for women to do what they wanted in terms of partner choice, the choice to have children, attending school and universities, then work in a career of their choosing.

And yes, I know that battle has not been won everywhere. There are countries or cultures where horrendous things happen to you if you are female. But in my country and in my culture, and in many other western countries, I would suggest the tide has well and truly turned.

I have occasionally felt the sting of NOT being male – the invitation to join the “real men” at work when offered a leadership position, the fact that there was the assumption by the outside world, when my marriage broke up that it would be me that would care for my children, though I had also been the income earner (not that I opposed that I would, though the easy assumption did rankle), that I have struggled with that curious mix of needing pretty finery and makeup and eradication of hair in socially unacceptable places (except of course on my head!) to appear more professional, and so on, but I am very aware that I no longer live in a man’s world. This world is a woman’s world. And us females are now the humans holding the privilege.

I try not to use it. But I know it’s there. I am all too aware the pendulum of power has swung, and being aware of that knowledge itself is enough. However I see women around me use our shared privilege all the time, and it does sicken me.

♦◊♦

If I were to use it, what would that look like? Well, let’s look at how the tides have turned.

1. I’m allowed to be far more open about my sexuality than a man is. In fact, if I’m bisexual, it’s encouraged (both male and females encourage it funnily enough). If I’m hetero, I’m allowed to make comments about how hot men are, compliment men without others thinking it’s harassment and generally can make lewd comments about any person, be them male or female, and it’s considered ok. I can say “I fancy him so much I’d  even rape him” or “I need to pull him into the storeroom and show him I mean it” or “He is mega hot” about any male whether  he is seventeen (I am forty) or seventy. I can sit in a Twilight movie and drool at Jacob (for instance), and not be seen as a dirty old woman.

2. If my partner and I were in a domestic dispute and both violent, or both shouting, and I hit him … if the police were called, my male partner would still be the one far more likely to be taken into custody for the night. If my male partner tried to report domestic violence, it would be harder for him to have the charges laid, than if I did so. In fact, while there is a charge of Male assaults Woman in my country, there is no Woman assaults Male. That would be classified instead as General Assault.

3. If my relationship with the father of my children was to break up, I’m far more likely to get the kids. And if I want a child, but don’t have a partner, I can do that too. I get to choose whether I have the baby or not, I get to choose whether the father’s name is on the birth certificate or not (and if he queries it, he’s the one who has to pay for the DNA test) and if he’s named as the father, he then has to pay child support, whether he was aware I was trying to have a child or not.

4. I’m allowed to be as education- and career-driven as I want to be, and push for the top, seeking equity and equality in everything. But when it comes to dating and relationships, I’ll want the dates paid for, the doors opened, the bling bought. And if I want to choose to not be career-driven, and be instead at home, and not work, then I can far more readily choose that option too than a male partner could.

5. If I write an inflammatory comment, or a blog, or article, and a man questions anything in it, all I need to do to shut the conversation down is call him a bully, or say he’s a privileged male. I can also make disparaging comments about his sexuality, his economic standing, the size of his penis, and his ability to do pretty much anything in return for him disagreeing with me. I can do this, because when I do, I KNOW there will be a bunch of other women who will stick up for me. Because as a woman … I now have privilege.

—Photo Spec-ta-cles/Flickr

NOW TRENDING ON GMP TV

Super Villain or Not, Parenting Paranoia Ensues
The Garbage Man Explains Happiness
How To Not Suck At Dating

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Rachel Goodchild

Rachel Goodchild is a parent and behavior coach. Her course Boys are Brilliant is a popular choice for both teachers and parents wanting to help address the needs their children.

Comments

  1. Wow! That was ignorant.

    • Anonymous says:

      I like how effectively you can justify your position, makes it clear how knowledgeable you are. Let me guess – “my women’s studies professor said so so therefore it’s true”.

    • No, that was brilliant. You’re the ignorant one too blinded by feminist doctrine to be able to see the obvious truth.

      You are actually just a part of the status quo, unable to question the conventional wisdom that feminism has force fed people for several decades, and see things for what they actually are.

  2. So…surely before any discussion, one must consider the source, and in this case it is Rachel Goodchild – a woman who has spoken openly about how she had to leave her abusive partner, how he left her poor and about how she is now single and the struggles finding a (GOOD) man.

    Ironic, much?

    • Hi

      Thanks for your comment.
      I thank you for this comment- and though I am unsure how my background of being someone who left an abusive marriage discounts anything I said above, I do thank you for providing me with a great idea for my next topic- on why I’m so passionate about the de-genderisation of domestic violence campaigns.

      In many ways you are correct. I of all people have a “right” to be angry at men, or more specifically, one male. I did end up being physically and emotionally impacted, and I certainly was economically impacted. I also now have full custody of three children which continues to impact me in many ways. I did find it did impact me when I went into a new relationship, and I’ve had to learn to let go of some of the things you learn as survival techniques in a chronically abusive relationship. That took some work! :)

      That I, even with that can still see that priveledge is not only held by men, makes my blog all the more relevant.

      As for being single and struggling to find a GOOD man? Has not been an issue for a good long while :) I count myself very lucky in that.

      When single however, I can’t say I ever complained that there were no good men. In fact I have always been vocal about my feelings about the well publicised man drought and my lack of support of such a thing. Good men have always been in front of us, and always will be.

      • “When single however, I can’t say I ever complained that there were no good men. In fact I have always been vocal about my feelings about the well publicised man drought and my lack of support of such a thing. Good men have always been in front of us, and always will be.”

        Those man drought articles usually make me laugh, some of the ones I’ve seen have placed quite high standards of what a good man is eg university educated, financially stable, etc where it simply ignores quite a lot of men who are great but have no tertiary education or training, may not be earning a high enough income.

        “I do thank you for providing me with a great idea for my next topic- on why I’m so passionate about the de-genderisation of domestic violence campaigns.”
        Oh god yes, I absolutely cannot stand the ones we have in Australia. “Violence against women, Australia says no”, “White Ribbon Day”, and others where it’s blasted into our heads how males abuse females but dead silence on the reverse, or other combos. I see quite often girls slapping, punching, hitting guys with no one saying a damn word and it’s quite saddening because if the guy had hit back….what an uproar that’d be.

  3. There is NO QUESTION that patriarchy oppresses men as well as women. But what you’re describing here are privileges, not privilege.

    The idea that the tide of power has turned and women have more power than men, in the aggregate, is laughably counter-factual.

    • DavidByron says:

      And yet it is what most women believe according to the most recent survey I could find. 51% of women believe women have more power than men or else that men and women are equal. Of course even more men see that.

      Those are normal non-political people who see through all the miasma of feminist propaganda. It’s a lot easier if you actually look at the facts of course. Women obviously have more power than men today. Part of that power is the effective control of the media to keep insisting its not true.

      If women lack power how come it’s so hard to name any area where women are worse off than men? So hard most feminists cannot do it.

    • Rebecca says:
      “The idea that the tide of power has turned and women have more power than men, in the aggregate, is laughably counter-factual.”

      Rebecca, if you eliminate the top 1% elites that obviously add more wealth and control towards men and instead look at the general populace it can be demonstrably shown that many men have far less privilege and far worse standard of living compared to women.

      Men are:
      95% of on-the-job deaths
      90% of the homeless
      80% of all suicides
      80% the victims of violent crime
      90% of the incarcerated (studies show the anti-male sentencing disparity is equal to the anti-black sentencing disparity)
      95% of those on death row
      38% of college grads
      live 7 years less
      fathers get primary physical custody 6% to mothers 80%

      men have much less advocacy and aid in reproductive rights, mental health, health care the list goes on and on. The help programs in many spheres of life for women dominate what is available for men.

      In short the constant frenzy of feminists to view only the elites to show that ALL MEN have much greater wealth, and control is simply a magicians trick to draw attention where she wants it.

      In addition, it is demonstrably shown that because nearly all of the top 1% elite are men that they then advocate for men is a broken argument.
      Women make 80% of household spending decisions. They also are 55% of the voters.
      Women who are married routinely vote republican, since there is the depiction of democrats playing zero-sum games in their advocacy against men. If women change their vote based on their SITUATION then why would politicans not also arrange their stance based on the demographics of the voters?

      If men’s views are being promulgated because the elites are men then can you explain any of these following mainstream airings?

      ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1J8wC1AWus&feature=related

      Here is Sharon Osbourne laughing uproarisly at a man who’s wife cut off his penis (for seeking divorce apparently). Not only does she laugh but the whole audience tee-hees along with her. This is broadcast to millions. Can you ever picture a show laughing at the mutilation of a women’s sex organs being broadcast to millions? The show would be closed down, and advertisers would leave the show. All that happened to the Talk is Sharon Osbourne apologized and took a voluntary hiatus.

      ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VihlsPKMh4U
      Look at some of the scenes of boy only CHILD ABUSE in movies like Mr. Woodcock and Bad Teacher

      ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGmz3wrpOJA

      Here is a commercial in which it is stated if your husband isn’t perfect beat the crap out of him:

      ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGmz3wrpOJA

      Beat your snoring husband:
      ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K07RKgt4KDg

      Or this department store commercial which shows men in the emergency room for buying the wrong their wives the wrong xmas gifts.
      ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJejr9jRyZs

      How about any of the movies in which male rape is depicted as funny? This is a running theme in slapstick comedies like the Eurotrip “safe word” scene.

      You reverse the genders on any of these instances and these marketing/writers would be out of a job and the companies boycotted.

      Violence against men is seen as the ultimate joke. You can’t even make a case that violence against women in media is as pervasive or wide spread or as extreme.

      If you really want to engage in an open dialogue (and not push your narrative on others) I would recommend reading Own Your Sh1t blog by girl writes what.

      Rather than dealing in facts and figures, she uses a very concise expert writing style that centers on how men are dehumanized.

      Even in the first half of 1900’s when (I will agree) women’s decisions were curtailed women were also vastly safer from harm. As a contrast, the men had the SEMBLANCE of freedom (work this dangerous job or starve) their lives were mostly about being used and abused.

      Look at this video about the historic event of Patton slapping a soldier who said he had shell shock and couldn’t go back to the front (it was later determined he had malaria).

      ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJcAeJ8YRo

      When you direct your views to the COMMON man over the past 100 years you can see men were also harshly oppressed in addition to women, just in a much different way.

      • 28,000 men died building the panama canal.
        The only context in which 28,000 (only) women would have died in one situation would have been a horribly awful disaster.

        28,000 dead women = a (fictitious) horribly awful disaster
        28,000 dead men (that actually happened) = the “low” cost of world trade.

        You need to take off your rose tinted women’s studies glasses and see how cheap mens lives truly have been for the last 100 years.

        You look up almost any great construction job like dams or suspension bridges or transcontinental railroad and you will see a litany of male deaths (while women were kept safe).

        • 28,000 dead women = a (fictitious) horribly awful disaster
          28,000 dead men (that actually happened) = the “low” cost of world trade.

          I wouldn’t say fictitious. Its just odd accounting. You see it is actually possible to get that 28,000 dead women but in order to do it you pretty much have to invoke something that is already widely accepted as wrong in and of itself, war. But unlike war something like building the Panama Canal is supposedly a great thing and people don’t want to smear it by talking about “little things” like how many people died building it (unless you can find some women among those workers THEN it becomes important).

          • Hey Danny,
            I agree, but it was exclusively men who died. Where women die in war it is typically because the men have failed to protect them (which means AT LEAST an equal number of men also died).

            The reason I called it fictitious is because a decades long regional event in which 28,000 (ONLY) women died would be seen as a holocaust.

            • It also wouldn’t be depicted as female dominance or men being excluded and it certainly wouldn’t be seen as representative of female power.

      • There are certainly places in society where women are no longer at a disadvantage, such as liberal arts colleges. And there are ways in which being a historically subjugated class has benefited women. For instance, women avoid hard labor, combat, and harsh prison sentences. However, the former arises out of fair treatment (not special treatment, women are now at a disadvantage when applying to lib arts colleges) and they later arises from oppressive cultural norms that feminists actually fight. Feminists in the agregate can not be reasonably blamed for the success of women given an equal playing field or for the unintended positive consequences of patriarchy. Women still face oppression today, even disregarding maternity leave, women make ssubstantially less than men for the same work. Women are severely underrepresented in the top 1%,in management jobs, and in political office. We suffer more, by far, from eating disorders, and are commodified in our sex lives (a problem many people believe is the cause behind the high rates of sexual violence in the U.S.). Little medical research is done on women and our reproductive health suffers because of it, as does our heart health. Feminists and men’s rights activists should work together and strive to understand each others perspectives. This is not a zero sum game. Arguing about who has it worst is unproductive and inflammatory.

        • John Anderson says:

          @ Emily

          “Feminists and men’s rights activists should work together and strive to understand each others perspectives. This is not a zero sum game. Arguing about who has it worst is unproductive and inflammatory.”

          I agree, however,

          “the former arises out of fair treatment (not special treatment, women are now at a disadvantage when applying to lib arts colleges) and they later arises from oppressive cultural norms that feminists actually fight. Feminists in the agregate can not be reasonably blamed for the success of women given an equal playing field or for the unintended positive consequences of patriarchy”

          We disagree on the cause of the problem. MRAs tend to recognize that society has established gender norms and roles. I and I’d say most MRAs believe that these gender roles were initially negotiated between the sexes and therefore have been enforced by both sexes. Feminists choose to blame men for imposing these gender roles (“The patriarchy”). Even if true, what advantage is gained by telling people it’s all your fault besides political advantage to gain more privileges or “unintended” positive consequences of patriarchy? It also gives women an excuse to support “the patriarchy” because they never set it up so they can’t be oppressors. It also assuages the guilt when enjoying your own female privilege by dismissing it as an unintended positive consequence of patriarchy.

          This was one of the main themes on the thread.

        • John Anderson says:

          I’m reposting this because it addresses some of the imbalance in corporate America, which you allude to and some of the comments with the more relevant data is unfortunately getting pushed several pages down. This might explain some of the disparity.

          I don’t think that this completely explains the gender gap in corporate America, but I did find some interesting information playing “devil’s advocate” on the subject. 19% of the fortune 400 charities CEOs are female (Joslyn, 2009).

          Charities tend to not be as profit driven as for profit corporations and would theoretically be more conducive to women on the “mommy tract”. If we assume that women on the “mommy tract” are unaffected when working for a charity and we factor in women’s under representation in the workforce, a more reasonable estimate of the number of female CEOs should be about 7%, since only 1 in 6 women (3%/19%) cane overcome the “mommy tract”, still a disparity, but not as egregious as presumed.

          If we assume that there is some effect, then the percentage drops even further. Even some remaining statistical disparity may be insignificant. In other words, there remains a real possibility that there is no gender bias in the hiring of female CEOs.

          Reference

          Jpslyn, H. (2009). A man’s world big charities overwhelmingly run by white males, a Chronicle survey finds. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved November 30, 2011 from http://philanthropy.com/article/A-Mans-World/57099/

          • I guess men who have th “top jobs” have them simply because they’re men? I guess affirmative action has to be moved to the “top jobs” as it was such a success in the past? Women deserve those jobs because they’re women, yes? So screw the fact that perhaps the men that have thses jobs are best for the jobs? I don’t see the women who didn’t get those positions stepping up and saying anything about being denied the jobs because they are women. Ya know why? Because they are highly educated professionals that have not bought into this BS. I would think there would be 400+ powerful women screeming from the roof tops that they were denied these jobs because they were women …. where are they? Instead we have a bunch of unqualified women speaking up.

            Nontheless, it’s pretty damn sick that anyone in 2012 would still be claiming that these top execs got these jobs simply because they are men. The feminists movement is obviously strong as ever.

            • Just came upon this: no one is claiming men in top positions have their jobs ‘simply because they are men’ rather than ‘the best man for the job’ – they are claiming quite logically that men & women are equal in terms of inherent or potential capability to successfully perform ‘top jobs’. In other words – they argue that there is no fundamental characteristic or flaw inherent to women that makes them less capable than men.
              That men in general hold the overwhelming majority of these positions would indicate that men as a group are given – at one or various junctures – some form of advantage – that helps them to become ‘the best man (or men) for the job’. If women shared in these advantages – the argument goes – then they would be equally represented among those who rise to the top and are recognized as ‘best for the job’.
              There are really only two positions to take here: either you believe that women are fundamentally, inherently, irrecoverably less professionally and/or intellectually capable than their male counterparts; or you believe that some systematic aspect of our social structure functions in such a way that women are allowed less advantage, and men more, in accumulating those characteristics, skills, experiences, etc. that will position them as the acknowledged ‘best for the job’.
              If you think it is the former, you believe that men are inherently superior to women; and it follows that you believe observable gender inequalities that favor men are ‘correct’ – reflections of the immutable inherent fact of male superiority – while those that disadvantage men and/or favor women are ‘wrong’ (or illogical/unjust). In this case I despair of trying to deal with you at all.
              If you think it is the latter, then congrats – you are able to follow simple logic; you also agree with the feminists.
              TL:DR – when you look at it, outrage at the suggestion that men have the majority of top positions ‘simply because they are men’ rather than because they have earned them is extremely obtuse. It demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the feminist argument, and more fundamentally, it indicates an apparent total lack of ability to make or understand basic logical connections.

