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

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. shaquille davis says:

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

  2. 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.

          • After all these debates, there’s actually a very simple way of showing men their privilege:

            Does a man wake up feeling like he owns his own body? Or does he wake up in terror, depression and physical discomfort over all the body parts that need painful, expensive and health-hazardous maintenance to fit the socially imposed requirements of the female gaze?

            The day that he will do the latter while women do the former is the day that women will have privilege. Until then – MRAs function as bratty children who now have to share some of their toys with the kids who’ve traditionally had none, and they throw tantrums over it.

      • 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.

  3. 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?

  4. wellokaythen says:

    sorry, should say “being composed OF molecules.”

  5. 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?

  6. 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

  7. “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……

  8. 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”

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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 …

  13. 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.

  14. “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.

  15. “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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. wellokaythen says:

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

  20. 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.

  21. 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?

  22. 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.

    • Amy glass says:

      Or maybe Your misandry is becoming less accommodated.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. MorgainePendragon says:

    “I have actually postulated that many of the gender norms we have today were not created by a mysterious patriarchy, but were first implemented out of necessity and common sense. It made sense for the person able to feed the children to remain with the children and it made sense that the physically stronger person to do the hunting in the hunter gather phase of man.”

    Well, anthropological and archeological research suggests otherwise. In fact, gatherer-hunter societies (a much more accurate term, because @80% of food in such societies came/comes from gathering, not hunting) in the past and that exist today are much more likely to be egalitarian, cooperative, non-patriarchal, non-violent, etc.

    Patriarchy became widespread between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. Plenty of evidence suggests that many of the cooperative, egalitarian societies were, in fact, destroyed by patriarchal cultures (and patriarchal values super-imposed onto the survivors) because of the incompatible value systems: Patriarchy is perfectly willing to kill everyone rather than give up power (this is the basis for the good ole Cold War mentality of “better dead than red”). Cultures that weren’t willing to wipe out all other life in order to maintain hegemony (ie, nonpatriarchal, cooperative cultures) were themselves wiped out in many places in the world.

    Some do, however, still exist– and they don’t have rigid gender roles; in many of them, men are as involved in childcare and “home-making” as women; they are sexually liberated (see Sex At Dawn); and generally live in balance with their ecosystems.

    Again, I direct you to Riane Eisler, who has synthesised research in The Chalice and The Blade and other works (including her latest, The Real Wealth of Nations) to show that humans have and can live in egalitarian, cooperative groups if we so choose– we have a long (hundred thousand year) tradition of doing so.

    • John Anderson says:

      @ MorgainePendragon,

      Thanks, I fully intend on looking into it. At first glance, it seems that her theory was created to further a pre-existing political agenda. I get skeptical when someone (female) says that everyone was accepted as equal, but in general the primary deity was female to the almost exclusion of a corresponding male deity. It doesn’t help when I’ve heard a version of this story before, between 15 and 25 years ago from my wiccan friends. Their story went something like this

      Men marveled at women. Their breasts produced milk, while men’s didn’t. They would bleed without being cut and of course they gave birth. The reverence of the female led to the worship of the Earth Mother and everyone lived in peace until the coming of the Sky Father.

      I haven’t had the opportunity to critically analyze her evidence yet. I do believe that circumstantial evidence is valid, but should be supported. One piece of circumstantial evidence doesn’t prove much on its’ own and evidence should never be fabricated. The equal size of houses could indicate a limitation in the knowledge of engineering and not a situation where individuals lived as equals unless there is also the existence of a significantly larger gathering place.
      I was intrigued with the theory that the existence of a tale of a great flood across many religions/cultures indicated that there was a great flood. I am also familiar with the phrase the Romans conquered the Greeks, but the Greeks conquered the Romans because the Roman’s adopted many Greek beliefs like their pantheon of deities. I am aware of the Christmas/Winter Solstice connection, the ritualistic cannibalism in the celebration of the Eucharist, etc. , but twisting the story of the garden of Eden seems dishonest. She completely ignores that in the story the existence of God predated the Garden of Eden. I’m also not sure why a dominator society would hold a cooperative society up as an ideal shortly after having destroyed it, while simultaneously rejecting goddess worship entirely.

      Although I won’t hold her accountable for your assessment, if I find that she asserts equal parenting duties between the genders as opposed to cooperative/supportive, I will definitely call bull shit.
      According to the Mayo Clinic babies feed about 6 to 12 times a day.

      “Most newborns breast-feed eight to 12 times a day — about every two to three hours. Within two to three months, your baby may be satisfied with six to eight feedings a day”

      http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/healthy-baby/PR00057

      Why would a mother give up a bonding experience with the child and what evidence is there that babies ate anything else? The fact that they grew to adulthood shows that they survived their infancy.
      I understand that she got a lot of accolades, but initial research indicates that those accolades stem more from the fact that her ideas were “new” and not that they held particularly convincing merits. For example of cooperative societies were the norm, we should be able to determine a “big bang” or origin of the dominator society.

      Since I asked and you were kind enough to reply, I fully intend to read her book. I do have reservations about financially supporting a political ideology that I view as harmful to society and it may take some time to locate a book I could borrow.
      .

    • John Anderson says:

      One other thing I believe that she failed to consider is the martial arts tradition. Although violence is studied and mastered, it is not celebrated. You are taught to avoid conflict. I’ll be the first to admit that I went through my “asshole” phase and didn’t try very hard to walk away. Some of that could have been attributable to the “amino acids” I was supplementing my diet on.

      One thing I learned was that many weapons initially had their origins as tools. A knife can scale fish. A machete can clear brush. A staff can help keep balance. People fought with what they had.

      I especially liked martial arts because it was counter intuitive. What you saw wasn’t always the reality. People thought I was building strength when they saw me wearing ankle weights. I was working on my quickness. A boxer friend asked me why we do push ups on our knuckles (and our fingers too). It didn’t develop any more shoulder strength than regular push ups. We did it to strengthen the bones in our hands so we could strike with maximum force and not break our hands. Of course the biggest thing is we learn to fight so we can live in peace.

      It’s been over 25 years, but if I remember correctly, our promise before enrolment was I promise to respect my classmates. I promise to respect women. I promise to defend women and the weak. That’s not an equality position, but categorically rejects abusing women.

      Just something to consider, perception is not always reality.

    • DavidByron says:

      No, I’m sorry but we just don’t know enough about those societies to make sweeping doctrinaire conclusions like that.

  28. John Sctoll says:

    Female vs Male Priv:

    There is a saying I have read many times that was attributed to Gloria Steinem (sp?).

    “If men gave birth then abortion would be a sacrament”

    I heard this statement again recently from a woman at work. For the first time I was able to confront the person saying it to find out if the person actually believed it or was it just a ‘cool’ sound bite.

    It turns out she actually believed it. She went on to claim how we (in Canada) live in a male dominated society. Of course she quoted the usual stuff like, “Majority of MPs are male”, “Majority of CEOs are male” etc. All facts and undisputed as such.

    So, I asked her how she came to the conclusion that if men gave birth we as a society would value that on a higher scale than we do as women. Her response absolutely shocked me. She said “Because we value men’s reproductive rights far greater than women’s”. This blew me away and for a time I couldn’t even speak (believe me when I say that for me that is a big deal).

    After I regained my composure I asked her to outline exactly what reproductive rights men currently enjoy in Canadian society. Her first response was that they have the right to say “NO” and that their decision will be respected. To this I responded, “But what happens if it isn’t respected and a child is conceived as a result”. The look on her face was priceless, she had no idea I was going to ask that and quite frankly was completely lost for a response.

    I then informed her that in fact, if that scenario came to pass, the man would have ZERO choice but to pay child support, stand by while his child is aborted and if the woman is clever enough, she could adopt without his permission. IOW, he has NO RIGHTS whatsoever.

    I continued on and asked, ok, what is another right they have. At this point after some thought she actually stomped out of the room calling me a misogynist in the process.

    This really got me thinking. In my opinion the right to procreate or to NOT procreate is the most important right we (men and women) should have. Right now in western society , men have no rights. If someone is able to obtain their sperm thru any method at all, they will become fathers without any input from them whatsoever. This is a female priv which started as a biological advantage but has gone far beyond that.

    • Mark Neil says:

      “It turns out she actually believed it. She went on to claim how we (in Canada) live in a male dominated society. Of course she quoted the usual stuff like, “Majority of MPs are male”,”

      Easy response for that in Canada is to ask what the budget is for the minister for the status of men to implement his mandate to promote the interests of the male gender? MP’s are elected by both genders and mandated to be unbiased, except when granted a ministry, for which they are mandated to be biased in favour of that ministries agenda. Women have such a ministry, and a budget to go with it, men do not. The only authorized gender bias in the Canadian government favours women.

    • “If men gave birth….” ; “If men had periods…”, etc.

      I’ve always found these counterfactuals to be kind of silly and yet kind of true in a simple obvious way. What they say is: “If men were more like women, society would be very different.” Okay, yes, that seems self-evidently true. If men were different, society would be different. If men were fundamentally not like men, then society would be different. Absolutely. No doubt.

      The problem with counterfactuals is that they demand a lot of other counterfactuals get worked out before the original argument can really work. For example, if men gave birth, would men still have penises and sperm as well as eggs and a uterus? How would impregnation happen in that alternate universe? What role would women play at all in human reproduction in this alternative scenario? If men gave birth, would men also have a menstrual cycle, and if so, would the tissue pass through the urethra? I’m intrigued at this glimpse into Alternate Earth.

  29. Carmen Speer says:

    I do agree with another article on here that our culture is not so much a “rape culture” as a “violence culture.”

    The vast majority of that violence is committed by men. Violence against women is deplorable because women are physically less capable of defending themselves (unless you believe we should all carry guns), and because women are less likely to engage in it, so it is mostly one-sided.

    This IS still a patriarchy. Whether the values which lead to violence stem from patriarchal ideals or from our narcissistic, uber-capitalist, take-no-prisoners culture, or from myriad other complex reasons is up for debate.

    The point is, what you call women’s “privilege” in a patriarchy is either evidence of women being patronized OR, conversely, actually respected (as in the case of less violence overall against women than against men). For the aforementioned reasons of physical strength and lack of violent tendencies women SHOULDN’T be targeted. Men shouldn’t either, and they should work to change predatory tendencies that harm others. A more egalitarian and collectivist culture would certainly help (a happy medium between collectivism and individualism is best). That’s where education comes in, and our society needs it. Badly.

    • “The vast majority of that violence is committed by men”

      Only of your definition of violence is dishonest enough to erase women’s violence.

      • Anthony Zarat says:

        Carmen, are you honest enough to examine the facts? Men are victims of female violence as often as women are victims of male violence. These are the facts.

    • Jeremy Beal says:

      My mom taught me to fight, my dad taught me peace…what were you saying again?

  30. Carmen Speer says:

    First off, nitpick much?

    I never post on forums and this is why. Snark wars and bogus stats.

    The vast majority of sexual assaults (yes, mostly committed against women) go unreported, and when reported, unprosecuted. This means the statistics out there are a fraction of the actual number.

    The reason for this is that not basically women just have to get on with it. Of course there is also the shaming that occurs, and being told it is your fault. But really it’s also a pragmatic consideration. You cannot dwell too much if you are to live life (this is particularly true if you are third-world woman). If you are young woman, it is par for the course that you will be groped, fondled, catcalled, followed, and at risk for rape. Believe me. If I were to actually enumerate the times these offenses have been committed against me–not to mention much more severe offenses–it would take far longer than an unbroken paragraph. The one time I did go to the police, about a rape, I was basically told to drop it, to be a “good girl” who never goes with men to their apartments, and to get over it. Needless to say I didn’t bother to report it the next time.

    Lifelong harassment and men feeling entitled to put their hands wherever they want is also disheartening, and it’s something young women who are socialized to be passive have trouble dealing with. I am much more aware, careful, and willing to stand up for myself now, but at what price? This is part of the socialization of women in our country, passive femininity, and that is certainly no “privilege.” A man who is assertive is confident and admirable. A woman is a bitch. We all know it.

    In terms of these more serious crimes, if you want to blame the victim, yes, I was drunk on two occasions. On another I was in bed with a serious case of bronchitis. I was even less inclined to report that one, as I was in a hostel in Spain. Maybe I am a traitor to women, but honestly I just didn’t want to put myself through the experience of reporting a rape in an even more sexist country than my own (although in retrospect, after that later incident, which I reported in Arizona, I might have been making unfair assumptions about Spanish society, and giving the U.S. too much credit).

    I can tell you my experiences are not dissimilar from my friends’.

    I am sorry to say I don’t trust your stats about men’s sexual assault by women. Men’s sexual assault by men–mostly in prison–yes. But how can I verify these “buried” stats?

    In terms of women being privileged because they are not killed as much by men as men themselves are, I can only say that the violence committed against women is still disproportionate, as it is men who are committing it. So, you know, maybe we ought to address how the hyper-aggressive, confrontational values of our patriarchal societies are negatively affecting men.

    • John Anderson says:

      Lisa Hickey wrote a post on women’s fear of men.

      http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/when-women-fear-men/

      I talk about an experience I had were I was probably drugged and probable had sex without the capacity to consent. I’ve never called it was it was because in my mind if I don’t acknowledge it, it didn’t happen. I’ve tried to make light of the incident. I tell myself that I would have done it anyway and to be perfectly honest, I probably would have, two women is every man’s fantasy, etc. It doesn’t change the fact that I didn’t consent. If it wasn’t a bad thing, I don’t need to deal with it. I tell myself that it couls have been worse.

      I convince myself that these women were good people because they wanted me to get home safely, but realize on some level that they intended to get away with this, which they did, and that bodies raise questions.

      I’ve yet to see a single male survivor ever dismiss female on female rape as women are doing it to themselves. Since you’re keeping score, add a couple on for me.

    • “The vast majority of sexual assaults (yes, mostly committed against women) go unreported, and when reported, unprosecuted. This means the statistics out there are a fraction of the actual number.”
      You realize this happens for men too right?

      Reason I said the stats were buried is because of the biased view of what rape is, and the headlines didn’t mention about the last 12 months stat in the CDC report. We also have stats showing up to 50% even split on domestic abuse rates from men > women and women > men. Stats seem to vary a lot on it but it does suggest recently that women have been abusing men physically, psychologically and sexually much more than in previous times, or we’re only now learning about something that may have been existing.

      ht tp://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/index.html Full report, page 17 onwards. Pay attention to last 12 months statistics for women (page 18): The rape row, and for men (page 19): the row on “forced to penetrate”. Page 24, “For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%).” So with some slack maths it’s about 40% female rapists, 60% male rapists in the last 12 months and near equal levels of rape when you include forced to penetrate. The “made to penetrate” is under “other sexual violence” which is the bias. I don’t see the last 12 months mentioned in the executive summary, which was what many news agency’s used in their articles I believe hence the buried part. I think the level of sexual abuse heading very close to parity is of a major concern in a 1 year time period, and should have been talked about in the news, would you agree?

      Table 4.1 and 4.2 Lifetime and 12 month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking Victimization by an Intimate Partner — U .S . (Women/Men), NISVS 2010
      Only posting the physical violence ones. The rape definition is biased so won’t represent a large portion of male victimization and it’s *’d out.
      Physical violence Victimization: Women Lifetime:32.9%, 12months:4.0%, Men Lifetime:28.2%, 12months:4.7%
      Similar rates of physical violence, regardless of severity, which is something that should be sticking out to people. Women end up injured more from what I see in these stats but the injuries towards men are still very serious, both require help and support.
      Table 4.9 and 4.10 also shows near equal overall psychological aggression against each gender, victims:Women 48.4%, and Men 48.4%. Both seem to favour being kept track of where they were, what they were doing and name calling.

      Now why did I point out these stats in particular? Because you mention this
      “So, you know, maybe we ought to address how the hyper-aggressive, confrontational values of our patriarchal societies are negatively affecting men.”
      You fall into the sammmeee trap so many others did, “women are disproportionately the victim”, womenhaveitworse!, and trying to paint violence as mainly a men’s issue to deal with. No, no. no, WOMEN need to take responsibility along with the men for the violence they commit, we need anti-rape,anti-domestic violence, hell anti-all forms of violence and abuse campaigns for male victims showing a female perpetrator , and male > female, female > female, and male > male. What we currently have is a fetish in society to focus solely on men as perpetrators and women as victims, where we have violence by women against men either increasing rapidly or only now being found out.

      Women have various reasons to not report rape and abuse, men also have various reasons to not report rape and abuse. Who is less likely to report it? I’m not sure, read something the other day that suggested men but they each have similar and different reasons. Males have macho culture, being seen to always want sex for instance which put up barriers to them reporting their abuse, we have such a heavily gendered view of abuse that male victims feel invisible, female perpetrators seem to be a taboo topic.

      “Violence against women is deplorable because women are physically less capable of defending themselves (unless you believe we should all carry guns), and because women are less likely to engage in it, so it is mostly one-sided.”
      “Violence against women is deplorable”, there you have it, you believe violence against women is worse than violence against men simply because you think men can defend themselves easier? Well why are SO MANY MEN becoming VICTIMS at the hands of WOMEN? 79.2% of men who are forced to penetrate someone report a female abuser, those men on average are more capable of defending themselves from what you’re saying so why would so many men become victims? Get it through your head, physical strength does not guarantee safety, many victims freeze up or are in states of vulnerability where that physical strength is compromised. Someone has posted here of a woman threatening to falsely accuse him of rape if he didn’t have sex with her, what was he meant to do with his strength? Some wakeup in drugged/drunk states to a woman having forced intercourse with them, what good does their strength do when they are passed out?

      Congratulations on saying something misandrist on a website for men. THAT is deplorable. UGH

      • @ Archy – I keep seeing a pattern here – maybe it’s just me – but the female commentators who are most dismissive of any evidence that reduces the female centric focus on rape all report or indicate they have been raped!

        There appears to be an almost “Perfect Storm” of “Correspondence Biases” playing out from two different poles.

        • I can see it clearly and it does annoy me. The stats clearly show sexual abuse against men, by women have increased yet I can’t recall any news outlet, feminist blog even paying attention to that…Why does rape HAVE to be seen as female victim, male perp?

          I notice though many of the supporters against male rape, even by females, are also female rape victims who want all rape gone which balances it out. I guess a few people cling onto old beliefs and want to believe women get it worse?

          • I wonder who else is seeing it?

          • The stats clearly show sexual abuse against men, by women have increased yet I can’t recall any news outlet, feminist blog even paying attention to that…
            I’ve seen some attention paid to it….unfortunately said “attention” is either a footnote or is immediately preceeded or proceeded by a disclaimer reminding us that “women have it worse”.

      • “Violence against women is deplorable because women are physically less capable of defending themselves (unless you believe we should all carry guns), and – because women are less likely to engage in it – so it is mostly one-sided.”

        Are you sure women are less likely to engage in violence? One thing that is never discussed when domestic violence and sexual assault are brought up is lesbian on lesbian DV and SA. It’s often portrayed as only men on women DV/SA and rarely women’s DV/SA on men, though that is slowly changing as the facts come out.

        “About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner”
        http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

        “It has been estimated that between 17-45% of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner (Burke et al, 1999; Lie et al, 1991), and that 30% of lesbians have reported sexual assault / rape by another woman (Renzetti, 1992).”

        http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html

      • John Anderson says:

        There was a happy slap case in England where several girls beat and sexually abused a boy. This case is important because it addresses the question of physical strength. He wasn’t stronger but even if he was he was taught not to hit girls. The other thing is he initially reported it as a crime committed by men.

        When women speak about male on male rape being the only sexual violence that men need to reasonably concern themselves with, consider that there may well be a number of men and boys who were unable to hide their sexual victimization by women and opted to characterize that abuse as having been committed by men.

        From the article

        “They tortured and happy slapped me for kicks. They put me through so much pain.
        “My whole body was covered in cuts and bruises. Why would you sexually abuse someone?
        “I feel I have been robbed of my dignity.

        “I did not fight back because there were at least five of them and they were stronger than me. In any case, I was brought up not to hit girls.

        He felt so ashamed that at first he told police his tormentors had been men. He has twice tried to commit suicide since the attack.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478781/Sick-happy-slap-girl-gang-sexually-abused-teenage-boy-jailed.html

    • “The vast majority of sexual assaults (yes, mostly committed against women) go unreported, and when reported, unprosecuted. This means the statistics out there are a fraction of the actual number.”

      Almost all sexual assualts against men by women go unreported and only a tiniest minority of even those ever gets prosecuted. In fact under the law in most jurisdictions those assaults by women are completely legal. There’s your rape culture.

      • Anthony Zarat says:

        They are reported. But it is not considered a crime for reporting purposes. The criminal definition requires that the victim be penetrated by the perpetrator. Forced envelopment is not considered assault. Even if all of the male victims came forth, it won’t change anything.

        The game is rigged.

    • Anthony Zarat says:

      Carmen, you say that “the vast majority of sexual assaults (yes, mostly committed against women) go unreported.”

      This is untrue, unhelpful, and extremely sexist. Here are the facts, from table 2.1: 12 “month prevalence of sexual violence” in the NISVS 2010

      Women:
      Completed forced penetration 0.5% (620,000)
      Attempted forced penetration 0.4% (519,000)
      Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration 0.7 (781,000)
      Tota;: 1,270,000

      Men:
      Made to penetrate: 1.1% (1,267,000)

      Men are victims of women EXACTLY as often as women are victims of men. I understand that, legally, women do not need consent from men, so the crime statistics do not support this statement. But the objective data shows that:

      Number of male victims of female denied consent = Number of female victims of male denied consent

  31. Carmen Speer says:

    How ridiculous that a woman could spout such b.s. Yet another sad example of women undermining the cause of other women.

    Men ARE more privileged. Forget economically, which is obvious–forget the obstacles to women making it in the corporate world, also obvious–or even the ongoing notion that women should be the primary caregivers and housekeepers, or that women in other parts of the world are routinely exploited, sold into slavery, and treated like less than human–even in this country women are sexually assaulted FAR more than men, unless you count prison, which, IMO, is a male institution. Violence directed against men is overwhelmingly committed by other men. I think the same mores that encourage men to feel superior to women also encourage an unhealthy amount of societal aggression along with an inflated sense of entitlement. Societies that are TRULY more egalitarian–such as Sweden and Norway–surprise surprise, have a much lower level of all kinds of violence, against both men and women. Men need to embrace their “feminine” side, and giving women greater say in society–as well as a greater respect–will help to achieve this goal. The genders should be mutually supportive of each other, not at war over who is more victimized. But seriously, if you DO want to argue over who is more victimized, do you men really think millennia of inequality can be erased in under a century? Women were given the vote after blacks, who until a few generations before had been considered less than human. What does that say about the status of women? Men ARE victimized, but they are mostly a victim of their own behaviors. Women who believe in what the author terms “equity” should not be expecting chivalry or protection, patriarchal remnants which infantilize women and placed them on a pedestal (thus objectifying them rather than seeing them as people). Women who want to be lewd should be okay with men being lewd too. Come on, we all KNOW it’s men who feel the freedom to be sexually overt, but when a woman does it it’s not “classy.” Just another example of women trying to be more like men in order to prove their “liberation.” Even women’s supposed sexual freedom is bullshit. Girls are objectified more than ever, their bodies are constantly under judgment, and this “sexual freedom” that is encouraged is just a way for men to take advantage of them without the promise of any kind of relationship in return. Basically, women and men are both drifting farther from the kind of respectful compassionate interactions necessary for a healthy culture…and all of these behaviors stem from the original problem: patriarchy.

    • Pleaseeee put it into paragraphs, it’s hard to read in it’s current form.

      “Girls are objectified more than ever, their bodies are constantly under judgment, and this “sexual freedom” that is encouraged is just a way for men to take advantage of them without the promise of any kind of relationship in return.”

      A sexual relationship, is a relationship. Why do we have to force people into longer term relationships instead of casual? I agree that the ones that do take advantage of them are bad, but I’ve known of plenty women who’ll gladly use a man too.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/06/body-image-concerns-men-more-than-women – “Body image concerns more men than women, research finds.

      More than four in five men (80.7%) talk in ways that promote anxiety about their body image by referring to perceived flaws and imperfections, compared with 75% of women. Similarly, 38% of men would sacrifice at least a year of their life in exchange for a perfect body – again, a higher proportion than women.”

      “Violence directed against men is overwhelmingly committed by other men.”
      And males suffer 3-4x more deaths from violence worldwide (6x more for war and civil conflict), and any stat I’ve seen on violence as a total has men at 2-6x more likely to suffer violence on the whole. Isn’t the fact women are less likely to suffer violence a privilege?

      Why is it when we actually start to study the bad that men face in society, we start to see the problems are closer to what women experience and in some cases are worse than what women experience? Do you actually study the bad men face in society because quite a few reports I’ve seen on gender equality and violence, have had quite a lot of bias in them.

      The recent CDC report even buried the stat where men and women were being victim to rape at near equal levels for the last 12 months, and 40% of the rapists were women. Why bury a stat like that? Can we be comfortable in assuming men are more privileged when we have studies of gender equality are biased against men? How many other studies suffer this bias?

    • John Anderson says:

      “women are sexually assaulted FAR more than men, unless you count prison, which, IMO, is a male institution”

      You must not have read the justice department report that noted that over 90% of sex abuse at juvenile facilities were perpetrated by female staff against male prisoners. The majority of these individuals were assaulted multiple times.

      ” Men need to embrace their “feminine” side, and giving women greater say in society–as well as a greater respect–will help to achieve this goal.”

      Women make up most of the electorate. How much say do you need?

      ” The genders should be mutually supportive of each other, not at war over who is more victimized.”

      I completely agree.

      “Women were given the vote after blacks, who until a few generations before had been considered less than human. What does that say about the status of women?”

      Men still haven’t been given the vote. They have to earn it by signing up for selective service. What does that say about the status of men?

      “Men ARE victimized, but they are mostly a victim of their own behaviors.”

      I would argue that they are usually victims of other people’s behaviots.

      “Come on, we all KNOW it’s men who feel the freedom to be sexually overt, but when a woman does it it’s not “classy.”

      Unless you’re talking about gay men, that CISist. The sexuality of men who decline sex from women is often questioned many times by the women spurned. Are you arguing that compelling men to gave sex they don’t want, normally classified as rape, is less onerous that denying women sex that they want?

      ” Girls are objectified more than ever, their bodies are constantly under judgment”

      I can tell you from experience. When teenage boys, and many men, weight lift, they’re constantly checking themselves out in the mirror, measuring muscles, etc.

      “and all of these behaviors stem from the original problem: patriarchy.”

      As I’ve said before, many gender roles were probably formed out of necessity and common sense. In the hunter gather stage of human development, it made more sense for the person able to feed the child (the person with breasts) to stay with the child, while the physically stronger person did the hunting/gathering.

    • Anonymous says:

      >Forget economically, which is obvious

      If I go to university and land a great job, and my friend sits on his couch, I am not more privileged than him in this context. I have earned something he has not. Do you have any evidence that male advancement in the workforce (ignoring that men work far more in shitty jobs than women – labourers, truck drivers etc) is due to privilege and not due to the well-documented fact that men work more hours and are better at seeking promotion?

      Besides, women own more wealth and spend more money.

      >forget the obstacles to women making it in the corporate world, also obvious

      To you

      >or even the ongoing notion that women should be the primary caregivers and housekeepers

      As opposed to the ongoing notion that men should be the primary breadwinners, which is totally different.

      >or that women in other parts of the world …

      We’re discussing the USA. In “other parts of the world”, men are significantly more privileged. This is obvious, and irrelevant to the discussion.

      >even in this country women are sexually assaulted FAR more than men

      If you’d said rape, you’d have been right, thanks to sexist definitions. But no, there is plenty of evidence that men are SA at similar rates, some studies showing more, some less. I’ll admit I think women are victims more, but not FAR more. Just take a look at the CDC report; in the past 12 months more men have been SA than women. And if you look at how they define things for each gender, the bias towards women should be obvious, even ignoring the whole reporting probability thing (women are taught that if they’re tipsy and they regret sex the next morning, they’re victims; men are taught if they get forcibly raped they should be grateful for getting laid).

      >is a male institution. Violence directed against men is overwhelmingly committed by other men.

      IRRELEVANT. This isn’t “who is the worst gender” – the NUMBER OF VICTIMS is the only factor in privilege, not who commits the crime. I am not a criminal; so if I am victimized it’s not somehow okay because most criminals have similar genitalia to my own.

      >giving women greater say in society

      Women vote more than men by several percent.

      >do you men really think millennia of inequality can be erased in under a century?

      No, but the suffering of women long dead does NOT make your life shitty. Their hardships do not affect you. The benefits long-dead men enjoyed do not give me privilege, today.

      >Men ARE victimized, but they are mostly a victim of their own behaviors.

      Other men’s behaviours, do you mean? If so, irrelevant. Otherwise, soounds like victim-blaming to me. If you didn’t want to get raped you should have struggled more!

      >Girls are objectified more than ever, their bodies are constantly under judgment,

      But luckily this doesn’t happen to men, and that’s why no teenage boys whatsoever have body image issues. Or is it just that nobody gives a shit about male body image issues?

  32. MorgainePendragon says:

    ““those at the bottom are ALL men.”

    REally? The 2/3 of the women (mostly with their children) who live in abject poverty in the world– WHAT men are more disadvantaged than they are? Even in “wealthy” Western countries, the vast majority of poor are women and children. The single largest demographic living in poverty in the US is elderly women.

    No, again, more homework is needed.

    • ” WHAT men are more disadvantaged than they are? ”

      Oh right, because the men there are all filthy rich. ormaybe by oyur lights men’s poverty is no big deal, although they are the ones who create almost al of whatever wealth is in those societies.

    • Mark Neil says:

      Given homeless men are not counted in those figures because, unlike those women in abject poverty, the men have no income, no identity the governments or static gathers can track. The reason there are so many more women in western nations living in poverty then men IS because of their privilege. Government are unwilling to allow a woman, especially one with a child, to truly become destitute. They may be left in poverty, but they are not allowed to fall completely, as men are.

      • Good Point Mark.
        It always amazes me how feminist quote the % of the populace as living below the poverty line as being mostly women, yet 90% of the truly homeless (i.e. not getting help and not living in a shelter) are men.

        Some feminists are not being completely honest, or they are blinded by their own privilege.

        • Mark Neil says:

          You’ll actually find most professional feminists will never say “bellow the poverty line”, because that would include homeless men and would risk being called out. Instead, they use “living in poverty (or abject poverty as morgain said), this clarifies that specific range where women are most like to fall into while men fall past.

      • MorgainePendragon says:

        Well, in the US, women without children have no more access to social welfare benefits (public housing, WIC, etc) than men without children.