            • And when men also dominate the bottom rungs of society, women who want to share in the privilege at the top should also share in the “privilege” of being at the bottom too. Then they should also be forced to goto war like men, be made to go into highly risky jobs like men and spread out the workforce equally in gender. Or do women only want the positives without the negatives? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a feminist talking about male privilege ever discuss male sacrifice or the negatives men face, they seem to want to get the positives without also inheriting the negatives.

              To truly be equal women will have to die more on the job to share the load out instead of having 94% or so of men being the on the job deaths. They’ll need to be signing up for selective service/conscription. Through risk is how you get the rewards, expecting it for nothing is a bit rich. Women are quite capable of being CEO’s but that’s such a rare job type, why not focus on other jobs? Are feminists asking women to join up as loggers, fisherman, construction and other dangerous jobs? Would feminists like to also like to increase the level of violence women face to match the level men face to gain the additional power they want?

              True equality will either mean less men die from violence and on the job accidents, or more women will. With the power they desire comes conflict, responsibility, sacrifice, major hardship, increased risk of violence and increased risk of death from violence 4-6fold. I see plenty advocating to get women into the high up positions, CEOs, upper management, but I have seen absolutely fuck all advocating for getting women into construction, garbage men, blue collar jobs or even dangerous jobs except military. Do many advocate for that?

            • “There are really only two positions to take here: either you believe that women are fundamentally, inherently, irrecoverably less professionally and/or intellectually capable than their male counterparts; or you believe that some systematic aspect of our social structure functions in such a way that women are allowed less advantage, and men more, in accumulating those characteristics, skills, experiences, etc. that will position them as the acknowledged ‘best for the job’.”

              There is a third potential position… some systematic aspect of our social structure functions in such a way that women are allowed less responsability. That allows them to shirk the need to attain these top positions. After all, the vast majority of those men who have worked their way to the top, have wives shopping their days away. Even Michelle Obama, liberal woman that she is, seemingly gladly, tossed her full time employment away once her husband became a man of prominance. And all the while, she benefits from his success. If women are allowed to benefit from the perks of being at the top whether they are the ones doing the work or not, why would they do the work? Those women who WANT to work their way to the top, have done so. And to prove my point, when you look at Michelle Obama, do you see a meak, frail little doting wife? Or do you see a woman who has the power of the presidency without ever getting a single vote (ok, one vote. Obama’s), and none of the responsibilities, the risks, the tedious daily mundane tasks?

              In other words, the reason women are striving for the top jobs is because they can get all the benefits of those top jobs by striving for the men striving for the top jobs, and never have to work for it. And this is seen as socially acceptable.

            • How do you know she tossed it away? Were you there during the conversations she was having with Barack during the pre campaign? Do you have proof she was like, “Sure honey, I’m tired of working!”
              You don’t.
              First of all, I feel pretty certain that being a first lady is exhausting (or can be, depending on how much you want to do and how much you are allowed to do). Historically, all first ladies have taken on causes and worked for those. In the past, those women weren’t “working” to begin with.
              It’s a cultural expectation that the first lady serve in a honorary role. I take issue that the spouse of a candidate/leader doesn’t take responsibility, risks and tedious tasks on as part of the process of getting them and keeping them elected.
              Also:
              Hillary Clinton was chastised for keeping “Rodham” and for making remarks about not being the kind of first lady that baked cookies. So cause of the polls and pressures, she went ahead and played ball. Certainly, she’s sought her own high roles and power.
              Howard Dean ran for president and his wife made headlines when she stated (and he supported her) that she’d not take on the traditional role of first lady, instead serving as a doctor and living outside the White HOuse at times. They were excoriated for this view. He lost the nomination for a lot of reasons, but that was a big one.
              She didn’t want to sit behind the man and his top perks and she was castigated for it.
              It may be socially acceptable, but that doesn’t mean those women like it. In fact, I’m sure there are women who feel trapped by it.
              We have no idea what Mrs. Obama feels about her current life. I’m sure there will be a biography at some point. I do know that since she’s in the position she’s in, she’s been active and worked hard in the role. And if she’s limited to that role, I’m not sure what else we expect any first lady to do.

            • Hmm. So Hilary did it and got chastised … BUT SHE DID IT! I thought Feminists and liberals were about breaking down these expectations?

              Whatever, I’ll concede to you on this because it really is irrelevant to my point. Do you deny that Michelle Obama has virtually all the power and privilege of the presidency with virtually none of the responsibilities (regardless of whether she chose to toss her career away or was pressured to do so due to expectations unique to the role of president and first lady)? Do you deny that this dynamic of a woman having all the access to a man’s wealth and power, without need for taking on the responsibilities, is a consistent dynamic throughout our society that is deemed acceptable? Do you deny that women are able to get to the top when they actually want to?

              So to restate my point, if women are socially able to remove themselves from the power struggle, while maintaining all the privilege that her husband is able to attain, why would all women still join in the power struggle? Simple answer is, they don’t. Men, on the other had, are still required to. Some rail against this, some even succeed. Most are called man-children and peter pan syndrome, basement dwelling losers. So, if women are allowed to opt out of the rat race, and many do, or at least “want to”, opting to work part time, why would you expect as many women striving for the top as you do men? The assertion that a failure to have as many CEO women as men requires the assumption that woman WANT those roles as much as men… That assumption is based upon the question “why wouldn’t women want that wealth and power”…but that question ignores the fact that they CAN have that wealth and power by marrying rather than working for it.

            • Do I Think a first lady has the virtual powers of the presidency? No I don’t. Does she have power? Probably depends on the first ladyBut I have to go to a meeting. More later.

            • “Do I Think a first lady has the virtual powers of the presidency? ”

              That’s not the question I asked.

        • arguing who is have worse is unproductive? lol lol, feminist always arguing that women always have worse than men, and its unproductive? all this comments from feminists and women told me that women are big hypocrites….

      • Tom Brechlin says:

        Wow John, GREAT stuff …. like to have a beer with ya sometime

    • You’re actually arguing that theres a real qualitative difference between “having privileges” and “being privileged”?

      Have fun untangling that semantic knot.

      hey, I guess that means I’m not really poor, I just dont have any money or assets.

  4. Sorry but this is nonsense. All of these so-called “female privileges” are effects of having a lower status. 1). There is no stigma against objectifying men because it doesn’t have real consequences, no-one expects you will actually rape or overpower a man. On the other hand objectifying comments towards women are condoned and encouraged by sexualised images of women everywhere so I fail to see how this is a privilege? 2). Male abusers are often taller and stronger than their female victims, and do more harm. Whats more bias towards women is just an expression of belief in their vulnerability. Its not an equal effects/equal opportunity circumstance. 3). Women as natural parents is a patriarchal ideology. I’m pretty sure men can adopt children when they are not in a relationship. 4). Being financially supported by a man was traditionally a woman’s only access to food in her belly and clothes on her back, it was a consolation prize for not having any individual autonomy. If you want to subscribe to oppressive gender roles that’s your deal. 5). Being able to call a male troll names is a privilege? Pretty sure male writers do not get swamped in rape threats or sexualised comments to belittle their opinions because they are men on the internet.

    • It’s only non-sense if one is not in touch with facts.

      “Sorry but this is nonsense. All of these so-called “female privileges” are effects of having a lower status.” Another fact-free claim. If you cared to learn the facts/data, you would know that women have a higher status in many measurable ways.

      1) Fact-free philosophy. Men are criticized for talking about women in the movies, on TV, or on the Internet whom they will never meet.

      2) Irrelevant. Wrong again. Abuse is abuse. Why should the size of the abuser excuse her actions? If the man happens to be smaller or weaker, the behavior is the same.

      3) “patriarchal ideology.” Psychobabble. Women have babies but are no more biological parents than the father is.

      4) It’s 2012, not 1950. Join us, won’t you?

      5) Please cite a single rape threat here, amongst tens of thousands of comments. Only feminists believe that non-sense that all men either threaten rape, support rape, rape, or all of the above.

    • Anonymous says:

      >it doesn’t have real consequences, no-one expects you will actually rape or overpower a man.