        How is this the fault of women or feminists? Isn’t the fault of a government (anchored in patriarchal values) that, unlike the vast majority of other “developed” nations (and plenty of “developing” ones) have social welfare safety nets for EVERYONE, not just people with children?

        The following link identifies and analyses some of the elements of homelessness and gender. In fact, that whole blog addresses men’s issues (it uses the term “Masculism”) in a much more positive and complimentary way than TGMP has been doing recently. It’s for and about men, but its contributors don’t buy into the dichotomy that you have to blame women and feminism for the disadvantages men encounter under patriarchy:

        http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/are-men-more-likely-to-be-homeless/#more-2681

        • Well, in the US, women without children have no more access to social welfare benefits (public housing, WIC, etc) than men without children.
          Since you specifically mentioned WIC. (http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/)
          “WIC provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.” I worked in a grocery store for 4 months a while back and I can safely say that not once did I see a man redeem a WIC voucher. In fact I asked that on my Facebook and Google Plus pages and got no stories of men using WIC vouchers.

          Now the “fault” that you speak of being directed at women/feminists while misguided may not be entirely wrong, well feminists perhaps. Feminists often comment how they are “the ones” that work for gender equality for all people, yet turn a blind eye to things like that.

          It’s for and about men, but its contributors don’t buy into the dichotomy that you have to blame women and feminism for the disadvantages men encounter under patriarchy:
          Yes and they also recognize that women and feminism aren’t perfect entities that have no responsibility in the way things are now. In short one can actually be critical of them and not trigger a war. In fact I especially like the fact that you can actually question the idea of this “patriarchy” people speak of. (Don’t get me wrong there are patriarchal forces at work but I’m sorry the cross section of way this system harms men and women is too jacked up to just call it all patriarchy and just sweep the pains of men and pleasures of women under the rug.)

        • Dear Norgan La Fay

          The following link identifies and analyses some of the elements of homelessness and gender. In fact, that whole blog addresses men’s issues (it uses the term “Masculism”) in a much more positive and complimentary way than TGMP has been doing recently.

          Again, you are doing that playing with reality thing!

          Could you please provide links to, and an explanation of, incidents and features which in any way support your assertion that this good site has been dealing in issues in ways that have been less than positive and less than complimentary.

          And one has to wonder – If son many are getting to wrong, why aren’t you submitting pieces and getting it all straightened out?

          Try the Blue Link of the Right Hand side of the page – the one that says “Submit to The Good Men Project” – or is there some form of gender politics that means the wording is wrong and just can’t bring yourself to do it?

      • Here is an interesting article:
        http://homelessincharmcity.com/?p=731

    • John Anderson says:

      I agree with you to an extent. Though I suspect that more women live in poverty than men, I believe that this can’t be objectively determined until men achieve a social support system equivalent to women. You can go into a women’s shelter and see 700 homeless women in there, but men have no equivalent gathering place. How do you accurately count their number?

      • Mark Neil says:

        Well, the point is (partially anyways), that she can’t deny men hold the bottom rung of society by pointing to the women who sit one step up from the bottom, on the social safety net that keeps them safe from being utterly destitute. Her willingness to dismiss the existence of those homeless, which men ARE the bulk of, and point to women in poverty, who can be counted due to being caught by the social safety net, just so she can enforce her belief in male privilege, a theory used to justify a great deal of harm to men in our modern time… it’s … despicable.

  33. Oh, and to all complaining “But I am not privileged…”, or “I have not that…”, the author was mostly talking about her own POV and experience.
    She never said this is true for everybody, everywhere. So please stop the “What about me, me, ME!!!” whining. 😉

  34. Thank you Rachel! It’s refreshing reading an article written with such honesty. 🙂
    Everybody is able to blame others’ privileges (and many, many do just that), but it takes real guts and brain to acknowledge one’s own. Bravo!

    I think this kind of statements are a good step forward towards real equity.
    I don’t have any problem to acknowledge that, being a male, I have some privileges. But I see few people able to do that for themselves.

  35. 100%Cotton says:

    Over 4,000 men have been killed serving on the front lines in wars the past 10 years, while women pay more for haircuts and drycleaning!

    I’m going to take my Barbies and go home if you don’t say how TERRIBLE it is!

  36. One thing I’ve noticed is that when it comes to male/female privilege there seems to be a double standard.

    Some males think that the negative side of said privilege disproves the idea that its a privilege. For example: Males are privileged in the form of being more likely to have an easier time climbing the corporate ladder. On the flip side of that is the expectation, nigh demand, that men be the ones working outside the home. There are males that will argue that that flip side cancels out the privilege.

    Some females think that the negative side of said privilege disproves the idea that its a privilege. For example: Females are privileged in the form of being considered safe around children. On the flip side is the expectation, nigh demand, that women be the ones that handle the child care. There are female that will argue that that flip side cancels out the privilege.

    What I find interesting is that there are people on both sides of this that will in one breath say the flip side cancels out the privileges their side supposedly gets but that the flip sides of the privileges that the other sides has DO NOT cancel out the privileges they supposedly have.

    • That’s a fair point! Good catch.

    • John Anderson says:

      At times the privilege isn’t privilege at all. I read a “male privilege checklist” that listed as a privilege that men will never have their sexual availability determined by the clothes they elect to wear. I responded that it is because men are expected to always be sexually available. Is that really privilege?

      • That’s a good question John.

        On one hand I’m willing to acknowledge that it is…as long as ALL so called privileges are measured along that same line.

        For instance in this post the OP talks about how as a female she has the privilege of being more open with her sexuality that males (and Nikki B. did a rather nice post on this called “Why Can’t Straight Guys Experiment Too?” a while back). Well some would argue that that is not a female privilege because of the way lesbianism is portrayed, as in its often portrayed as a valid form of female sexuality but rather as a form of entertainment for straight guys. What they are doing is pointing out the negative flip side of said privilege.

        My problem with this double standard is that some of the very same people that will make the argument against sexual openess being a female privilege (because of that negative flip side) will then turn around and actively ignore the negative flip side of a male privilege (like the one you just pointed out) and declare that it is a male privlege. And they do it under the supposedly premise that “society is built around favoring men over women”.

        In short their argument seems to be “there’s no such thing as female privielge because male privilege exists”.

        Me personally? I acknowlege they both exist. I’d be okay with someone who argued neither exists. But one thing that can’t be allowed to stand is the sexist belief that one exists and the other does not.

        • Jeremy Beal says:

          “But one thing that can’t be allowed to stand is the sexist belief that one exists and the other does not.”
          I can rally around these words.

  37. Challenges to Ann’s claims.
    Having your “date pay for your meal” means you’re “privileged” while overlooking the fact that women STILL earn less than men in most countries of the world performing the SAME jobs?
    First you wrong about males making more than females. This has been documented that females on average are making more than males. The female bias media are twisting the stats by comparing female wages to a select group of “white” males who always make more than everybody! If females make so much less why are most of the shopping spaces dedicated to female merchandise. If females really want “equality” they would show it by paying for men’s company.
    Is it “privilege” when women are charged higher prices for dry cleaning, clothes and haircuts (to name but a few services)?
    Since most beauticians are female perhaps that should be taken up with females. When females go to barber (mostly males) they get the same prices as men. Sometime less when a male is attracted to them (female privilege). As far as clothes, my wife get far more clothes for less than I pay for mine.
    Blaming women for being raped because they have been drinking or dressing like a “slut” means being “privileged”?
    No one is blaming females for being rape but females need to learn everything you do has its consequences and when you put yourself in certain situations undesirable results can happen. The same goes for men. You can’t do everything that you want. Just like males who but themselves in harm’s way when you play with fire you get burned.
    Is it “privilege” when girls are being sexually abused in higher numbers than boys?
    Not true as more is coming out like Penn State, Hollywood and other organizations. Males are reluctant to report it.

    Is it “privilege” when more women than men are being sexually harassed?
    Females are “sexually harassed” or (propositioned depending how she likes the male) more because they exhibit their sexuality to attract the (successful) male. The fact can’t be dismissed is that they do invite the attention ( why do females wear skin tight clothes or plunging neck line to reveal their chests as oppose to males who cover up). It seems to be only harassment when they get “hit on” by the males they do not approve of. Males are also harassed when they are “successful”–but men don’t go running and complaining about it when an undesirable female tries to get in their pockets. When relying on these types of behaviors it is also going to attract those individuals who you didn’t want to attract.

    Is it “privilege” when women are expected to look like a 20 year old forever, while a paunchy, wrinkly old man is called “distinguished”?
    True—but not accurate. Men are attracted to younger females. But males (especially those you described) have to be financially successful to attract females. Females exhibit their body and male exhibit their “bling”. Both genders invest and showcase what is going to attract the opposite sex but their motives are different. Since appearance is more important to males females focus on their looks. Since finances are more important to females male focus on showcasing what they own. What is the female saying—No romance without finance.
    Are we “privileged” when most of the wealth in the world lies in the hands of men?
    The same answer as number 1. Wealth is in the hands of the small elite “white male” who pays females more than the other males. It eliminates the competition. How many women received their wealth from the hands of men.
    Are women “privileged” when they can’t feel safe walking the streets alone at night?
    Same for men if not worse. Check the news and see how many males are dying in the streets as compare to females. No one is rescuing them.
    Is it “privilege” when women are groped on the subway daily?
    Females might be groped more than males, but males are robbed and assaulted more.
    Is it “privilege” when women who commit much less violent crime, disproportionately are victims of violent crime
    Not accurate. Females are committing a lot of violent crime the media doesn’t focus on like males. The female privilege grants them a pass. If taken the time to check other than the mainstream media, how many female you hear about killing their male partners and getting off. How many females are harming or even killing their own babies.

    Is it “privilege” when most corporations are run by men?

    Like everything thing else between the genders females are not the risk takers like men. Also, female use their sexuality to get the men who do run the corporations and acquire the wealth through death or divorce. It’s easier to get a guitar player in the band thus inherit the glory than to invest the time and effort to learn to play it be in the band and get the glory themselves.

    And so on. What a bizarre article. Women have much less privilege than men.
    Not true. The article is dead on. It’s nice to finally a female who admits it. Thanks

    • Since most beauticians are female perhaps that should be taken up with females. When females go to barber (mostly males) they get the same prices as men.
      thats a very good point, the female beauty maintenance industry , certainly the small businesses, are run and owned by women.

  38. FOREBARCA says:

    The article is written from the perspective of a Nordic, educated, good looking White woman. Such women have access to lawyers (non-pro bono), the courts, education and their share of romantic partners. But, as an American, I argue that such vaunted privilege does not extend to poor Black and Latina women who neither have the financial acces to lawyers, the courts, and education. Where these women have access to romantic partners, they are left with the crushing burden of having to mother the child in the event of pregnancy. Moreover scores of minority young men roam the streets of Los Angeles and Chicago with father size hole in their heart because the courts have often erroneously deemed mothers as the sole custodian of the children. Similar parallels exist between the Maori peoples and the white New Zealanders. Then again, I am sure that the author has a simplistic understanding of the causes of fatherlessness and poverty among the Maori given her illogical statements made on this blog. But biology might have the final say: men can father a child into their sixties even, not women. This ability to sire is attractive to any woman of child bearing age. Furthermore, traditionally patriarchal societies like Indian, Chinese and Brazilian suggest that wealth will be concentrated in the hands of men, not women.

    • So in other words you agree that men in those communities are deprived of the right to parent their own children.

      By the way, racist slurs against minority men are not acceptable here:
      ” Where these women have access to romantic partners, they are left with the crushing burden of having to mother the child in the event of pregnancy.”

      Watch your mouth, please.

  39. Actually, I think it’s more of the women who are career interested who have most of the privilege. It’s kind of dangerous for women who want to devote themselves to house and home.

    The bisexual fetish:
    Actually, it’s gotten this far because so many men have a lesbian fantasy. I’m not sure if it’s about increased sexual freedom for women? Men have a fantasy of two hot horny girls getting on, basically live action porn. I’m not sure if its so much about sexual freedom than giving the average man a boner. In addition, it’s just safer to be a lesbian as far as health risks than being MSM, so I could see why society is more likely to turn the other way with lesbians.

  40. I am no feminist. I think the mainstream feminist movement is sophomoric and silly, and the radfems are angry and out of touch, but the writer is also wrong.

    1. I am not sure who you’ve been hanging around, but outside of feminist circles, those types of expressions about sexuality is rampant, regardless of one’s gender, and is unacceptable regardless when comments about rape coincide it. There is a difference between acknowledging one’s own sexuality and desires, and celebrating it in a way that violates others’ personal spaces. When one violates another person’s comfort and personal space, regardless of gender and sexuality, one is wrong. But, instead of writing it off as harassments that no one should be subjected to, you choose to write it off as privilege. An exercise of harassment is no privilege – and I think perhaps you should relook the definition of privilege.

    2. Perhaps this is because an overwhelming cases of gender violence is male-on-female, whether is in America or the Global South. If you’re truly interested in ending gender violence, regardless of gender, starts working for organizations that focus on that – expand educational funds that will end violence regardless of gender, and because the statistics – supplied by the Justice Department and FBI – hardly bedfellows with NOW or the FMF – say that violence, regardless of whom it’s committed upon – is often done at the hands of men, start focusing on working with men for a change, rather than talking about how women are now the privileged ones. The right to be treated fairly by the police and getting protection isn’t a privilege when you’re the one getting beat up. It’s a right.

    3. Fair point. Though keep in mind that for some women and men, the ability to have custody of a child isn’t a privilege but a burden. Let’s face it – children limit autonomies, and while men are limited by their pocketbooks, women’s perceived ability to nurture dictate that they become the caretakers of children, and that limits their autonomies. Both parents SHOULD be held responsible for raising a child – and in this case, the ability to do so is a responsibility and not a privilege. And while at it, perhaps you ought to speak of the amount of single parents who were “awarded” custody of children, yet not receiving a single ounce of support from fathers. Want to help men? Change the perceptions that women and men differently equipped to raise children and ensure that both parents are held responsible for raising children.

    4. Just because you want to have the dates paid for doesn’t mean that all women want dates paid for. In fact, for years now, feminists have been pushing for more equal relationships in which women and men share equal financial responsibilities for dates, birth control, and such. Yet, women are still generally the ones paying for their own birth control, which adds up more than dates ever will. I am not sure what you’re trying to get at here, but I hardly think making a big deal of who pays for dates and tying that into privilege is just silly.

    5. I’ve actually experienced this within the feminist movement, so fair point. But at the same time, there are equally as many men who shut women down for making comments that they do not agree with, and the vitriol is not just limited to gender, but also race and political parties. So, how exactly have women gained because of this? As an example, the smack down that I am laying on your piece isn’t an exercise of my male privilege, but because you are wrong. And when you’re wrong, regardless of gender, you’re wrong. Don’t play sexual politics with it.

    It seems all the “privileges” that you’ve listed are marginal at best and nitpicky at worst. Privileges are supposed to enhance one’s life, give them more opportunities, and generally improve their lives. How exactly have these “privileges” improved the lives of any women? In all, these are simply unintended results of sexual discriminations directed at both women and men, and just as men are sometimes limited by their gender roles and perks that come with being male, there are things that women are also limited by simply by being women, regardless of the perks. There are no free lunches, and such is the case here.

    • i don't believe you says:

      You say you’re not a feminist, but you sure are brainwashed like one. Your retort was really bad!