      According to the recent CDC report, if you include “made to penetrate” for a male as rape (as it should be, and is currently legally defined) then in 2010 the same number of men and women were raped, with 80% of perpetrators against males being women (and 2% against women). That doesn’t include prison rape, and a quick google will tell you how much of a problem that is.

      Perhaps your attitude of “lol men don’t get raped” is the problem itself?
      You say it’s safe to objectify men because people don’t think it has a consequence – even though they’re wrong?

      >Male abusers are often taller and stronger than their female victims, and do more harm.
      A child could beat you to death if they had a weapon, easily.
      And it doesn’t matter if a woman is weaker than me, that doesn’t mean she can’t beat the shit out of me with her bare fists if I don’t hit her back (which victims often don’t).

      >I’m pretty sure men can adopt children when they are not in a relationship
      It’s legal, but incredibly rare. It’s harder for a single man to adopt than for a gay couple, thanks to the super-awesome pedophilia hysteria.

      >If you want to subscribe to oppressive gender roles that’s your deal.

      It’s not oppressive if you have the option of leaving at any time you want. I’d be pretty keen on being a househusband, having my shit paid for in exchange for housework – much easier than a job.
      Also, modern women do have autonomy. It’s not 1850 any more, wives aren’t slaves.

      >Being able to call a male troll names is a privilege? Pretty sure male writers do not get swamped in rape threats or sexualised comments to belittle their opinions because they are men on the internet.
      Actually, rape threats are common. Men typically find it very dehumanizing to be told they’ll be raped in the ass. Plus there are many ways you can insult somebody.

    • John Anderson says:

      1 and 2. You obviously have no concept of a power dynamic. Try reading farther into the forum and you’ll see CDC stats refuting your claims, if you have the intellectual honesty to see past your ideological indoctrination. I get tired of having to post the same stats and links. A false allegation of abuse is aggression and an attempt to assert control and you don’t need to be physically stronger to do it. It’s an additional privilege to not have this counted as abuse for DV stats. When women hire someone to kill or injure their husbands/boyfriends it’s not classifies as female perpetrated abuse and of course the rape law is so gendered that it doesn’t recognize the majority of female perpetrated rapes as rape. A false accusation is just another form of a contract hit.

      3. So you agree. You just use the same feminist minimizing tactic of men are doing it to themselves so it’s not a problem. Women make up over 50% of the electorate. It’s odd how feminists don’t see the gender imbalance in politics as women just doing it to themselves.

      4. Again you agree, but like many feminists when the injustice is against men you leave it up to women’s choice. I brought up the topic of male circumcision. Many feminists are against it meaning that they wouldn’t do it, but I’ve yet to find one advocating banning it (ie stopping anyone else from doing it) because it limits women’s choice (before you mention the father, keep in mind that one male already doesn’t have a choice. It’s not about choice for men). Feminists believe women’s cjoice is paramount even when it comes to men’s bodies.

      When it comes to female beauty, it’s not women’s choice to look attractive, it’s the big bad patriarchy forcing them to do it.

      5. I don’t see where you are disagreeing. She’s not saying men can’t do it. She’s saying that there is less societal support for it.

      • John Anderson says:

        I suppose rape also, but I meant false accusations of DV are just another form of contract hit. I Just wanted to clarify.

      • “I brought up the topic of male circumcision. Many feminists are against it meaning that they wouldn’t do it, but I’ve yet to find one advocating banning it”

        I absolutely support banning all genital cutting of both girls and boys.

        I don’t think I’ve understood anything else you said.

    • John Anderson says:

      There is no stigma against objectifying men because it doesn’t have real consequences, no-one expects you will actually rape or overpower a man

      Ask any male rape survivor of a female perpetrator if there are no consequences. There are, whether you perceive them or not or society perceives them or not, I assure you they exist.

    • Best comment on here.

  5. This website is getting more and more misogynistic.

    • How so?

      • Yes, how so?

        What I’ve noticed is that the misandrists are slowly leaving. I’ve also noticed that conversations are becoming more based on facts and logic and less on feminist propaganda.

    • Mark Neil says:

      Challenging feminists and feminist theory is not misogyny.

    • Really? We are seeing more articles asking real questions about real men rather than platitudes from armchair feminists trying to make men into what they believe they should be, and you feel that it is “misogynistic?”

      You are a pathetic human being and you are the reason why feminism is failing. You don’t want equality; you want everything “your way.” Women who make remarks like yours are the reason that feminism has such a bad rap. For every gender equity feminist who is trying to do good work, there are feminists like you who want nothing more than to have your cake and eat it too.

      You are the kind of feminist that Rachel is talking about in this article; one who knows of all of these privileges and isn’t happy because you want more.

      • She made just a single remark, instead of disagreeing with what she said you insult her (“pathetic human being”). Maybe she pointed out the misogyny she noticed in comments, not in the article.
        YOU labeled her a feminist, she didn’t call herself one. That way, you are the one accusing without proves. You do not know what she wants or believes with just her single neutral phrase.

        How much prejudice and hate one needs to feel against a social movement that one would have to get so irrational over nothing.

  6. Women have certain privileges that men do not. Just as men have certain privileges that women do not have.

    Can’t we all just promote equality?

  7. This was a really interesting article and one that really struck a chord with me. Feminism as a philosophy of gender equality (or equity as you say) was a great idea. In practice, it hasn’t really lived up to that. There was plenty of good done (as you point out) but yes, the pendulum has swung too far. Our society has given women more advantages than men in many ways. I won’t even get started on the insanity of affirmative action. Grr.

    Anyway, I think we just have to be careful not to make the same mistakes that feminism did while trying to swing the pendulum back toward the center. A lot of these comments seem pretty good, but a lot are from people taking either an extreme feminist stance or an extreme MRM stance. Women have it worse because of such-and-such. Or men have it worse because of such-and-such.

    It would be lovely (though perhaps unlikely) if we could work to balance things out, not blame one group or the other for the problems we all as a society have helped create.

  8. wellokaythen says:

    No. It is not simply a privilege to be male. It is an honor AND a privilege to be male.

  9. Wilhelmina de Jong says:

    1. Women are allowed to be more open about their sexuality because they are not take seriously. Tell a guy that you are a bi or a lesbian and chances are high that he encourages it because he hopes to be invited to the party. And being able to make degrading, sexually tinted comments about men is not a privilege, that’s only copying the bad habits of (some) men.
    2. This ‘privilege’ is the result that domestic violence has far worse consequences for women, physically, emotionally, financially. That doesn’t make it right when a woman physically attacks her husband, and there are plenty that do, and I agree that this must also be addressed. But to see this as a privilege? It’s merely skewed legislation that doesn’t want to acknowledge that men also can’t hurt. I doubt someone went on about it to create some privileges for women.
    3. The advantage women have in custody cases is all for the wrong reasons. It’s the pervasive idea in our society that women are mothers by nature. That’s not a privilege to be proud of. Choosing to have a baby, not adding the father’s name to a birth certificate but then suing him for child support is not using your privileges, that just makes you a very nasty woman.
    4. I think this is another skewed view of a ‘privilege’. If you want your date to pay, hold the door open, etc. while claiming to be career-driven, emancipated, such a woman is simply a bit of a hypocrite. Where’s the privilege here? Btw. I question those career prospects – if it was that easy peasy we really would have more women in top positions. I mean, we have how many women in the government? We had exactly how many female presidents and how many top female CEOs?
    The ‘option’ to stay at home instead is a fake one, it’s not a privilege but in most cases a rational, financial decision. How much does the child care cost, does it exceed the extra income? In the end, the partner who earns least – in most cases the woman – stays home. That’s not a choice.
    5. If I write a feminist tinted comment or claim that women are still not on par with men – especially on the internet – I can expect the full load of misogynist comments and increasingly the comments of how I got it all wrong and have been brainwashed by feminists cause in reality it’s the men who are oppressed.

    But most of all I wonder, what good does it to discuss who has more privileges? What we need is equality for both sexes, men and women. To say that the battle has been won is absolutely false, we may not have honor killings in the U.S. but women are still far from being seen as equal.

    If the goal of the writer was to create some awareness how, in some areas men are neglected and that we’d do good to research why they often fall through the social net and how certain projects like for instance rape crisis centers do not reach (out for) men (or male victims) I think the article completely missed its point.

    • But most of all I wonder, what good does it to discuss who has more privileges? What we need is equality for both sexes, men and women. To say that the battle has been won is absolutely false, we may not have honor killings in the U.S. but women are still far from being seen as equal.
      It’s not a matter of who has more privileges its a matter of seeing who has what privileges.

      As we have seen there has been more than one person who outright denies female privilege. And they often do so by pointing out some of the same things you did. So I have a question.