      1. Women expressing their sexuality/opinion is “empowering”… men expressing theirs is “harassment/exploitation”. Creep, douchebag, macho is the new slut. Didn’t you get the email?
      2. Crime stats and categorization reflect female privilege. (Women don’t get locked up)
      3. Having an option (custody or not) that another parent doesn’t IS a privilege.
      4. Thinking that another SHOULD PAY for YOUR contraception is about as privileged as it gets.
      5. See #2. Privilege is getting away with wrong doing that others can’t.

    • “Perhaps this is because an overwhelming cases of gender violence is male-on-female, whether is in America or the Global South.”

      “Gender violence”? What is that supposed to mean, exactly? Like, say, all those situations where an invading army kill the men but spare the women?

      “supplied by the Justice Department and FBI – hardly bedfellows with NOW or the FMF”

      Says you.

      “The right to be treated fairly by the police and getting protection isn’t a privilege when you’re the one getting beat up. It’s a right.”

      Right. Reliable “domestic violence” statistics show that men and women are about equally likely of committing “domestic violence”, yet men are virtually the only ones ever arrested for it. That’s hardly being “treated fairly”.

      I don’t have the time to go through the rest of your comment now, but I just have to ask: If you’re not a feminist, why do you espouse all of the typical feminist talking points almost verbatim?

    • John Anderson says:

      2. Not in every case. Mark A’s posts are interesting.

      http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=411192

      I haven’t vetted all the sources and some of the links are dead (that doesn’t mean that they were never there or that the data was wrong), but I was aware that female on male sexual abuse in juvenile correction facilities constitutes over 90% of staff misconduct. When prisoner misconduct was examined oddly enough there were more instances of misconduct in female only institutions.

      http://thecurvature.com/2010/10/29/justice-department-repot-on-sexual-assault-in-juvenile-detention-minimizes-violence/

      http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs/panel_report_101014.pdf

      Here are the pertinent facts concerning the two articles above

      In fact,” said Lovisa Stannow, Executive Director of Just Detention International, “the BJS estimated that almost one in eight kids behind bars had been sexually victimized during a 12-month period, the vast majority of them — 80 percent — by staff whose job it is to keep them safe. Many endured repeated abuse, often more than ten times, and frequently by multiple perpetrators. I simply don’t understand how that is ‘rare.’”

      Facilities that housed only female youth offenders had the highest rates of youth-on-youth victimization (11.0%), whereas facilities that housed only male youth offenders had the highest rates of staff sexual misconduct (11.3%).

      For youth reporting staff-on-youth incidents of sexual victimization, 95% reported that the perpetrator involved a female staff member. In regard to incidents of staff sexual misconduct, 92.0% involved male youth and female staff members

      So 80% of all sexual misconduct was perpetrated by staff and 92$ of that was female perpetrators victimizing males.

      By the way, this was supposedly OK because DOJ classified it as non-violent.

      Testimony from the report makes clear that many youth corrections administrators consider staff sexual abuse of detained youth to be largely consensual, or the result of youth manipulation. The Department of Justice perpetuates that view by insisting that most staff sexual abuse of juveniles is not “violent.”

      I suppose women commit less violence as long as you don’t count the violence they commit. Kind of
      puts the new FBI rape definition in context, doesn’t it?

      • @ John – It does give a whole new meaning to “Don’t Drop The Soap!”.

        So if you are a Juvenile male in custody you are safer in the showers than in a room with a female member of staff – and safest with a male member of staff!

        Juvenile upon Juvenile sexual assault 700
        Staff on Juvenile sexual assault 2730

        90% carried out by female staff 2457 leaving male staff at 273.

        So who is taking advantage of who?

    • 100%Cotton says:

      Having the children is a BURDEN?

      My son hasn’t been allowed to see his “burden” for over three years. He has been paying dearly for the “burden”, but is threatened with false accusations and retaliation when he tries to see his “burden” better known as his SON.

      • I guess burden is a bad word to use, responsibility then? Something to indicate there are costs and negatives, but also positives and things you cannot buy like love, family, etc?

  41. http://web.archive.org/web/20080509210811/http://sizeofacow.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/and-finally-for-now-the-trans-activist-privilege-checklist/

    Your last point sounds exactly like that, esp:

    And finally – As a trans activist I am wholly entitled to whinge, cry, and scream “you’re oppressing me, you big meanie” if anybody criticises me in any way whatsoever. Particularly if they do to me the stuff I do to everybody else. I will get away with this because certain trendy liberals who are desperate to appear cool and edgy will go along with anything I say, no matter how ridiculous. I have the privilege of being able to tell everyone else they can’t see their own privilege while not being able to see my own privilege.

    • I have to admit – I was laughing so much as I read the full list. It’s so typical of how some will use their own Frames Of Reference and demand it’s all valid. You can rewrite it to cover so many different groups! P^)

  42. One post about a few privileges that women have and suddenly every feminist here is ready to burn the place down.

    See? This is why no one can stand you anymore. NAFALT indeed.

  43. 100%Cotton says:

    I am NOT a “PRIVILEDGED FEMALE”. I am not allowed to see my son’s child. My son isn’t allowed to see his son, which means I”M not allowed to see my Grandchild. Men have no feelings for their children, and their mothers don’t either. That’s how it works.

    I AM priviledged to be able to offer my son my basement after he lost his job, and had to accept a lesser paying job, but is still forced to maintain the original high child support payments, because once a cash cow, always a cash cow.

    I AM priviledged to be able to see my daughter’s children. I babysit them for free after my son in law’s FIRST wife took him back to court and had the CS bumped up. She’s buying a new house, after all. At least ONE of his children is living in style, while the two children living with him are living in poverty. She divorced him after getting pregnant by another man while he was deployed. He deserves the punishment for making her do such a terrible thing, but he had no right to go on with his life or start another family just because she did.

    My daughter has the priviledge of hearing another woman wheedling, shaming, disrespecting her husband on a regular basis trying to keep a bond with his first little girl. He can’t get the hint he’s no longer wanted – she has a NEW daddy now.

    • Well, said cotton.
      If you are actually looking for some help advocacy with your story I would contact fathersandfamilies.org

      From what they have posted, in order for them to submit a call to action on your behalf, you would have to get your story vetted by a local media outlet.

      However, they can and have raised a lot of ruckus with email/letter campaigns. Including on behalf of individuals who were being treated unfairly (or illegally) by child support enforcement or family courts.

      Thanks for speaking out and good luck.

      • 100%Cotton says:

        I am well aquainted with F&F.

        You know how they say a Conservative is a Liberal who hasn’t been mugged yet? The same can be say for Feminists who haven’t have their son’s *&&^%$ over yet.

        I have sons as well as daughters, and I advocate for BOTH.

        • The attack on fathers is truly shameless and unconstitutional. Children should have a right to see both parents with the exception of a factual finding of unfitness by the courts (rather than an allegation by one parent against the other).

          The fact that feminists have turned a blind eye when mothers get sole physical custody 80% to fathers 6% (not to mention courts/cops lack of enforcing visitation orders, and in most states the mothers right to move the child thousands of miles away) is just shameless when they self-claim to fight for the rights of both genders.

          In actuality, feminists organizations like NOW fight tooth and nail against fathers equal parenting rights after divorce.

          Good luck to you, your son and your grandson.

  44. This is a massive crock of shit and this “Privilege” actually just rebottled White Privilege, which in turn ONLY applies to -some- white women. You people, the author, commentors? You are myopic and are voicing your opinions in an echo chamber. And for one sole reason- to lambast Feminists, women and to subtly eliminate non-white women from the equation.

    Minority women do not have these privileges. This is disgusting.

    • Care to back-up any of that ranting?

    • DavidByron says:

      So are you saying you can’t say group X has privilege unless every member of that group has privilege? Presumably you don’t think that men as a class have any privilege either then, for the same reasons? Saying men have privilege would be “disgusting” according to you?

  45. Having your “date pay for your meal” means you’re “privileged” while overlooking the fact that women STILL earn less than men in most countries of the world performing the SAME jobs?

    Is it “privilege” when women are charged higher prices for dry cleaning, clothes and haircuts (to name but a few services)?

    Blaming women for being raped because they have been drinking or dressing like a “slut” means being “privileged”?

    Is it “privilege” when girls are being sexually abused in higher numbers than boys?

    Is it “privilege” when more women than men are being sexually harassed?

    Is it “privilege” when women are expected to look like a 20 year old forever, while a paunchy, wrinkly old man is called “distinguished”?

    Are we “privileged” when most of the wealth in the world lies in the hands of men?

    Are women “privileged” when they can’t feel safe walking the streets alone at night?

    Is it “privilege” when women are groped on the subway daily?

    Is it “privilege” when women who commit much less violent crime, disproportionately are victims of violent crime?

    Is it “privilege” when most corporations are run by men?

    And so on. What a bizarre article. Women have much less privilege than men.

    • Thank you for writing this. I’m happy not to be the only one sneering at it and wanting to vomit.

    • You’re missing the point of the article. Men have advantages – women have advantages. There are pros and cons to being both genders. The writer says that the pros of being a female outweigh the pros of being a male, and lists some examples. Your examples do not disprove hers, because even the ones that aren’t BS aren’t as good as the 5 the writer listed.

      >while overlooking the fact that women STILL earn less than men in most countries of the world performing the SAME jobs?

      That tends to happen when you work less hours and don’t ask for promotions.

      >Blaming women for being raped because they have been drinking or dressing like a “slut” means being “privileged”?

      No, but not having people say “pfft, you can’t be raped, you’re a woman” or “what a fucking pussy, how could you get raped by a man?” or “what are you complaining about? You got laid, nut up” is privilege.

      >Is it “privilege” when women are expected to look like a 20 year old forever, while a paunchy, wrinkly old man is called “distinguished”?

      Cougars/MILFs? Though yes, this is a shitty gender expectation.

      >Are we “privileged” when most of the wealth in the world lies in the hands of men?

      One group possessing more wealth is not necessarily privilege – it could be that they earned it (if Bill Gates was a women..?), or that they inherited it from a time when their gender was privileged.

      >Are women “privileged” when they can’t feel safe walking the streets alone at night?

      Men are assaulted by strangers at much higher rates. Men are the ones that shouldn’t feel safe walking alone at night. This is a culture of fear that is mostly instituted by women.

      >Is it “privilege” when women are groped on the subway daily?

      No, but according to most people it’s a privilege when men are groped.

      >Is it “privilege” when women who commit much less violent crime, disproportionately are victims of violent crime?

      No, because that’s not true. Try finding your facts on sources other than womenarealwaysvictims.com.

      • “Are we “privileged” when most of the wealth in the world lies in the hands of men?”

        In the United States wealth is actually women who control most of the wealth and make or influence up to 85 % of all purchase decisions, as any marketing person would tell you. But so what if it was actually men who controlled most of the wealth. Excluding those who inherited it or won the lottery, they had to work for it.

        “Senior women age 50 and older control net worth of $19 trillion and own more than three-fourths of the nation’s financial wealth.” – MassMutual Financial Group–2007

        • MorgainePendragon says:

          I just did a search for your quote: “Senior women age 50 and older control net worth of $19 trillion and own more than three-fourths of the nation’s financial wealth.” – MassMutual Financial Group–2007″

          and it reveals only MRA blogs as a source. Not one peer-reviewed document with objective statistics.

          • Well Morgan le Fay – why not have a look at some of the web sites run by women for women which keep quoting the figures and claims as peers?

            It seems that if there is no peer review, and that is your actual concern, you need to notify some peers too! Do let Ms Marcotte know as she loves to quote the figures – and so many other peer sites too.

            Maybe if you just use google using google search shortcuts such as “”$19 trillion”+”Senior women”” you may have more success in finding the peers and reviews you crave! P^)

            If you really need a hint, the figures come from “Women’s work: MassMutual’s directive to bring more women into financial services is changing how women look at the industry, and vice versa.” – just google it and see what you get!

            Do have your credit card handy to deal with the Pay Walls!

            If you need to tell MassMutual they need peer reviewing, I’m sure you can find their contact details on your own!

            Hint – Google “MassMutual”.

            I think you will find that as it’s a claim made by a business – and the peers across the whole business sector reviewed it – found it more than acceptable, and have been publishing it happily for years, it may well pass the Peer Review barrier!

            It’s not hard to find if you know how to use basic Search Engine technology.

            The claim does not come from a scientific or academic paper, where the peer reviewing you seem to seek would occur. So I’m sorry but you may just have to accept that peers are in a privileged portion in accepting it and publishing ad infinitum.

            Hope that helps!

            • The “there’s no peer review” defense is a common one of Morgain. Obviously, she doesn’t understand the term or what it is used for.

              • Oh I didn’t realise that! ** Slaps Forehead ** – so it’s a personnel meme which has not as yet infected other net users. Thank Heavens!

                … mind you, it’s odd as she indicates she has a Phd, so one would expect someone with such an academic qualification to know about “Peer Review”, what it means and how to use the term.

                I do understand that some have become confused in the usage of the term Peer Review, due to thinking comments on farsebook, twits and comments on blog posts represent an equivalent process. Eduction just aint what it used to be!

          • The source of the stat is from the MassMutual Financial Group. Where the stat is hosted is irrelevant. I actually located the stat on this site – http://she-conomy.com/. The site belongs to a woman if that makes you feel better. I also checked to see if she supported MRAs, but didn’t find anything.

            Here’s another stat:

            The Power of the Purse: How Smart Businesses Are Adapting to the World’s Most Important Consumer — Women, (Pearson/Prentice Hall 2006), author Fara Warner (whew, this one’s from a woman) asserts that:

            “By 2010, women will account for half the private wealth in the country, or about $14 trillion. By 2020, you can expect that number to reach $22 trillion as wealth continues to shift from men to women.”

            One more:
            “Women control nearly 60 percent of the wealth in the United States.”
            http://www.wlp.givingto.vt.edu/wealth/index.html

            And yet another:

            “But a new survey of Federal Reserve Board data reveals that women actually control 51.3% of personal wealth in the United States.”
            http://www.pbs.org/ttc/headlines_economics_philanthropy.html

            Hopefully, I have provided enough stats, which are sourced from the proper gender and sites, with the correct political leanings, that you see that the original claim is not true. Now the percentages may differ but they do show that it is in fact women who control the majority of the wealth in the US.

            But isn’t this the wider problem? Feminists are fighting against things that are not even true. Thank god for the Internet or people would still believe them. It is only from a position of the facts and the truth that men and women are going to achieve equality, not by having discussions based on feminist disinformation.

            • I’m pretty sure it’s a marketing and/or investment setup to show women have lots of moneyyy to spennnddd and everyone wants a piece. Note, that money can be earned by males as part of family units, if women do the majority of shopping for the family which probably happens in female primary carer male primary earner family units then guess who has the say and quite a lot of power over consumer purchases and choices. Ignoring the female consumer is one of the biggest mistakes a business can make.

              • Are marketers taking advantage of this trend? Absolutely. A smart marketer is going to follow the money, witness the rise of misandry in advertising. Marketers are just exploiting the trend, but are not the source of the fact that is women, in the US, who control the majority of wealth.

    • 100%Cotton says:

      Women are priviledged because they can state outright lies like “Women earn less than men” or “only 2% of rape accusations are false or 1 in 4, 1in3 1 in2 1 in 1 blah, blah, blah.

      Women are privileged to believe THEY should be able to walk streets alone at night safely when in fact NO ONE can.

      Women are Privileged to believe men never suffer from violence, when in fact, they suffer FAR MORE violence.

      Women enjoy the privilege of having rape taken SERIOUSLY rather than disolving into giggles about “bubba’s bitch – America’s FAVORITE joke punchline.