      If those negative flip sides you point out about female privilege supposedly negate them then why is it that when looking at male privileges the negative flip sides don’t negate them? How is it that male privilege somehow exists no matter how much one may argue that it doesn’t but the slightest bit of evidence is all that is needed to disprove female privilege?

      Okay two questions.

    • John Anderson says:

      “But to see this as a privilege? It’s merely skewed legislation that doesn’t want to acknowledge that
      men also can’t hurt. I doubt someone went on about it to create some privileges for women.”

      Why is it not privilege because it’s a law? Maybe they didn’t have to create the privilege for women because it was already there. They just needed to codify it.

      “The advantage women have in custody cases is all for the wrong reasons. It’s the pervasive idea in our society that women are mothers by nature. That’s not a privilege to be proud of.”

      Just because you’re not proud of it doesn’t make it a non-privilege.

      “Choosing to have a baby, not adding the father’s name to a birth certificate but then suing him for child support is not using your privileges, that just makes you a very nasty woman.”

      Privilege can and is often used for ill. Why is a woman abusing her privilege seen as simply an abuser and not an abuser with privilege? It is this privilege that allows her to abuse.

      If the terms and sources of inequality are meaningless then let’s agree to get rid of terms like patriarchy and replace it with the social or gender construct. or gender binary Let’s do away with the term male and female privilege. Let’s call them inequities. We should balance our posts to not nake one gender out to be the bad one and recognize all victims because the victim Olympics is counter productive. I agree that MRAs and feminists should join forces because on many things we agree. I don’t have a problem with adopting non-inflamatory language, but why do I think that the MRM could adopt this in fairly short order, but suspect that feminists may choose to give up the struggle for equality altogether rather than stop blaming men for the trouble.

  10. Laurie Crosby says:

    But…the majority of the “privileges” you cite are born out of the assumptions of patriarchy. So, are they really privileges? It’s like saying how great it is to be free to do all the housework and not be looked down upon. Or how great it is that your sexuality is treated with such little seriousness that you can do anyone you want.

    I was really hoping for some insight from this article, and I was specifically hoping not to see the ol’ “But we get doors held open for us!” reasoning, but there it is.

    I mean, you yourself said that you got passed over for a promotion due to sexism. Does having your date paid for make up for this power imbalance, loss of future income and work experience? You also say that you resent the fact that society assumes you should care for the kids, then a few sentences later you claim that this assumption is a privilege. It’s a bit confusing.

    If I followed your reasoning for my own life, I have what you yourself would call “disabled privilege”: I get good parking spaces. I often get into movies first, if there is a line. I get help from government agencies with finding work and school. People rarely challenge my opinion if they do not know me.

    But does this make up for the fact that I can never walk again? Does it make up for how I am looked at and treated by society, all the inaccessibility I encounter? Hell no, it doesn’t. And as for people not challenging me, I do not consider this a privilege because it means that people are afraid of me, because I am strange and pitiful to them and should be treated delicately; they may also hold in their minds the stereotype of the angry disabled person and don’t want to trigger me.

    I guess there are plenty of people who are jealous of my life and think I don’t deserve these “privileges”, considering the huge amount of them who park in handicapped spots illegally “for just a minute”. You want to trade places with me, and get those cool spots? Sure thing! Be glad to!

    • John Anderson says:

      We spoke about disability identity in class and how that identity is sometimes rejected by a person because of the negative assumptions made by society. There were two things that jumped out at me in class that I’d like to share. One was a disabled activist wondering why people think of ramps as a huge accommodation, but stairs are just provided without a fuss. The second was that the largest group utilizing the sidewalk ramps, were not the wheelchair users, but women with strollers.

      After class one of the people who was once a city councilman in California remembered how he fought to install sidewalk ramps for his town and wondered how many parents were against it. Like the sidewalk ramps, fixing gender inequities helps everyone. Some people just don’t see it.

  11. When did Good Men Project turn into Men’s Rights Activist Propaganda?

    This article is garbage. The so-called “privileges” are just talking points that allow MRAs to continue to objectify women, while claiming to be “victims.” Rachel, you should be ashamed of yourself as a woman for falling for this, and Good Men Project should be ashamed for publishing it.

    • @Claire, the GMP doesn’t take sides from what I see and posts both sides as a matter of creating discussion. I’ve seen clear bad-feminist propaganda here as well, but please differentiate the MRA label between good and bad MRA. There is already a heap of mra vs feminism content and too much of it generalizes negatively treating both as monoliths.

    • John Anderson says:

      @Claire

      You might also try critically looking at what was said instead of merely dismissing it as garbage. At GMP, we tend of have discussions that’s why I enjoy it.

    • Word.

  12. “Women have certain privileges that men do not. Just as men have certain privileges that women do not have.

    Can’t we all just promote equality”

    Yes please, I’m in. We both have different privilege. Now can we all be egalitarian and work together? How is it supposed to help to be at war? And why does no one ever use the word egalitarian?

    • Julie Gillis says:

      Many of us use the term. I do. I’m all for the messy work of peace.

    • I used to identify as egalitarian. but stopped when I kept getting told that made me a feminist, which I found very offensive (and then the discussion would dovetail into is feminism about equality and derail the conversation). I still see myself as egalitarian, but identify as MRA now for simplicities sake. when feminism starts to disappear or demonstrate truly equal goals, I will again move to centre and identify as egalitarian.

  13. “A false accusation is just another form of a contract hit.”

    Seriously? You are going to try that? No, a contract hit is where you hire someone to murder someone else. I worked on a homicide once that was a hit.

    Don’t alienate your allies, I have been advocating for good crises services, counseling, and legal equality for male rape victims for over 20 years now. If seriously hurts your cause to engage in silly hyperbole and to use such a hostile tone. Come hang out with the egalitarians who also want to protect men from rape. Work with us. No need to chase us away from work that we have been doing now that you have this new MRA thing. We want to keep helping.

  14. This is ridiculously ignorant, and I’m ashamed that this author is from New Zealand.

    • Anonymous says:

      I like how effectively you can justify your position.

      Must be easy to cruise through life with your fingers in your ears yelling “LALALA” whenever somebody espouses a view you disagree with. Saves you having to actually consider your position and what evidence there is for and against it.

  15. Male privilege is having 83% of men in congress.
    * Number of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies: 12
    * Number of female CEOs in Fortune 501-1000 companies: 10
    * Total female CEOS in Fortune 1000 companies: 22
    And the Census that was just released: For women and single mothers, the outlook is bleak. According to Legal Momentum, women are 29% more likely to be poor than men. This gender disparity is even more devastating for single mothers who are 68% more likely to live in poverty than single fathers.
    I would keep going but this article is propaganda, and not worth more time.

    • Legal Momentum = Women’s Legal Defensce and Education Fund. Is there such a thing for men? NOT. “As Women’s History Month draws to a close, Legal Momentum celebrates ….” Why not non-partisan site?

    • Mark Neil says:

      “Male privilege is having 83% of men in congress.”

      How does this privilege men, in general? And is it possible this is a result of the female privilege of being able to sit back and let others do the hard work, while still getting their needs and desires met. After all, despite the male presence in government, it seems only women are of concern to them, with all sorts of councils and ministries and lobby groups funded by taxpayer money. And of course, we can not forget, women make up the larger percentage of voters, so it is women who are putting these men into office. But of course, all this doesn’t matter to you, does it? Because it doesn’t support your position, so should be ignored?

      “women are 29% more likely to be poor than men.”

      The homeless are not counted among those. While women fall down to poverty and are usually caught by the social safety net, men tend to keep falling, through that safety net, and into destitution, where they no longer get counted. I’d say getting caught by society, not being allowed to fall destitute, to be a privilege, compared to the men who are left to fend for themselves.

      “This gender disparity is even more devastating for single mothers who are 68% more likely to live in poverty than single fathers.”

      First, see my point above about the homeless. Second, if this is true, wouldn’t it support the idea that fathers should be given custody in family court, for the best interests of the child? After all, if fathers can somehow manage not to fall into poverty where mothers in the same position do, isn’t it in the best interests of the children to be with the financially capable parent?

      And I’m not sure how this is chalked up to privilege?

      “I would keep going but this article is propaganda, and not worth more time.”

      Yeah, because the feminist theory of male privilege and patriarchy aren’t themselves propaganda.

    • Jeremy Beal says:

      I just have to ask how often you think a low income single man would be awarded custody of his kids… but there is nothing wrong with spreading awareness :)

      • Easter is a week away, maybe the Easter Bunny can spread the word. Ya think that will ever happen? Women are and will stay in control no matter how it screws up the kids.