      Women are PRIVILEGED to have FREE medical care for breast cancer, when men are turned away. Women pay the same for medical coverage when they have higher use, women have privilege of living much longer than men but retiring at the same age.

      Shal I go on…and on? And on?

    • John Anderson says:

      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/

    • Just to put things from a different perspective men earn more than women by working more, no economy can afford unequal pay for equal work, being on the same job doesn’t matter. But there are places where women are unjustly paid more for the same job though indirectly. For example in India women have to pay less income tax and also have exclusive access to the full paid child care leave (720 days !) in government jobs. What do you say about that?
      And what about presumption of guilt on men whenever a woman cries rape or assault or even domestic violence. So many charges come out to be false, and often these false complainants go scot-free.

      • Also, the over-whelming majority of victims of successful false rape accusations are poor, black men or latino men.

        • 100%Cotton says:

          Got some source to back that claim up? When the numbers are laid out, no matter how much minorities claim they are the ones taking a beating…it almost always turns out “priviledged” white guys are getting the worst of it.

          You may point out that the majority of DNA exonerations are indeed black, but that has been due to misidentification, not false accusations. The rapes really happened, they just blamed the wrong medium sized black man about 5″9″ short dark hair…ect…

          Men are falsely accused in family court for custody reason, and those are your average middle class white guys for the most part.

          • No, cotton. Not at my fingertips.
            In fact, on this point I mispoke. I meant to say that there would be a greater ratio of black and latino men falling victim to this than the national population average.

            The simple logic is that a higher percentage of black and latino men are impoverished than white men (well-to-do men can even the odds against corrupt prosecutors, i.e. the duke 3).

            So there would be on balance more blacks and latinos falling victims to other nifongs out there than the national population averages.

            I remember reading that the innocence project recently hit 100 (or maybe 1000) freed men who were proven innocent. Most of these were poor black men, and a great portion of them were exonerated from rape cases due to new dna techniques arising, or other such forensic evidence that didn’t come up at trial. However, at least these seemed to be truly instances of rapes, but the wrong person was nabbed by the cops.

        • Custody court and criminal court are two different creatures. Nifong not whithstanding, allegations alone are supposedly not enough to convict in criminal court.

          I am well aware of the injustice of false allegations in family court and would agree that this is overwhelmingly a white problem. But that’s not my point.

          My point is that feminist anti-male witch hunts are DISPROPORTIONATELY affecting poor and minority men–the people feminists claim to be concerned about.

    • Another Ann says:

      I agree with you. For all her claims of being a feminist and being raised as one, this author ddoesn;t seem to have a clue.

    • DavidByron says:

      How many of those items are actually true? Perhaps two? Why do you feel you can get away with that? Because of your female privilege. Nobody ever dares to contradict you.

      • 100%Cotton says:

        Here’s some “true” priviledges she forgot:

        Women are privileged to believe THEY should be able to walk streets alone at night safely when in fact NO ONE can.

        Women are Privileged to believe men never suffer from violence, when in fact, they suffer FAR MORE violence.

        Women enjoy the privilege of having rape taken SERIOUSLY rather than disolving into giggles about “bubba’s bitch – America’s FAVORITE joke punchline.

        Women are PRIVILEGED to have FREE medical care for breast cancer, when men are turned away. Women pay the same for medical coverage when they have higher use, women have privilege of living much longer than men but retiring at the same age.

        Women are PRIVILEGED to have no obligation to sign up for selective service, or serve in combat roles.

        It’s not as important as drycleaning or hair cuts, but by golly, it counts!

    • “women STILL earn less than men in most countries of the world performing the SAME jobs? “
      That’s simply not true if you consider all the facts, which you seem to have no interest it.

      “women are charged higher prices for dry cleaning, clothes and haircuts. . .”
      Get your hair cut at a barber shop in a man’s style every 2-3 weeks, and it will take 15-20 minutes and will cost the same as a man. Don’t present the dry cleaners with labor or fabric care/pressing considerations beyond a man’s standard shirt, and it will cost the same.

      “Blaming women for being raped because they have been drinking or dressing like a “slut.”

      Any male or female who gets so drunk that they have no control over themselves is more easily victimized. Many men have been robbed, beaten up, had their cars stolen, and sexually assaulted when that drunk. The police admonish everyone to have someone with them if they are doing to get drunk out of their minds? It’s not privilege; it’s common sense.

      “Is it “privilege” when girls are being sexually abused in higher numbers than boys?”

      Males are victims of violent crimes, including sexual assault, in higher numbers than females.

      “Is it “privilege” when more women than men are being sexually harassed?”

      More women report and their reports are taken seriously. This is similar to men being victims of domestic violence far more often than is reported. I’m happy to discuss that with you if you want to go down that road.

      “Is it “privilege” when women are expected to look like a 20 year old forever, while a paunchy, wrinkly old man is called “distinguished”?”

      According to whom? Feel free to be wrinkly and paunchy at 28 if you want. You don’t have please anyone other than yourself, especially a man.

      “Are we “privileged” when most of the wealth in the world lies in the hands of men?”
      That is not true. Women spend as much or more than men, even if they (like my wife) aren’t the ones earning as much.

      “Are women “privileged” when they can’t feel safe walking the streets alone at night?”

      There are some streets where everyone is safe, and some where no one is safe. There are no streets where it’s totally safe for men but totally unsafe for women.

      “Is it “privilege” when women are groped on the subway daily?”
      You don’t know what you are talking about. I’m from NY, and know that to not be true. NY women would never put up with that.

      “Is it “privilege” when disproportionately are victims of violent crime?”
      Again, not true. Males are 5x more likely to be victims of violent crime than females, and 4x more likely to be murdered. If privileged exists, THAT is privilege.

      “Is it “privilege” when most corporations are run by men?”
      No, that’s called choice. No gender/sex test is required to start your own corporation.

      “Women have much less privilege than men.”
      Not if you are in touch with reality and care about actual facts.

    • “Women have much less privilege than men.”
      Well yeah, I don’t think too many are disagreeing with that. If we have a whollle bunch of issues, men can be privileged in more of them than women, but still female privilege can exist. The sum of female privileges would be less than the sum of male privileges, but still it addresses the concerns both genders face. I think what people object to are assumptions there are NO female privileges and also when male privileges are talked about without also talking of the negatives males face in order to have those privileges.

      • “Women have much less privilege than men.”

        That’s certainly the perception in society, but I’m not so sure. Here’s an extensive list that might change that perception.

        http://mensresistance.wordpress.com/female-privilege-checklist/

      • “‘Women have much less privilege than men.’
        Well yeah, I don’t think too many are disagreeing with that.”

        You think wrong.

      • DavidByron says:

        Archy you keep saying that but can you give an example of all this male privilege? I can’t think of any male privileges but you keep assuming there are some. I’ve asked this exact same question here more times than I can recall. Why on earth would you just assume the existence of something that nobody can even mention let alone demonstrate? It’s less rational than believing in Santa Claus. It’s like believing in Santa’s evil twin brother who you can’t say what his name is or what he looks like or what he does but you just know he exists.

        It’s like talking to people who believe in ghosts or UFOs except much much worse. At least those guys if you ask them know they have to have a story and evidence for their views. It might be crappy evidence and silly stories but they at least have something.

        Please stop repeating this nonsense if you aren’t prepared to at least explain what on earth YOU think you’re talking about.

      • 100%Cotton says:

        I disagree. What “priviledge” do you have that I don’t?

        You get to sign up for selective service and I don’t. Check.
        You get to serve in combat and I don’t. Check.
        You make me decide if you become a father or not on my say so. Check.
        You go to prison if you lose your job and can’t pay me. Check.
        The kids will love you more if I don’t teach them not to. Check.
        …oh, wait…I’ve run out of stuff….

    • Jamie Parsons says:

      Oh what crap, especially your first point. Charged more for clothes and haircuts? Most mens haircuts take 5 minutes, womens take oh I don’t know how long? Compare what women do to their hair to what men do and you think they should be charged the same? And clothes? How many good clothes do women buy compared to men? Not to mention shoes.

      • 100%Cotton says:

        Women charge women for haircuts in the vast majority of cases. Talk to the hand about lowering those prices.

        Dry cleaning is associated with breast cancer. Someone is doing you a favor. Be appreciative.

    • Stephanie says:

      This isn’t directed at anyone in particular but I have to say after Hugo left this site I made the decision to continue to read GMP. But I have to tell you after this article I won’t anymore. I’ve been following this thread and the comments have been back and forth arguments about who’s right and no one is really being heard.

      • Quite possibly because suddenly you feel like the oppressor. And there are facts to back that up.

        Tough when the GMP isn’t only parroting the “women are always victims” line, isn’t it?

      • DavidByron says:

        Do you prefer discussions where only one side can speak? I’m not clear what you are criticising here.

      • John Anderson says:

        To paraphrase a feminist, when forced to face your female privilege, you leave. Not surprising. I’ve read the comments section also and found them to be on balance more even handed than similar discussions on feminist boards. If you have difficulty defending your beliefs in the face of facts, then maybe that’s your conscious telling you that it’s not the right position to take.

      • After Hugo left, I actually felt more comfortable and safer talking here, it wasn’t as extreme as he left so i stayed, but his articles in my view were harmful to many men here and the comment sections were proof of that.

        I believe the GMP simply posts articles to stir up debate and get the ball rolling, I’ve already learned quite a bit just in the comments on this article alone and still am continuing to learn, maybe if the feminism and anti-feminism debates are too much for you than I suggest reading the other sections as they have great articles.

        I see the same back n forth and no ones being heard on a few feminist sites, except they seem to moderate and silence the critics. This is probably my first site I’ve seen where both sides actually get to talk to each other without silencing each other. I’ve personally found this site to be extremely informative, and I love it. I’m sorry that it doesn’t seem to be the same for you, is it just this article in particular though or are most bad? I see many categories being discussed and the others don’t have the large scale debates like the gender rights ones do, so I’m curious if you dislike those too?

        • I too think the site has improved since Hugo left. As this thread as an example I’ve only seen one disrespectful comment directed at Jacqueline Schiappa but that’s it. GMP is unique that it has both feminists and MRAs together and hope they can maintain that with diligent moderation.

      • @Stephanie: “the comments have been back and forth arguments about who’s right”

        I agree with you about many comments. When I see a comment thread escalates into a fight, I jump over it.
        But I see many comments that are reasonable, valid, and add to the discussion as well.

        Anyway, comments apart, the value is in the articles: you can read them and ignore the comments, if useless.

    • MorgainePendragon says:

      Hear hear, Ann. Thank you for expressing it so clearly and eloquently.

      Yep, Stephanie, I’m with you RE: whether or not to continue reading this site since Hugo left.

      Despite genuine good faith work on the part of several editors/posters/moderators, it’s sliding down the slope of becoming a patriarchal-apologist, anti-feminist (and anti-woman) site. I’m disappointed.

      But not really all that surprised.

      • DavidByron says:

        99.9% of feminist sites ban their critics. And you think that’s too few? I mean you seem to be saying a site about men ought to ban or censor men.

        When you call this site anti-woman is that your way of saying feminism is anti-male? You seem to be saying oh gosh this site is becoming the opposite of feminism and therefore is anti-woman.

      • why dont you and stephanie stay and fight for your beliefs. when i came here in feb/march 2011, the comments and articles were overwhelmingly profeminist. i stayed and argued for what i believed in

        your beliefs are so weak, they cant stand up to scrutiny?
        i thought feminism empowered, instead it seems to promote weakness in the great majority of its adherents

        • “your beliefs are so weak, they cant stand up to scrutiny?”

          And that’s the crux of the matter right there. It can’t stand up to scrutiny. Where there is feminism there is banning, name calling and censorship.

          It is why, in the early 2000s, Canadian feminists tried to have any criticism of feminism classified as hate speech. And it is why, on a large site dedicated to men with a worldwide audience, where I used to post men rights articles, all my posts started to disappear once a female mod was appointed.

          • Mark Neil says:

            “It is why, in the early 2000s, Canadian feminists tried to have any criticism of feminism classified as hate speech.”

            Seriously? Oh I would love to get my hands on that. do you have a link or source?

            • Maybe. I don’t have any links. This was 7-8 years ago on a MRA forum I haven’t visited in a long time. I had some conversations with the lawyer that stopped it. I’ll try to find him in the MRA community. He should still have the links and the correspondence he shared. Who knows he might even write about it TGP to show people what exactly it is we are dealing with.

              How would I get in touch with you?

              • Mark Neil says:

                I think the easiest way is actually through youtube (I don’t like giving out my email on comment sections). I use the moniker mneilgri. you can PM me there and I can give you my email privately.

      • John Anderson says:

        I’m just curious. What site would you consider to have even handed conversation? Someone suggested feministing. I went there to give them a fair chance. I checked a Rick Santorum article and three of the next 10 posts asserted that women would make better presidents than men. Not this woman would be better than this man, but that women as a gender would be better.

        • Well we wouldn’t know, because we’ve NEVER had one, and we see what happened when one tried to run, don’t we?

          • John Anderson says:

            I’m trying to understand your comment. Women make up the majority of the electorate. They make up an even greater majority of the electorate voting democratic. As a man, I’m used to being blamed for actions committed by other members of my gender. Are we now responsible for the choices women make? There was no democratic presidential primary. What stopped women from voting in the republican primary for Michelle Bachmann?

            I voted for Obama in the general election, but for Clinton in the primary. The gender of the candidate matters less to me than their ideas and their relative preparation for office. I didn’t believe that Obama had the experience and was less prepared than Clinton. When McCain went far right, I couldn’t trust any position he took. I took exception to the assertion that any woman would be better than any man based on her gender. If this is main stream feminism, I don’t see how this reconciles with feminism being an equality movement.

            If you are suggesting that they were merely blowing off steam and that this was not representative of main stream feminist thought, I could understand your frustration. To be fair, I did return to the article and noticed that after my comment calling out the misandry, there were still comments articulating a desire for a female president, but the misandry was no longer evident. I also saw some anti-Bachmann comments.

          • there have been plenty of women presidents and prime ministers

    • Meant to click reply. Check out by_lne comments.

    • Only see the situations in which women are disadvantaged never notice situations where women are advantaged then conclude only women have disadvantages. That’s not insight that’s bias.

      Why do i have to keep pointing out the stupidity of that argument over and over again.

      • @Lita “Why do i have to keep pointing out the stupidity of that argument over and over again.”

        Because Bias does not require logic or rational thinking! It’s Bias – defined as – “a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. ”

        Bias is self referential. It supports itself and resists Logic, Reason and Rational Argument! It’s also a polite way of calling someone prejudiced or bigoted.

        That is why so many who come bearing bias do flouncetatsic exits when the spotlight gets turned away from them and onto their tame poodle named Bias. You often find that the Tame Poodle is actually a Wolf in poodles clothing – and the Wolf if called Prejudice – The Big Brother!

        Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. – any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. – Unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group etc.

        Bias, in all forms, is what some call a “Logical Vampire” – the only way to deal with it involves Stakes, Crucifixes, Garlic – and best of all Very Bright Sunlight that turns it into Irredeemable Dust.

        You just keep shinning sunshine ! P^)

      • Good point, Leta. It’s especially interesting when one notes that a common theme of feminist discussions of “privilege” is how easily it goes unnoticed. So why wouldn’t that be the case with female privilege too?

        Excellent article and an interesting discussion.

        • Mark Neil says:

          Yeah, I’ve raised quite a few hackles by telling a feminist she can’t see her own privilege.. WHOOO that made em mad.

    • Maybe there’s a reason more men run corporations??? I read a book awhile ago that women are more likely to quit their jobs suddenly, take more breaks, etc. This isn’t going to earn brownie points unless we go by equal worth instead of performance. And also, women earn the same or more than men until they get married and/or have kids. Black women tend to outearn white women, but it comes at a cost. i doubt if i’d call black women more privileged than white women. And to be real what’s the point-men spend chunks of their paychecks on women anyway. *shrug*
      I would say that employment is an area where women have privilege to the point of being ridiculous. Like one false sexual harassment allegation and uh oh here come the lawsuits and there goes my business. And nowadays you have to hire women even if they obviously dont perform the same as a man. And even though they tend to be less productive than men esp in certain fields you have to pay them the same or uh oh here come the lawsuits. Not to mention women have a tendency to fuck’n’suck their way up to the top. There’s yet another privilege. I’m not saying every woman who has achieved in the work world does this but it happens waaaaay too much.
      AND in sexual harassment cases I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them were false and overblown while many who really have been harassed keep quiet-the same thing people would say with rape allegations. Sexual harassment is a very sticky situation. If Jared tells Wendy she looks pretty that could be sexual harassment. But if Chris tells her the same thing that’s ok because Wendy likes Chris.

  46. Excellent piece. All true. Thank you for being the first to acknowledge this in an article here. Actually, I have been posting comments about this for some time but using different points, such as unemployment, education, violent crime victimhood, etc.

  47. wet_suit_one says:

    Wow…

    This is a lot of BS to read in one sitting.

    Time for me to go away again for a good long while.

    Sheesh!

  48. 8ball — dollars to donuts JS is a teacher who is doing her damndest to make sure the boys in her class are discouraged and drop out.

  49. The main privileges that feminism secured for women are as follows:
    1. Women have the privilege of removing man from their families via restraining orders available on demand by just accusing him of domestic violence or abuse which might mean anything that women deems fit.
    2. Women can take away major part of a man’s asset in divorce and can use children as human shields (best interest of child) to keep extorting money from him. She takes the role of creditor over the man and any default may lead to prison time.
    3. Women get lesser sentences than men for the similar crime.
    4. Women have the privilege to decide next morning that the sexual activity last night was rape or not. She can make her mind within two weeks. Even if she makes a false accusation there are no repercussions, after all she was just exercising her privilege.
    5. Women have the privilege of cheating and getting pregnant with whosoever they want. The husband or any other guy she points out would be responsible for paying child support. Paternity tests are of no value in getting free from obligation after certain period.

    • Rapses says:
      “4. Women have the privilege to decide next morning that the sexual activity last night was rape or not. She can make her mind within two weeks. Even if she makes a false accusation there are no repercussions, after all she was just exercising her privilege.”

      In this case, the woman was allowed to wait until 8 months later (when the couple was embroiled in a contested divorce).

      ht tp://www.thestar.com/news/article/1119764–man-jailed-4-months-for-sexually-assaulting-wife?bn=1

  50. My disgust and absolute horror at this article can’t adequately be contained in a single comment, so I wrote an entire blog post for you.

    http://achtungkatie.tumblr.com/post/16255786514/i-have-female-privilege

    • Christ, I’m not sure if this posted as a separate comment or what, but if this is in reply to another comment, then I’m sorry. The interface on this site is kind of weird.

      • You seem quite angry. Hysterical, even.

        • I am enraged, actually, and a little sick to think that people are this incapable of critical thought.

          Because, although I’m sure you meant this to be an “ironic” post, you believe this. And so do a lot of people. And until I’m allowed to post my opinion without being systematically discriminated against based on my gender, then there is no such thing as “female privilege”, there is no such thing as “equality”, and anyone who thinks this is it, the pinnacle of gender relations, is so ignorant that I have to laugh, otherwise I would cry for the state of the world.

          • DavidByron says:

            I can’t tell if you’re joking.
            Are you saying you had some problems with posting a comment?

          • I wish I could get my time back that I spent reading that blog post. If a few privileges being acknowledged is enough to set you off this badly, then I don’t think you can properly function in society.

            What was even the point of that post, anyway? It was just a bunch of angry ranting and buzzwords. Are you manboobz?

          • John Anderson says:

            I’m curious. Did the moderator block your post? I’ve never known that to happen on this site. That’s one reason why I enjoy it so. The main reason is because of the feminist and women’s voices. I may disagree with you, but I believe that you should have your say. I’ve learned a bit from feminists. If it wasn’t for feminists posting the stories of women being harassed for blocks, U would have equated street harassment with my experience of it.

    • DavidByron says:

      Well I love the title of your reply.

      Let Me Tell You About Internalized Misogyny AKA Why This Article Is Fucking Horrendous And Perpetuating Harmful Anti-Equality Ideals”

      I’d invite folks to read it because it was quite original in a couple of points.

      This one deserves an entire article of its own in my opinion:

      I guess I could start with the part where “feminist” is not really a title you should give yourself. I absolutely believe it’s a title you should earn from people around you, based on your actions and your words. And quite frankly, Rachel Goodchild is absolutely Not A Feminist.

      A pretty rare sentiment in my experience but perhaps not in yours?

      In the article you admit that you’ve never really been oppressed yourself. Thanks for saying that. You say you’ve had to learn how to spot problems for others:

      I look at everything from a feminist perspective, and I gotta be honest with you, it’s pretty fucking depressing. I sometimes wish I couldn’t, I would like to be able to watch TV or listen to music without part of me cringing, just a little.

      That is what happens to the folks on the other side of the debate too but for spotting anti-male discrimination. That is how human brains are. They are great at bias. You’ve become great at seeing one side of the story but terrible at seeing the other side. Solution is easy. Talk to and listen to the people on the other side because they are experts where your own skills are weakest.

      No space for more. .. except if you don’t mind my asking what exactly is “heteroflexible

      tl;dr fuck the patriarchy. again.

      Again??

    • Katie,

      The great male conspiracy secret is that feminism is a creation by an ancient chauvinist order. We want you to go get real jobs, serve in the military, be slutty, and to have less or no kids. You see, us men secretly decided that we don’t want to be providers and protectors any more. The responsibility and commitment just isn’t any fun. We are boycotting marriage to get women to court us. Now, we want you women to provide and protect us. We are also sick and tired of holding doors for women and going down with the sinking ship so we have been tricking women that chivalry is an outdated insult to women. It’s really all about us men. Soon us men will be free at last. Down with the patriarchy. Free Range Zeta Men forever.

      • Yes, that’s exactly what I’m implying here. An Illuminati type cabal gathered together in the far flung reaches of the past, and put their heads together and went “you know who we should hate on? /women/.”

        Strawman. Logical fallacy. You’re going to go “invincible ignorance” next, which is fine, but logically, I’ve already won this argument. But please, do continue on.

        • DavidByron says:

          Strawman.

          For a second I thought you were on to us 🙂

        • “I’ve already won this argument”
          – Yep, nothing wins an arugment like subjective opinion laced with F-bombs, at least, in the minds of the feminist intellect like yourself. Congrats.

      • you forgot to properly capitalize The Patriarchy.

        just sayin’

    • “So, in conclusion, the idea of female privilege is laughable—worse than that, actually, because the “idea” is harmful to the actual feminist movement, which consists of actual feminists trying to bring about actual equality. It’s undermining, and it’s a sign of internalized misogyny.”
      Weird, I hear some people say the idea of male privilege is laughable too. Who to believe?

      I’m not sure what track you were on, but I believe the article is pointing out some areas that females are privileged and not assuming females are more privileged than men, at least that’s my understanding of it. What are your thoughts on the female privilege of being safer around unknown children and not seen as a pedophile?

      • DavidByron says:

        Archy can I ask you to name what you consider to be the very strongest male privilege you know of? Who to believe you ask. It’s not rocket science. If you can’t even think of any male privileges its pretty obvious there aren’t any of any consequence.

    • MorgainePendragon says:

      Well-done, Katie. Excellent deconstruction.

      Perhaps TGMP would be willing to post it as an answer to this piece?

    • Apologies for the formatting, I’m new to this site -.- I’m replying here as the original was written on tumblr and I can’t reply there. You can find the original comment at:

      http://achtungkatie.tumblr.com/post/16255786514/i-have-female-privilege

      ‘Yes, women have made big strides into closing the equality gap in the last 100 years or so. This does not mean we have reached equality. This whole article, to me, absolutely reeks of “well look how far we’ve come, what more do you want?????? men to be SLAVES????”’

      I disagree – Goodchild specifically mentions that woman are oppressed in our society and that that oppression still needs to be addressed. I think it is an unfair representation to claim that Goodchild thinks feminism wants men to be slaves.

      ‘Yes, I can go to school now. I can vote, I can own property, I can work in any job I want, I can chose to have children or get married or not. None of this dismisses the fact that society still pressures me into doing what it feels is a “proper female role”.’

      Of course – and due to patriarchal ideas about male superiority men have greater pressure to to adhere to gender roles as defined by hegemonic masculinity – this does not mean that the gender roles forced on women are less oppressive or irrelevant, but you ignore how patriarchy functions in an intersectional manner.

      ‘Basically this paragraph here absolutely invalidates the rest of this article, because: seriously? You look at this and go “oh well one time it was implied that I had to be a man to be in a leadership position but otherwise FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE~~~” ‘

      No? Pointing out that men are privileged in out society (and of course they are) in no way necessitates or implies that women are not – I agree with you insomuch as I think the article misrepresents the amount of privilege men do get in our society (much more than women in my opinion), but disagree with your thesis that pointing out privilege that men have disproves the thesis that women have privilege.

      ‘Okay, you want to know why women are allowed to be more “open” about their sexuality? Because it pleases men. If you honestly believe that men “accept” gay women more than gay men, you have an awfully skewed view of what acceptance means.’

      Where (and for what reasons) female privilege arises does not negate the fact that it is privilege. Acceptance and commodification are not mutually exclusive.

      ‘If a women indicates that she would prefer not to be discussed as a piece of meat and have people imply that she is so good looking that they would like to have sex with her regardless of her consent, she is told that she is a bitch, a cock tease, and frigid.’

      And if as man says he accepts that he is good looking enough for people to want to have sex with then he is arrogant, a creep, and sex obsessed. Again this doesn’t mean that men are worse off, but you don’t seem to be able to see any issue that doesn’t affect people that aren’t women.

      Your discussion of the second point falls entirely under the purview of my first response – where (and for what reasons) female privilege arises does not negate the fact that it is privilege. Female privilege arising from patriarchy does not mean it isn’t privilege. Really. The same with your third point. I somewhat disagree with your analysis of allowed – I think semantically that ‘allowed to do’ is in this context pretty much the same as ‘has a right to’ – but that’s just nitpicking I guess.

      ‘So, in conclusion, the idea of female privilege is laughable—worse than that, actually, because the “idea” is harmful to the actual feminist movement, which consists of actual feminists trying to bring about actual equality. It’s undermining, and it’s a sign of internalized misogyny.’

      Bull. The idea of female privilege is essential to feminism. Ignoring how violence, murder, and many other factors in our society are structured in a way to oppress men is anathema to the feminist movement – especially when you consider intersections with race and class.

      ‘tl;dr fuck the patriarchy. Again.’

      Yes.

  51. Im tired of female privilege in the gender debate!

    On feminist sites men are second class citizens and people talking about men’s issues are abused and blocked but here, on this mens site, feminists think its all about them and the women’s movement.

    • Agreed. I’m an MRA and I am slowly finding that this site does seem to be trying to move and evolve into something more positive and greater than what is used to be. I too have noticed that feminists behave at this site like everything must be about them. If men cannot be shown the respect to have a tiny section of Internet space to call their own what does tell us about feminists and modern women’s disregard and concern for men? Earlier today, after I read numerous comments here by women and some manginas, and then made my own comments, I went to The Spearhead site to chill out and regroup. Feminism is a mental disorder.

  52. Apologies – I can’t read all the comments.

    I just want to add my thoughts, in line with Joanna.

    First, yes, I agree with your thoughts here that they’re are ways that women have power and unfair advantage – and they’re not ok. However, I take issue with talking around privilege in this way. It’s not something that one group must has only – it’s far, far more complicated than that. In addition, it’s convoluted by race, class, sexuality, etc. For instance, there’s a lot of white and class privilege here. In addition, there’s a lot of things we don’t see, simply because we don’t experience them. Finally, again, it’s nice to be a bubble and discuss, but there’s a big world out there – again, that would be the white/class/location privilege talking.

    • Funny how “it’s complicated” only seems to come up when discussing the idea of female privileges.

    • Hi Nikki, I’m guessing you’re clued up on the privilege theory quite well and I had a question. Can men be oppressed as a group, by other men? Or does it go into class privilege with say big boss/king/patriarch/male powerful figure and say 80-90% of men at the peasant level? This seems to be a confusing point where most men are the 90% but get lumped in with the top dogs who make policy n power, it’s quite a confusing point.

      I guess I am really wondering how much privilege does class and race give compared to gender alone. Also does privilege come with responsibility/sacrifice and is this addressed in feminist literature? The only literature I’ve been exposed to mainly is a few websites and blogs, which I believe were gynocentric in nature and I don’t think actually looked at the bad men faced so it’s left me questioning the entire idea of male privilege.

      My current feeling on the matter is there is male and female privilege, males have more areas they are privileged, but females have a few and they seemed to have been a recent occurance. The main privilege I see is trust around children and the pedophilia hysteria, my parents are teachers and I was informed quite well that men especially could never be alone in a room with a single student, especially a female one whereas the atmosphere was much more relaxed for female teachers. We see airlines are moving adult men from sitting next to children who aren’t kin but not doing the same for adult women.

      I also realize there is debate between privilege vs benevolent sexism, are many of the posters here using ben-sex as their idea of privilege?

      Thanks for stopping by, anyone else feel free to answer as I am trying to get my head around the entire theory but I’ve been stumped as to where male responsibility fits in and whether privilege is outweighed by that responsibility. Eg having to fight war, sacrificing a life for the benefits at home.

      Sidenote since it appears we have a variety of feminists commenting: Also looking for egalitarian feminist literature as I like to know how good and bad women get it and also how good n bad men get it to understand just how different we are and I’m not sure gynocentric feminism studies the bad men get (I could be totally wrong!), I prefer smaller articles vs books (Adhd makes it hard to read more than 2 pages) but I’ll have a gander at anything if anyone wants to suggest some.

    • Good response Nikki B. You’re right it is complicated. There are all sorts of variants that determine the quality of life (and ability to direct your own outcome, and the respect of others). Race, class, income, genetics, etc..

      But this narrative is put on pause by feminists who use the term “male privilege”. They believe it gives them a right to ignore the fact that millions of men dominate the bottom of the power pyramid (over women) in about equal numbers to the way they dominate the top.

      While the female role of beauty object / nurturer has it’s negatives aspects, there is literally no discussion from feminists (and many women) about the (in some ways) much harsher aspect of success object / provider for men.

      Feminists go into convulsions to point out the several dozen thousands of men who are in positions of authority: judges, ceos, bankers, legislatures, lawyers, doctors, etc….

      But, there is no discussion of the DOZENS OF MILLIONS of poor, disenfranchised, minority, depressed men at the bottom. Men dominate 9 to 1 or more (over women) in: homelessness, on-the-job deaths, suicide (which is the ultimate act of powerlessness), incarceration, victims of violent crime. Fathers receive sole physical custody 6% to mothers 80%, men live 7 years shorter, men are 38% of college graduates. And, yet the vast majority of help via government continues to be for and about women.
      If female privilege is oversimplistic, so too is male privilege but feminists and many women DON’T OR CAN’T bear to look at the BIG PICTURE and do away with the concept of male privilege.