        @Amberbug … what your saying is that women should be CEO’s simply because they are women? Do ya know anything about Fortune 100, 500 companies. Ya think that they simply pull a CEO out their ass? So we should simply discard the work these men have done so that women can have a better share?

        Ya know Buffet’s secretary makes over 200K a year, aint to shabby …

  16. Most studies show that single homeless adults are more likely to be male than female. In 2007, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that of the population surveyed 35% of the homeless people who are members of households with children are male while 65% of these people are females. However, 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations surveyed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007).
    In August 2009, the unemployment rate for men stood at 11.0 percent while
    that for women was 8.3 percent—a 2.7 percentage point difference that constitutes the
    largest unemployment gender gap in the postwar era.

    The reality is that men have far less of a chance of getting a job then the 51% of the graduating higher education women.
    In so far as unemployment?

    • Jeremy Beal says:

      But then you need to look at how the unemployment figures are generated, a lot of people who do not have a job are not considered unemployed, simply because they are not or no longer looking for work due to a lack of opportunity.

      • It appears the numbers were generated before people dropped out of the market and/or took a lesser paying job. Wjy is it so hard for people to understand that men are not in good shape these days? It’s as though if they admit it, it’s gonna blow the feminist movement out of the water? That will never happen.

  17. Sarah Bierman says:

    If women have all this privilege, then why are 1 out of 4 women domestically abused in her lifetime? Men who physically hurt women rarely go to Jail. Why are 1 out of 6 American women raped in their lifetime huh? Why are women paid 20 percent less then men? Why are our reproductive rights being repealed and infringed on. You’re not talking about that. If a women hits a man, he can in most cases overpower her. If a man hits a women, unless she is incredibly strong, she isn’t going to be able to fight back. The reason more men are in jail is because more men commit crimes, ever thought about that?

    • There are a few problems with your argument, but I’ll just address a couple.

      First, the idea that a man can most often overpower a woman is false. I know plenty of muscular women and plenty of thin and scrawny men, for lack of a better word. Not to mention, our society places a lot of pressure on men not to hit women. We have this weird, don’t hit back, rule for guys…so I’m willing to get there are guys who won’t defend themselves. And all of this goes double for when we’re talking about kids bullying and hitting each other.

      As to the idea that there are more men in prison because more men commit crimes…well that’s as false a logic as the idea that there are more African-Americans in prison because more African-Americans commit crimes. Our justice system isn’t perfect, and as such sometimes two people who commit the same crime will get vastly different punishments due to the bias of the judge or jury. It happens.

      Finally, the beginning of the article acknowledges that men have privilege too…this article is just focusing on the often ignored female privilege.

    • If women have all this privilege, then why are 1 out of 4 women domestically abused in her lifetime?
      The same way men have all that privilege but are still more likely to be the victim of just about every non-sexual crime under the sun.

      Men who physically hurt women rarely go to Jail.
      Same can be said about the other way around.

      Why are 1 out of 6 American women raped in their lifetime huh?
      Why are so many men (I believe its 1 in 33) raped in their life time huh?

      Why are women paid 20 percent less then men?
      Because the same socialization that created that disparity did so as a result of dictating men as the “external providers” (working outside the home) and women as the “internal providers” (working inside the home).

      Why are our reproductive rights being repealed and infringed on.
      Oh you have reproductive right to be infringed upon in the first place?

      You’re not talking about that. If a women hits a man, he can in most cases overpower her.
      So is that why people so actively avoid talking about female against male violence? Since most men are able to overpower most women its okay for women to attack men and nothing be done about it? Is that why a man yelling at a woman is called domestic violence but a woman hiring someone to kill her husband isn’t?

      Question. If I were a dock owner and I was looking for people to hire to load boats for 8 hours a day it wouldn’t be fair to discount all women just because most men are more powerful than most women right (I think it would be unfair myself)? So why is it that when the subject swaps from something that is not inherently destructive (like a job) to something that is inherently destructive (like abuse) all of a sudden the “but men are stronger than women” argument is valid?

      If a man hits a women, unless she is incredibly strong, she isn’t going to be able to fight back.
      Or has a weapon, or has others do the fighting back for her, etc…

      The reason more men are in jail is because more men commit crimes, ever thought about that?
      So does that mean that the women that do commit crimes should just not have to worry about going to jail? I mean men commit more crimes so let’s just focus on locking them up and leave the women, even the ones that are more violent that most men are, out of it right?

      • I would like to add …. just as the divorce rates are twisted in that they include multiple marriages, the abuse rate for women are also distorted. A women who is abused is more then likely going to either stay with the abuser or find another mate that will also abuses her. More then likely came from an abusive home. Abuse is cyclical and as long as society keeps it as a gender issue, the problem is not going to subside. Women are in reality womens worst enemy.

    • Anonymous says:

      First off, because OP most likely doesn’t consider privilege a dichotomy; i.e. they think of both men and women having different privileges (which is very true).

      Second, because privilege is relative; if two groups have a perk, neither is privileged over the other, if neither has it, same again.

      >then why are 1 out of 4 women domestically abused in her lifetime?
      Why are abused men irrelevant? (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm)
      (Also, you should note that the vast majority of DV is very minor and not constant assault and terrorism as pictured in movies).

      >Men who physically hurt women rarely go to Jail.
      Women who physically hurt men are far, FAR less likely to go to jail.

      >Why are 1 out of 6 American women raped in their lifetime huh?
      They aren’t, those stats depend on “asking more than once” and “having sex while intoxicated” (even with a long-term partner, and even when both parties are) as being rape to get so high. But the CDC’s NISVS found the same number of raped men and women in 2010 (if you include “made to penetrate” as rape, which it obviously is – their definitions are sexist).

      >Why are women paid 20 percent less then men?
      Because they stay in one field for shoter periods, they’re much more likely to take leave for children, they work less hours and less overtime, they work in lower-paying careers and take less profitable majors, and when they’re offered the same starting salary by a boss they’re less likely to negotiate and if they do, they’ll get a lower average increase than a man in the same position.
      Did you know that single, childless women under 30 get paid 20% more than equivalent men? The pay gap has clearly reversed, but nobody cares.

      >Why are our reproductive rights being repealed and infringed on.
      Men have no reproductive rights. Once his sperm leaves his body, he has zero say over what happens to it (court precedent). If a woman steals it, if she rapes him, or if she tells him she’s on birth control, then he still becomes a father and will have to shell out for 18 years of child support (plus the mental burden).

      >You’re not talking about that.
      No, she’s talking about female privilege. Didn’t you read the title?

      >If a women hits a man, he can in most cases overpower her.
      And then be arrested and the cops will laugh at his claim she hit him first! Yay!
      Also, “overpowering” (by which I assume you mean subdue without hurting) is VERY difficult, unless the person is weak. It’s 60% upper body strength ON AVERAGE, which means it’s often far less, and you have to be a LOT stronger.
      If you mean beat them up, well, most men just aren’t capable of that (“don’t hit a woman or you’re scum”).

      >If a man hits a women, unless she is incredibly strong, she isn’t going to be able to fight back.
      Hey, you got one right. Not bad.

      >The reason more men are in jail is because more men commit crimes, ever thought about that?
      The reason more black people are in jail (proportionally) is because more black people commit crimes, ever thought about that? That’s your line of reasoning, racist.
      And men (just like black people, and especially black men) are more likely to be arrested for the same offense, likely to get a worse plea bargain, more likely to go to court (thanks to the aforementioned, I guess) and will get a longer sentence on average than a woman. Also, ever hear of “toxic masculinity”? Just like the worst of female gender roles turn women into gold-digging whores, the worst of male gender roles turn them into aggressive, stupid criminals (which goes along with a toxic culture for black people that does the same).

      • Anonymous says:

        Sorry to the person moderating comments, I thought I hadn’t submitted so I rewrote my response. Could you please delete this comment and leave the other one?

    • Anonymous says:

      First, two groups can both be privileged in different respects. Male privilege and female privilege both exist, and pointing out ways that women are advantaged does not erase the ways they’re disadvantaged.

      Second, privilege is relative; if two groups both hold or lack the same perk, then neither is privileged relative to the other.

      >then why are 1 out of 4 women domestically abused in her lifetime?
      Why are men abused in similar numbers (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm), yet absolutely nobody talks about them and their problems are swept under the rug? The focus on female victims is another female privilege.

      >Men who physically hurt women rarely go to Jail.
      Women who physically hurt men are FAR, FAR less likely to go to jail or face any punishment at all. This is an example of female privilege.