      If they did, then they would have to start letting the millions of oppressed and disenfranchised men be visible. That would destroy their narrative of giving class warfare labels to men (oppressor) and women (victim).

      Rather than adapt, the most advocative feminists (as seen on this page) would rather cover their ears and hum.

  53. DavidByron says:

    It would be nice if we could get passed the whole privilege thing. To me it seems this is a drum that feminism has been banging on for 150 years as a PR campaign but the actual concept is empty. MRAs leap on that bandwagon because they saw feminists doing it. Even I feel I have to talk about it because I have to counter it.

    I do love this piece though because the world needs as many women willing to stand up for men as it can get. And there were no take back words, no “but women get it worse” or even “oh we all have privilege, men women everyone.”

    So thank you for all that.

    Nevertheless I wish we could just ban the whole concept.

    I mean domestic violence for example. If I was a woman I’d have an advantage there. But to be honest I was not planing on beating up my wife so that particular advantage isn’t one I feel I would pay much for. I don’t want any children so the children advantage, though very powerful, is not one I’d appreciate. I generally just don’t care what people think of me so I wouldn’t reach for the first or last advantages either. The 4th point though I would want. That’s enough for me to say, yeah on that basis alone I’d have preferred to be born female.

    But in general all this talk of privilege only has meaning if you are talking of general classes of people. And I’m just not sure that’s a useful thing to do at all. Feminism does it all the time of course, and as a result the MRAs do it too. Whether to counter feminist arguments or debate on their own merits I do not know. But it is worth recalling that 99% of the time the entire premise is screwed up.

    If you’re a woman you can commit crimes better. Wow. Yeah that really makes me want to be a woman. But yes seen in a certain light of course it is a “privilege”. Feminists have always talked in those terms because their whole raison d’etre is based on bogus comparisons between men and women. But can we stop for a moment and ask if that whole concept makes any sense please?

    Look at DV victim statistics. Feminists argued that because men were “only” 5% or “only” 8% that meant they should get whatever sexist segregationist solution they asked for. MRAs typically argue back with stats saying men are 50% of the victims. But an equally valid — perhaps much better — argument is to say what kind of person would even care? What kind of person would ask before helping a victim of violence “Excuse me what proportion of the total number of victims for this crime is your demographic?” Does anyone say women should be ignored if they are mugged simply because it’s mostly men that get mugged? It’s just bizarrely stupid as a concept. It’s also illegal in the US since the 14th amendment was signed (or more accurately since the US SC recognised what the 14th amendment says which took about 100 years). Most countries have a similar non discriminatory law but usually its ignored when it comes to men’s rights.

    I can see that if you are looking at a narrow issue there might be some factors that could be called a “privilege” that might sensibly mean that individual needs less help. Not DESERVES less help but needs less help. If you already have resources then maybe you don’t need more given to you. That way you can help more people with limited resources (although there’s a lot to be said for non-means tested stuff too because it avoids stigma).

    So while the feminists continue to eat for free on all these dumb messages of “patriarchy” and “male privilege” I say yes we need articles like this, but at the same time I choose to think of them more as responses calling out bullshit on the feminists. Long term “privilege” is not a good way of looking at things between men and women.

  54. All the “privileges” you mention sound like direct results of patriarchy. And by the way, starting a comment with something like “another feminist that…” as a way to dismiss, outright, whatever that commenter is saying seems evidence enough that we are not, indeed, living in a “woman’s world.” For example, in point 2, I think that the reason a woman hitting a man is taken less seriously than a man hitting a woman (this is changing, by the way. Watch MTV and you’ll see just how much this cultural trope is becoming outdated) is only the case because women are already seen as weaker, less of a physical threat, or incapable of causing damage to a man. I don’t see that as privilege, I see that as a society that is still very much embedded in the patriarchy and one whose gender roles are very set in terms of dictating who has power–in this case physical power–in a domestic relationship.

    • i don't believe you says:

      Ahh. Another feminist that blames the patriarchy rather than accept that feminism majorly contributes to the double standard about domestic violence. Feminist public protests rarely help “dudes” who have been abused by women.

      • Did anyone else LOL at the idea of this guy knowing something about feminist public protests? I can tell he has attended them regularly.

        • I find the Hilarity less than Hilarious. It has been interesting to see and be present at some “feminist public protests” where people who did not meet the core agenda were marginalised. Such as disabled women.

          Odd seeing a protest against DV – and disabled women being told that they did not need to attend as DV is not a factor for Disabled Women. Odd too how the Disabled Women were all either involved in the field of DV, are women who had suffered DV!

          Hilarious indeed! P^/

          The organisers found it equally Hilarious when it was a man who warned them that they were acting illegally and faced court action. It’s so Hilarious how some are blinded by their own agendas and can’t see wood for the forest – unless the forest has been felled, processed into paper and the paper used to write a court writ!

          The Trees Find The Process Hilarious Too! One forest suffered needless felling in bringing that Public Service message to the “feminist public protests” organisers. Hilarious! NOT! P^/

      • Well Slutwalk helped some dudes reduce their stress.

    • Birgitte:
      Feminists state (and correctly) that much of domestic violence is not necessarily about how much damage is inflicted, but upon how the victim feels “terrorized”. The new term domestic terrorism is the label used for those who do no physical damage, but threaten to attack the person in their sleep, harm a loved one, or child, etc…

      When feminists discuss FEMALE victims of DV, they state the amount of physical damage the victimizer did is not relevant, but the how the victim felt.

      Strange, that when the roles are reversed (and women victimize men) the metric for the level of harm goes BACKWARDS 40 years to the level of physical damage.

      In this CDC report, it is measured the level of coercive control men and women make against their significant other.
      ht tp://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pd f

      The highlights:
      with 6.5% of men and 6.3% of women experiencing partner aggression in the past year. More men (18%) suffer psychological aggression (humiliation, threats of violence, controllingness) than women (14%). Feminists often define IPV as a “pattern of power and control,” but the survey finds that men were 50% more likely to have experienced coercive control than women (15.2% vs 10.7%).

      Also, your narrative really doesn’t debunk anything.
      Stating that it is because of “women as weak” stereotypes that women can more freely engage in physical behavior DOES NOT discount it as a privilege. All you have tried to do is paint a female privilege as an anti-female burden.

      Sorry, that doesn’t fly.

    • “All the “privileges” you mention sound like direct results of patriarchy.”

      That is exactly accurate. Guess who the patriarchy privileges and benefits.

  55. Thanks a lot for this article. My respect and esteem just keep going up and up for tgmp.
    It’s funny, because I just keep getting surprised by tgmp (in a good way), the way I just kept getting surprised by most feminist sites (in a bad way).

    Keep up the good work!

  56. fondueguy says:

    ‘ Feminists have been saying for years that the ways women have been historically oppressed relate in very important ways to the ways that people of color, of difference”

    Obviously not, if women have privileges while blacks do not. You obviously can not make any comparable list of privileges.

    The very nature of the problem was different but it seems you want to conflate the two (for your privilege maybe?).

  57. fondueguy says:

    Wow, thank you such much for writting this… along with not taking advantage of these things.

    just wanted some clarification on this “I KNOW there will be a bunch of other women who will stick up for me.”

    Ive always pictured it as men and women doing that to a guy who has the “gaul” to call out a woman. I know women can verbally tear down men, even in casual conversation, but I usually picture white knights acting in a situation like that.

  58. You people are kidding, right? These perspectives are so uninformed and outdated in theory that I’m offended that it was published.

    The most egregious and obvious mistake in the thinking presented is: this reads just like a privileged, white, heterosexual able-bodied cis female wrote it. Feminists have worked for decades now to undo that hurtful, narrow version of understanding how feminism relates to society.

    This piece excludes, and is even dismissive of, huge bodies of work and advancements in feminist theory that problematize issues of (among other things): Race, sexuality, motherhood, geopolitical locations/assumptions. A FEW examples:

    – Goodchild misconstrues the way “privilege” itself works socially. The very authority from which this piece is produced is demonstrative of, for example, white privilege.
    – Goodchild actually submits to rape culture and contributes to its violence. ” “I fancy him so much I’d even rape him.” I mean, really? We’ve been working against statements like that for years.
    – Goodchild presupposes and naturalizes a female orientation toward motherhood and children, not to mention heterosexual.
    – The “I’m allowed to be educated and career driven” thing smacks so loudly of ignorance and uninformed social/political/economic thinking that it’s hard to take seriously at all. One would only need a brief glimpse into the statistics and enduring evidence to realize that American labor and education systems still significantly privilege white hetero men.
    – Re: the whole ” I can also make disparaging comments about his sexuality, his economic standing, the size of his penis,” thing. Uh, since when would any socially conscious person (let alone a feminist) make disparaging remarks about sexuality, economic standing, and penis size to retaliate in a dialogue? This particular point is so wildly immature it’s laughable.

    Feminists have been saying for years that the ways women have been historically oppressed relate in very important ways to the ways that people of color, of difference, Others in general, are oppressed. So it is in feminist interest to recognize how these oppressions RELATE and to stop thinking that they exist in their own neat little spaces. This ENTIRE piece is dismissive of the decades of feminist work that advance that thinking, refute the exact arguments of this work, and have even made expert cases as to why this is some of the most detrimental thinking that “feminists” sometimes claim.

    • i don't believe you says:

      Outdated? Have you been to many feminist blogs recently? Try Pandagon.net
      And if “feminism” was TRULY so awesome about relating historical oppression we would have never seen the term “womanist”

      • Nah, clearly I don’t read much feminist literature.

        • Literature is a broader term than newspapers, but, yes I also read newspapers. And blogs. And books, too. I read current feminist publications… a central focus of my PhD is feminist theory.

          I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with exactly.

          • i don't believe you says:

            Real simple Miss PHD.

            We are disagreeing over the number of disparaging remarks of said type used by feminists on popular feminist blogs. Such retaliation is a routine occurrence, but you think “it’s laughable”

          • Jacqueline, you said:

            “One would only need a brief glimpse into the statistics and enduring evidence to realize that American labor and education systems still significantly privilege white hetero men.”

            So what about the fact that since approximately 1980 US women have received more undergraduate degrees than men? The split is now about 55%-45% female. Women now receive more graduate degrees than men in the US. For sure minority women in the US are spectacularly educationally and economically advantaged compared to minority men (2:1 ratio F to M in minority college graduation rates in the US). But the statistics have shifted in favor of women among the white population as well. And please spare me the talk about how the very top of a tiny percentage of capitalist organizations are run by white hetero men, that is statistically insignificant.

            Second point: your quote above makes it clear that you are attacking men, as men, not patriarchy or relative privilege.

            • Not only that, but the staement “all the top CEOs are white men” fails to take into account that the men and boys who currently ARE NOT BEING EDUCATED are not the same men who currently run the big companies. Hell, for that matter those men aren’t the rest of us either.

              We’ll see what things look like in twenty years

              • “Those at the top are mostly men” is actually a true statement.

                But so is “those at the bottom are ALL men.” Nobody seems to write articles about those people, however. They’re invisible.

                • It is also true that a society with mostly a small relative number of Alpha males in top key positions does not in any way defining the laws and rules that apply to the masses of Beta and Omega as being pro-male. What is true for the ruling elites is not true for the masses of peasants.

                  Follow the money and power trails in considering who has benefited and lost the past forty years in American society. Feminism could never have achieved what it supposedly insists that it has if government and the super rich did not want it to occur. The ideological values of feminism and political correctness have been the most powerful forces of change in America the past forty years. Tools in the hands of the farmers. Is today’s society better? Stronger? Healthier? Does the future for America look better now than it did forty years ago?

                • That’s not correct. Women are more likely to be in poverty than men.

                  • David Byron says:

                    That’s not true.

                  • Some have said women also have more help when in poverty than men, so men in poverty are worse off than women in poverty? Is this true?

                    • i don't believe you says:

                      Yes it is true. Women in poverty have more help available to them than men in poverty.

                  • disagree says: “That’s not correct. Women are more likely to be in poverty than men.”

                    And men are more likely than women to fall past the social safety net that catch’s women at the poverty line, letting men fall into destitution and off the grid. Until the studies start actually counting the homeless, “women live in poverty more than men” only demonstrates women have the privilege of a social safety net. And until studies examine post child support transfer of wealth income, those studies that don’t will remain questionable. Many men are living in poverty BECAUSE of their excessive child support obligations demanding more than they can afford, will jail time hanging over their head for failure to pay it. But these studies generally only look at taxable incomes, meaning any money that goes to mothers in child support count towards the fathers income, boosting what he appears to get and failing to report what she receives. This transfer of wealth, in some cases, can actually reverse the situation, putting the man bellow poverty and possibly even raising the woman above it. But we can’t know for certain until studies actually start accounting for that (and the homeless).

            • IF scholarships exist for women still and not men, and women dominate the the university positions, is that not a clear privilege?

              • DavidByron says:

                Obviously it is. Now Archy you have claimed that there are more male privileges than there are for women so could you please provide an example of a male privilege that is comparable in importance to that? I honestly can’t think of anything even remotely comparable in importance.

                • David, to be completely honest, I’m not sure which side has more but I’m guessing males do. Most of my education was by feminists though, which could have biased it. I’ve never seen a point by point comparison of men vs women, a tally of the privileges, which now I realize is quite stupid of me since it’s not comparable. Thank-you for highlighting that to me.

                  I apologize though and will try say in future IF males have more privileges and make more clear that I personally do not know. Maybe “Men and women both have privileges, one side can possibly have more than the other giving a power imbalance?”

                  Did you mean the university privilege for importance? I’d say it’s high up on importance, comparable one hmmm, possibly entry level income and salaries between genders?

                • “Archy you keep saying that but can you give an example of all this male privilege? I can’t think of any male privileges but you keep assuming there are some. I’ve asked this exact same question here more times than I can recall. Why on earth would you just assume the existence of something that nobody can even mention let alone demonstrate? It’s less rational than believing in Santa Claus. It’s like believing in Santa’s evil twin brother who you can’t say what his name is or what he looks like or what he does but you just know he exists.”

                  ht tp://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
                  ht tp://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2008/06/08/female-privilege/
                  ht tp://sweatingthroughfog.blogspot.com/2007/10/mens-privilages-vs-womans-privilage.html
                  Seems to be what I can find on male and female privilege, feel free to add more. Maybe a google spreadsheet for a table of each sides privileges.
                  I will admit the more I read into it, the more closer the sum of privileges for each seem to be so I will try to be mindful in future on how I discuss it. I believe they are theories still though, they do seem plausible but I am unsure of whether feminism has truly studied the bad men get, and the good women get in full detail along with the good men get and the bad women get. My opinion on privilege seems to be ever changing, both sides give good and bad arguments so I’m quite torn on the matter so because of that I shall try refer to them as theories and try avoid saying who has more.

                  Do you know of any sites that do a side by side comparison? Currently though I’m getting sick of all the comparing and who gets it worse oppression olympics. Wish we could all just fix the bad for both sides. The criticism is much appreciated btw, it’s a good way to learn how to debate a point better as I have trouble explaining what I mean properly. My views are constantly evolving every day, the more I learn, but it has remained clear that both genders need help.