      >Why are 1 out of 6 American women raped in their lifetime huh?
      They aren’t unless you define “asking more than once” and “having sex while tipsy” to be rape, even between long-term partners where the “rape victim” is perfectly happy about it.
      Also, the CDC’s NISVS found that in 2010 the same number of men and women were raped (if you include “made to penetrate” as rape, which they didn’t, given their sexist agenda. Nor did they write about it in their fact sheet despite its importance).
      Male rape victims are erased, not to mention mocked and abused when they try to speak up. Yet another female privilege.

      >Why are women paid 20 percent less then men?
      Because they choose lower-paying professions, work less hours and less overtime, take maternity leave more often, brown-nose superiors less, are more likely to bargain for better working conditions rather than pay rises, and if offered the same starting salary by an employer, will be less likely to negotiate higher and if they do, will not negotiate as well and get a lower starting salary (which will affect all future salaries).

      >Why are our reproductive rights being repealed and infringed on.
      At least you actually have them in the first place. Once sperm leaves a man’s body, whether from masturbating or sex and having it stolen, from being raped, or having sex with a woman lying about her birth control/fertility, it is no longer his property (by court precedent).
      Women have Plan B to start, abortion if they don’t know about it, and if they choose to have the kid, can give it up with no repercussions. Men have zero choice, which comes with 18 years of child support (did you know men are often jailed for being UNABLE to pay their CS?) and the mental burden of being an unexpected father (and if they want to be involved, they’ll have a rough time or find it impossible if the mother doesn’t want them to).
      The possession of choice is female privilege.

      >You’re not talking about that.
      No, she’s talking about female privilege.

      >If a women hits a man, he can in most cases overpower her.
      Biological advantage isn’t the same thing as privilege. Privilege is something society confers.
      But women can still beat the shit out of men (men are 60% stronger on average, so plenty of men are weaker/women are stronger), will win if the man isn’t willing to fight back, which he probably won’t unless his life is at risk because he’ll be in more trouble than the woman despite acting in self-defense (that’s a female privilege).

      >If a man hits a women, unless she is incredibly strong, she isn’t going to be able to fight back.
      Again, not privilege. Though you’re actually right this time.

      >The reason more men are in jail is because more men commit crimes, ever thought about that?
      The reason more black people are in jail (proportionally) is because more black people commit crimes, ever thought about that? That’s your logic, racist.
      Did you know that men are more likely to be arrested for the same offense, more likely to be a suspect, more likely to be false accused of a crime, more likely to go to court and will get a longer sentence if convicted than a woman who committed an equivalent offense?
      Did you know that feminists in many countries have called for closure of women’s prisons?

      But you’re right here, in a way. Google “toxic masculinity”; in the same way that female gender roles can lead to gold-digging whores, male gender roles can lead to aggressive, stupid criminals.

      Let me tell you, insisting that men have perfect lives and are oppressors isn’t the way to get rid of it.

  18. Mark Greene says:

    Rachel Goodchild,
    You rock. I mean GODDAMN that was a fine article. I skipped all the fussy comments above and just came right down here to say, thanks. Great article. Really.

  19. The Blurpo says:

    sorry I give up. Im unable to find the newer commentary. Its virtually impossible to find a new intervention in a superlong discussion. Isnt a way to make it easier to find the new coms? I spent I dont know how long time in scanning the entire discussion over and over again. The way how debates happen in this site, im sorry to say, its not user friendly.

    No offense but I think the commentariat need some work.

    Sorry for the OT.

  20. Inigo Montoya says:

    You keep using that word, “privilege”.

    I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • jemima101 says:

      I agree, she does not. I also wonder at a workplace where rape comments and sexual harassment is acceptable. I started reading thinking this was a spoof, once i realized that the author was serious I could only shake my head at someone willfully ignoring underlying reasons and using anecdotal evidence to support a very weak point.

      • Mark Neil says:

        “willfully ignoring underlying reasons and using anecdotal evidence to support a very weak point.”

        Underlying reasons? You mean the motives and hostile intent feminists assume all men hold towards women, but can only ever use anecdotal evidence to demonstrate it even exists, let alone that all, or even most, men exhibit it. Why is it feminists feel entitled to dictate what it is men are feeling, and then feel it is accurate to chastise and attack men for feeling those things they themselves put there? You see it everywhere in feminist debate.

      • Well the easiest female privilege to spot is simply
        “As a woman, I am less likely to die from violence. ”
        Men are 4x more likely to die from violence.
        Another is “As a woman, I am less likely to be conscripted into the military”

  21. “I’m allowed to be as education- and career-driven as I want to be, and push for the top, seeking equity and equality in everything. But when it comes to dating and relationships, I’ll want the dates paid for, the doors opened, the bling bought.”

    Its not a privilege to want your dates paid for, its a privilege that you EXPECT that they will be paid for. and if you EXPECT that, you should get off your highhorse and stop screaming EQUALITY while seeing nothing wrong with holding fast to the old traditions that DO suit you.

    WHO GETS TO THE DOOR FIRST, OPENS THE DOOR FOR OTHERS. It’s so simple I don’t know why this isn’t just standard practice.

    and if equality is having the opportunity to stand on your own two feet and to be self sufficient and self reliant why are your dating standards of getting adorned with “bling”.

    Maybe I’m not a very “good” woman because when I’m dating I’m not seeing whether you can take care of me by buying dinner. I pay my own bills, thanks. I’d rather worry about the character of the person who is sitting across from me and who pays the bills is just too insignificant to me in the greater scheme of things. Could you imagine setting up a date where it was mutually executed with the goal being to get to know one another and not to grade this person from some crazy score sheet in your head.

    And the door thing, seriously? I’m not even 5′ tall and barely weight 100lbs, and yet I seem perfectly capable of opening a door! go figure. (now, reaching the top shelf in the grocery store to get the one thing I really need is a whole other story). But the door opening is purely courtesy and why should women be shown any more or any different courtesy than men. I fight with a guy I work with every time I get to the door first and hold it open for him. He WILL NOT walk through the damn door because I’m holding it open. after a few looks he gives in and says “I know, I know, it’s 2012″

    And the Bling?? again I’m under 5′ so the LAST thing I want is some gaudy diamond jewelry hanging off me. 1 carat diamond ring? are you TRYING to make me look like a clown? a very fancy clown at that but STILL. I could care less about how much money the man in my life is willing to spend to dress me up like a christmas tree.. personally it sounds a bit creepy to me.

    so maybe I’m not an ideal woman or maybe I’m TOO much of a feminist. Lets date on mutual ground, let me show you the same courtesy I is shown to me by others. Gift me with your presence, your effort, your sacrifice.

    Cut the bullsh*t women who want to do away with all the bad traditions of the past but hold on to those traditionas that benefit you. Don’t cry for equality and when the playing ground is level, use it to your advandage. Women wanted equality and they got those opportunities but were told to live in a man’s world, to succeed in a man’s world, you must act like a man. You can’t embrace the feminine that you are and actually succeed, so all these woman gained ground by acting like men but now we are ACTING like men still (the way men acted toward women when the tables were turned).

    I could go on……

  22. Bay Area Guy says:

    Reading the comments has been quite interesting.

    There’s a general belief among all feminists that all men have “male privilege,” and that the various negatives of the male experience don’t negate said “privilege.”

    And yet when it comes to “female privilege,” then all of a sudden you can’t apply the term, because not all women get to enjoy it. In fact, I would say that they react with very much the same defensiveness and denial that feminists accuse men of displaying whenever they’re told to “check their privilege.”

    I guess it doesn’t feel so good to be subjected to the whole “check your privilege” routine that feminists always use on men.

    Yet another reason why the term “privilege” needs to be retired. At least the radical left wing notion of “privilege.”

    • Mark Neil says:

      You forgot the whole “you can’t see your own privilege” argument so often used against men, but mysteriously not applicable to themselves.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        Exactly.

        That’s what makes “privilege” such an effective rhetorical tactic.

        Are you a member of a “systematically oppressed group” who disagrees with a member of a “dominant group?” Well, all you have to do is tell them that they are too blinded by their “privilege” to see the truth in your words, and that they’re so unaware of their privilege that they don’t recognize how that has clouded their judgment.

        And of course, just by virtue of being a member of an oppressed class, you have a greater grasp of the truth than the oblivious, deluded person of privilege.

        The more I analyze the proponents of the notion of “male privilege,” the more I cannot help but reach the conclusion that radical gender feminism is just another manifestation of Marxism, except instead of class you have gender. Men and the “patriarchy” are the new bourgeoisie, and women are the new proletariat.

        One only needs to look at the writings of Hugo Schwyzer, who has had flirtations with Trotskyism.

        That’s where this whole idea of “privilege” comes from.

        • Mark Neil says:

          What gets truly scary is some of those feminists ideas on Law, more specifically, the idea that neutrality and objectivity in law are male traits that inherently bias’ the law in men’s favor.

          It’s a long set of video’s, but do a search for feminist jurisprudence on youtube, a 2 part video breakdown of a feminist book by the same name. The video author goes by the name gogonostop. very scary stuff when you realize the things going on around us, like the law school in Winnipeg (Canada) that is denying men accused of DV representation, but still providing it pro-bono for women accused of it, because there are “systemic issues” that exist when women are charged, like police arresting a woman when she was the one that called the police

  23. wellokaythen says:

    Privilege seems to exist everywhere. Some groups and individuals appear to have more privilege relative to others, but so far all the testing for privilege has come back positive. If it exists everywhere to some degree, then how useful is it anymore as a category?

    Accusing me of having privilege is like accusing me of being composed molecules. Umm…yes, I suppose I’m guilty of that…. As a big guy, I’m made up of more molecules than most other people, so I guess I’m relatively more guilty than most other people. Umm…sorry?

  24. wellokaythen says:

    sorry, should say “being composed OF molecules.”

  25. Rachel, it’s still a very male-dominated society and most people think the male is the norm of humanity, so that’s why feminists way our society is male-privileged. No woman has female privilege vis-a-vis the men of her race, nationality, class and sexual orientation.

    • No woman has female privilege vis-a-vis the men of her race, nationality, class and sexual orientation.

      Then maybe you haven’t been reading the statistics. Pick up Peter Marin’s article, “Jill gets welfare, Jack becomes homeless.”, if you want to see how great guys have it compared to women in poverty. Same class, race, and sexual orientation.

      I’m not a fan of calling a gender more privileged, because it rationalizes that “grass is greener on the other side” type of thinking. But there are a lot of women who look at the top of society and say “look how privileged men are!” because they don’t even acknowledge the existence and humanity of men at the bottom.

      I’ve quoted this maybe a hundred times now, but it’s my favorite quote from the article:

      “To put it simply: men are neither supposed nor allowed to be dependent. They are expected to take care of others and themselves. And when they cannot or will not do it, then the assumption at the heart of the culture is that they are somehow less than men and therefore unworthy of help. An irony asserts itself: by being in need of help, men forfeit the right to it.”

      Now answer me this: Would you rather have people keep you from becoming a millionaire, or have people abandon you when you need them most?

  26. It’s pretty clear what the author is trying to do here….she’s trying to re-brand herself because shes had the feminist label and has been judged for it and now she wants guys to think she’s cool, so she’s going back on it…..and that would be fine if she were doing that on her own rather than inflicting it on the rest of us with nonsense such as this.

    It’s sad because there were SO many ways the author could have done this correctly….but instead she fucked it up completely. She could have said, “Look, ladies, guys have certain discrimination problems that we can’t understand and we should take those seriously too. Not EVERYTHING is completely in their hands. Besides, being a woman comes with some privileges of its own. Check out these privileges of being a woman.” Instead, she made a pissing contest of it with, “Oh, look, these five things mean we’re the bosses of the world now and so you can just shut up about male privilege and female subjugation because you don’t live in a place like Saudi Arabia. Feminism’s dumb.” Then she didn’t even list five decent benefits!!

    Really…..being able to shut down dumb blog comments is a privilege worth saying we control the world over?

    If you look at those five things and really think they’re SUUUUUUUUCH privileges and thus claim, “It’s a women’s world now,” then your priorities are severely fucked up. Yes, those five things totally put women far above men in this world. I mean……even though men don’t have worry about being sexually assaulted every time they leave the house or even for staying in the house and inviting someone over (and being blamed for the assault when it happens or watch their assailant walk away scott free), losing out on a job because for not being hot enough, losing out on a job for being too hot, losing a job because employers figure they’ll get knocked up and quit, losing a job because they AREN’T knocked up and don’t have kids and thus aren’t responsible, being paid less because their spouses are also employed, being told their vital medication isn’t important because they’re just bunch of whores that wanna fuck around on the government’s dime, being told that nature dictates their general subordination and thus it shouldn’t be fought against, having people constantly ask them to show their bodies but then calling them sluts when they oblige, being told their bodies aren’t good enough to be viewed even after having been asked to show them, getting blamed for pregnancy for not having taken their own precautions, being told any time they lose their temper, even when it’s very well justified, that they’re overreacting and it’s just their hormones, and TAMPONS…..but, yeah, women are still WAY in control of society now!

    Sorry, folks, trying to be cool by recanting an unpopular viewpoint just so you can win other people’s affection doesn’t make you correct and it certainly doesn’t mean male privilege doesn’t exist and that sexism is over.

    Second, it’s not a contest. It’s not like it’s one or the other. It’s not, “Well, there are some fringe benefits to being a woman, so men clearly can’t be in charge anymore. I mean, if male privilege existed and men were in control, then they wouldn’t have to pay for dates anymore…it’s TOTALLY a woman’s world now!” There can be a few fringe benefits of being female but, anyone who’s being honest with themselves knows the scales certainly tip in one direction. To deny it is ridiculous.

    …but yeah, we can sometimes cry our way out of a traffic ticket or get guys to buy us stuff or make slightly more money in porn or wear glitter if we want, so….it’s totally a woman’s world! SEXISM IS FINALLY OVER! -facepalm-

    BTW, did you know racism and white privilege are over too? I mean, we have a black president… black people can make more money being rappers than white people and that’s SO unfair! Did you know black people are also more likely to be millionaire NFL players….oh the plight of the caucasian race. Also,black people and can shout “nigger” at each other and can wear their hats backwards without looking like douches but white people can’t. Look at all those privileges. IT’S A BLACK WORLD NOW!

    • The sheer level of ignorance displayed by people who compare gender inequality and racial inequality is dumbfounding. Seriously, THE 2 ISSUES ARE NOT COMPARABLE. Women as a group had the vote before black people did! Women are not a minority, and black people do not get the extreme amount of protection afforded to them that women get. There are no major chivalrous attitudes to protecting black people like there are for women.

      • Mark Neil says:

        What I find most amusing is how offended some people can get about being told they have privilege, all the while using accusations of privilege against others in order to reject the acknowledgement of their own.

        • Mr Supertypo says:

          yes people gets offended when they find out they have privilege. The first reaction is the fight the notion whit everything they can find. Even comparing apples to oranges (read race vs gender) .

          Its obvious that women have privilege, its clear as the daylight so from this perspective, the academic branch of feminism have clearly failed. No wonder there is mistrust toward feminism (from men and women) since they keep failing big time.

      • You might want to fact-check yourself before saying things about the “sheer ignorance” of others: no, black men had the vote well before women. The fifteenth amendment was passed in 1869, and the nineteenth amendment was passed in 1920, over fifty years later.

        That said, people have sought to restrict the rights of minorities to vote up until this day. It would be ridiculous to deny there are privileges white women have that black people do not.

        That said, don’t forget to consider there are people who are black AND women. Do you think they’re the beneficiaries of this “chivalrous attitude”?

        • Forgive me, I was under the impression the Voters Right ACt of 1965 brought forth the ability for POC to vote freely. Being a woman, and being black have 2 separate issues is the point I was making. White women enjoyed privilege far exceeding that of black men, so racial issues are far more pronounced than gender in this case.

  27. shaquille davis says:

    this is bull shit. also there is a growing movement in feminism to help fix the aforementioned problems.

Trackbacks

  1. […] through it exclusively 4 you! Tym 4 U nw 2 spread sum LIGHT! Power 2 u!Powered by Yahoo! AnswersSandy asks…Why is he ignoring my text after communicating on a day to day basis for a while?Ok so …andy asks…Why is he ignoring my text after communicating on a day to day basis for a while?Ok so […]

  2. […] biggest mistake I made yesterday was reading this article on The Good Men Project when I saw the link. I really knew not to expect anything from a […]

  3. […] Back in January, a woman that I know, Rachel Goodchild, wrote a blog post on the Good Men Project entitled “I Have Female Privilege”. […]

  4. […] privileged he is.  Who cares if he can’t see it?  Who cares if he can see clear signs of female privilege?  He should just let women tell him about it, because they obviously know so much more about his […]

  5. […] Now, it has been my absolute honor to come across an article claiming female privilege. […]

Speak Your Mind

*