                  • All these conversations and points i have seen before. The only thing that i find enjoyable is the silliness of some peoples positions. Like “if you read about feminism you would know women aren’t privileged”. Which is hilarious because if you bring up male disadvantage to a feminist they say “zomg whatabout themenz”. So how could reading about feminism show men are privileged and women are oppressed where they have already said they won’t listen to male disadvantage since feminism is about “equality for women”.

                    Circular arguments by well “educated” feminists is just depressing in the long run though.

                    Its like someone studied theology and thought that gave them insights into physics…

                    So i think i shall just say this a few times in future studying feminism doesn’t give you insight into men.

                  • John Anderson says:

                    I agree. It’s not a matter of who gets it worse. We should fix the bad for all. I do believe that there is another aspect being debated on the board, which is the source of the problem. Unless the root of the problem is determined, how can it be resolved? I have actually postulated that many of the gender norms we have today were not created by a mysterious patriarchy, but were first implemented out of necessity and common sense. It made sense for the person able to feed the children to remain with the children and it made sense that the physically stronger person to do the hunting in the hunter gather phase of man.

                    Are these gender roles still pertinent today? They are most likely irrelevant, but it is addressing the gender stereotypes that will correct the problem not attacking a mysterious patriarchy. Blaming the patriarchy for gender roles most likely negotiated and accepted by both genders only serves to alienate men as many men feel that this is a way for feminists to blame men for their own problems.

                    • John, before you talk about patriarchy, please read Allan G. Johnson’s excellent “The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy.” Johnson does not attack men and he explains very clearly how patriarchy works as a social system and how if affects all of us. He also shows us how we can work for something much better for both women and men.

                    • John Anderson says:

                      I found The Chalice and the Blade on the schools Ishare catalogue. It would have been better if my college had it. I haven’t checked with the librarians yet as to how long I can have it. I’d rather wait to give it a fair chance then try to cram it in at the end of the quarter. I’ll add The Gender Knot to my reading list.

                    • John Anderson says:

                      I will share an experience I had in high school. One teacher decided that we should discuss slavery and of course we were a bit reticent about the topic. One poor guy raised his hand and stated that he wouldn’t have treated his slaves badly. The teacher told him that he missed the point entirely. The problem wasn’t how the slaves were treated. It was that they were owned.

                      When I see something that on surface (I haven’t in fact read the book, The Chalice and the Blade yet) says that there are feminine and masculine traits that when the feminine traits are celebrated and the masculine traits are diminished, that is not an abusive society.

                      On the other hand, there is a system that benefits some to the detriment of others. Whether we call it patriarchy or gang mentality isn’t relevant. I ask myself, would an MRA, who believed that 80% of all rape accusations are false, believe his sister or even a female friend if she claimed she was raped? Would a feminist, who believed that rape accusation equals guilt, demand proof if her son or even a close male friend was accused? I’m leaning toward yes in both cases. We take care of our own supports the gang mentality theory.

                      The patriarchy probably benefits from keeping us separate a divide and conquer strategy. They do this by offering inducements to each side, privilege. If feminists were on to anything, it was their theory of kyriarchy, which would account for the different inducements the patriarchy provided the different groups.

                  • DavidByron says:

                    But you didn’t really answer my question.

                    I recognize the first link as Ampersand’s web site. I debated him more than 20 years ago. Yeah; we’ve met. A lot. He’s not a nice person. That list of his is utter bullshit. Can you tell me that you can read that list and recognise anything in that you’d really call and advantage for men?

                    I didn’t ask Ampersand. I asked you. What is this male privilege you keep talking about? I guess you can pick something from someone else’s list if you really have to but doesn’t that just prove my point? If you think men are better off shouldn’t you be able to give just one example of why?

                    I bet you could name half a dozen hugely important issues where women are better off without even trying. You wouldn’t need a list someone else made would you? But I have to keep asking everyone what on earth is this male privilege? That should tell you something.

                    • Was this to me? the comments on this article seem to be breaking from the nested format. Personally I’m totally unsure not of who is better off, and feel it’s such a complex issue that it’s hard to judge. You and others have helped show me certain things, and the more I see bias popup in studies about how women suffer, or 1 sided studies that don’t even bother to take into account male suffering….It’s left me completely unsure of who get’s it worse. The very idea of privilege now seems to be a problem for me because I am unsure how they actually determine a privilege, do they take into account the negatives a group faces or only list the positives?

                      I had thought women were better off but I was only exposed to how women suffer and never heard much of where men suffer, when I started to look into how men suffer it started to really dislodge old views. I’m still learning and have much more to learn of course, in the last 6 months my views have changed quite a few times as I’ve learned more. Either way, you’ve really got my mind thinking on the issue DB, thank-you.

                    • DavidByron says:

                      It was probably to you if it was asking about “male privilege” still. I try to make a point to challenge that slogan whenever I see it. It’s propaganda, by which I mean a slogan that makes its living primarily by repetition and often in the absence of any competition. I counter it by repetition also. “What male privilege?” asked of hundreds or even thousands of people on boards like this time and time again.

                      People often go from assuming men have it better to thinking it is 50-50. Well maybe but I wouldn’t believe that just as a default. Think of it this way. Feminism has been in power and working to make women’s position better than men’s for forty years. Is it too much to believe they succeeded?

                      And a lot of the problems men face are to do with being a father so if you refuse to ever date women, and drop out of the rat race, then I think you’ll avoid a lot of that discrimination. I guess that is what the Men Going There Own Way and the Japanese “herbivore men” are doing. It’s basically men going on strike from the job of being men.

                    • I too have wondered about my supposed ‘Male Privilege’.I mean, is it my beaten up body from working 38 years in heavy construction. Is that my ‘male privilige’? Is it the fact that at 57 years old, I seriously doubt I’ll live to see 70? (The last full audit of my union local’s pension fund found 82% of retirees dont live to see 5 years retired.) I’m not looking for a ‘pity party’. I made this ‘Faustian ‘ bargain many years ago knowing the price to be paid. It just seemed the way that I could provide the most for my family. (Besides, Vodka and Voltarin seem to take the edge off the pain). Hey, maybe THAT”S my male privilige!

                    • “And a lot of the problems men face are to do with being a father so if you refuse to ever date women, and drop out of the rat race, then I think you’ll avoid a lot of that discrimination. I guess that is what the Men Going There Own Way and the Japanese “herbivore men” are doing.

                      *** It’s basically men going on strike from the job of being men.***”

                      I agree with this. It’s the main cause of the marriage strike, MGTOW, men choosing to only date or marry women from non-feminist countries, and rise of the PUAs.

                      A lot of men have looked at our feminist society and have concluded that the only winning move is not to play. In fact, living up to the traditional role of 
being a man” is the best way to lose everything you’ve ever worked for and care about. Men aren’t going to “man up” and take on responsibilities because it’s just no longer worth it and, as many men have concluded, it’s too risky.

                      Only now is society starting to notice this. It’s the source of all the “Man Up” and “Where Have All the Good Men Gone” articles. These mainstream articles only ever discuss the symptoms and never the source of the problem, and they probably never will because it would require an adult conversation about feminism.

                      We reached a tipping point recently. There are now more single adults than married.

            • 100%Cotton says:

              Jacquline believes in the “Penis Premium” – that men are paid more just because they have a penis. Even good old tight wad slave wage Walmart happily rolls over, legs up, to pay men more just for the wonderfulness of being a penis bearer.

          • Evil Pundit says:

            Ah, that explains your inability to see the discrimination against men that is endemic in our society. Feminist academic indoctrination is both a cause and a symptom of the problem.

            Fortunately, the Internet is rapidly bypassing archaic and erroneous feminist outlooks, and developing serious, fact-based analysis of gender relations.

            • i don't believe you says:

              Yup

            • “Fortunately, the Internet is rapidly bypassing archaic and erroneous feminist outlooks, and developing serious, fact-based analysis of gender relations.”

              THIS!

              It such a task having to dredge through the endless false assertions, myth, superstitions and bogus stats. I sometime wonder if feminism is just a glorified and organised form of malicious gossip and false accusations relating to abuse.

              • Yes, that is what it is……..

              • “I sometime wonder if feminism is just a glorified and organised form of malicious gossip and false accusations relating to abuse.”

                Congratulations, you’ve won stupidest thing I’ve seen on the Internet today. Quite a feat!

          • “a central focus of my PhD is feminist theory”

            Ah well, we all have made our silly mistakes in life. BTW, I really like the picture of the dog on your site.

          • MorgainePendragon says:

            “central focus of my PhD is feminist theory.”

            Mine too, Jacqueline. Thanks for being a voice of reason here.

            • John Anderson says:

              Since I have two commentators seeking doctorates in feminist theory, I’d like to pose a serious question. I think that many of the gender roles were established prior to the existence of the patriarchy (I’m conceding its’ existence for the sake of the conversation) and were most likely mutually negotiated on based on common sense. The people who could feed the children stayed with them and the people physically stronger did the hunting / gathering.

              The patriarchy gave may intensified these gender roles and may continue to actively enforce them, but I doubt very much that the patriarchy established them. Could it be that because the gender roles were initially negotiated, many women support the patriarchy? That may explain why women make up most of the electorate, but consistently elect men. Michelle Bachmann ran against like 8 guys and still wasn’t a blip on the radar.

              I also have wiccan friends. If I understand correctly, they believe that men and women are equal halves to a whole, but are not interchangeable. Does feminism recognize gender differences and if they do, how does this affect their opposition to the gender roles proscribed by the patriarchy?

              • The patriarchy gave may intensified these gender roles and may continue to actively enforce them, but I doubt very much that the patriarchy established them.
                I have to share your sentiments here John. It seems that there is a believe that patriarchy created all this bad stuff. So now whenever someone points out some bad stuff they point the finger at this supposed system that is in place to benefit men (oh and notice that its never “men in power”, “men in control”, “men at the top” or anything like that no its just “men”).

                • I am in awe of the power and durability of this omnipotent force known as “patriarchy.” It has to be the most powerful, sophisticated, ingenious thing ever invented by humans. It’s practically a perpetual motion machine. It’s survived thousands of years, insinuated itself into every corner of the planet, has hundreds of disguises, and has survived every assault on it. And, it’s like The Matrix. Even when you don’t think it’s there, it’s really there. It tricks perfectly smart people into thinking it doesn’t exist. It’s tricked people into thinking that it’s embedded in our genes, and tricked other people into believing that it’s in crisis. It’s practically godlike in its awesomeness. Bloody brilliant.

            • Feminst theory and reason? Hello oxymoron!

    • “You people are kidding, right? These perspectives are so uninformed and outdated in theory that I’m offended that it was published”.

      Do you think there should be a law that such perspectives should not be published?

    • @ Jacqueline Schiappa

      This piece excludes, and is even dismissive of, huge bodies of work and advancements in feminist theory that problematize issues of (among other things): Race, sexuality, motherhood, geopolitical locations/assumptions. A FEW examples:

      Why not just state across all equality streams? It’s irksome that Disability never gets mentioned. It’s as if Disabled People Just don’t exist! P^/

      I have to say, that whilst Feminism may have raised Equality in general, there really are some equality issues around Disability that could do with being looked at – such as Gender Bias in Care. A female can require that all intimate care is provided Only by other females, but males are all too often denied that as a right. That issue has been “problematized” by supposed theory as well as practice.

      When hospitals have had to make redundancies and retain limited male nursing staff, over female nursing staff, to meet the male patient need, hospitals have been sued Unsuccessfully after accusations of bias against female employees. The court ruled in favour of the Hospital and the male patients. A great deal of wasted time and money die to “problematized” thinking and an imbalance of reality and priorities. Some use of theory that was!

      Should it be regarded as a Privilege for male patients to have dignity in intimate care in hospitals – or a legal right? Women have it – so what are the “problematized” theoretical objections for Equality for men too?

    • “- The “I’m allowed to be educated and career driven” thing smacks so loudly of ignorance and uninformed social/political/economic thinking that it’s hard to take seriously at all. One would only need a brief glimpse into the statistics and enduring evidence to realize that American labor and education systems still significantly privilege white hetero men.”

      Could you explain/defend this assertion? The information I have seen, such as statistical graduation from and enrollment in secondary and post-secondary (respectively) educational facilities, says otherwise in at least the gender area (white heterosexual females).

      “Feminists have been saying for years that the ways women have been historically oppressed relate in very important ways to the ways that people of color, of difference, Others in general, are oppressed. So it is in feminist interest to recognize how these oppressions RELATE and to stop thinking that they exist in their own neat little spaces.”

      Are you saying: If we look back on how other oppressed groups looked we will be able to draw similarities to women since they share these same appearances? I think that works more in men’s favor (Bitter-sweetly) As an example, oppressed peoples are more likely to commit suicide. This statistic is currently held by men, not women.

        • ht tp://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-updated-april-2011
          They based it on weekly income, do they have one based on hourly income? I’ve seen that men and women vary in hours worked per week which might create a setting where men earn more if they work more hours?

          The other side of this wage gap concern I’d say would be the time spent with kids, custody, etc, traditional male roles are breadwinner and traditional female role is child carer, do we see a similar gap for men in child care roles. A focus on income will show men earning more but focus on other aspects of work and home life balance could show women ahead. Maybe a report on time spent with children vs work time would be a good idea to see if women are more with the kids, and men more in the workplace?

          There are many overhauls needed for the workplace, access to promotions for parents is a big one (and tends to hit females more due to gender roles and also child custody), even sharing of workplace risk (men are the most likely to be injured or killed and actually employed in risky jobs), even sharing of low end jobs as well as high end.

          We also need to see more even sharing of child care roles, custody, etc so men too can have a good work/home life balance so quite frankly I truly believe fair laws on both the workplace, and also child custody are in the interests of men and women. More flexible hours for parents would also be very beneficial as the more responsibility you have as child carer, it seems the less likely you get promoted. The following article I believe fits that theory.

          ht tp://www.thestar.com/living/article/1116347–cribb-at-work-today-s-dads-are-where-women-were-40-years-ago

        • Sorry, I should have been more specific.

          I was refering to the educational gap she mentioned, and not the pay gap. While I have my ideas about why we percieve a difference in pay, I prefer to stay on the topics I have background in.

        • lol,d:
          I understand the idea of intersectionality and kyriarchy. However, if the term female privilege is an oversimplification, so too is male privilege.

          Feminists like to use the term male privilege and put on “pause” the narrative of intersectionality and ignore that most men have no more privilege than do women.

          In fact, many millions of men have far less privilege than do women.

          Men dominate over women in the same metrics blacks dominate over whites (to show oppression and disenfranchisement), specifically:

          suicide (4M to 1F), homelessness (9M to 1F), on-the-job deaths (19M to 1F), higher education degrees (2M to 3F), victims of violent crime (4M to 1F), incarceration (4 to 1), age disparity, likeliness to be murdered, health, health care, reproductive rights, parental rights. Men suffer much more injustice in all of these categories than do women.

          Feminists need to end their narcissistic urges to ignore men’s suffering so that they can apply class warfare labels to the genders: oppressors and victims.

          This narrative simply has NO BASIS in reality. If the fact that this narrative is being rejected by common sense wielding men and women irritates you, well you’re probably going to be a lot more irritated in the near future.

          LOL indeed.

    • “Feminists have been saying for years that the ways women have been historically oppressed relate in very important ways to the ways that people of color, of difference, Others in general, are oppressed.”

      I have a beef with this because there is nothing more obnoxious than privileged white females attaching themselves to the far more substantial oppression experienced by minorities for their own benefit, and all the while bashing white men as if white women had no relation to them whatsoever other than also having been denied opportunities by them. Worse yet is their habit of choosing who can be a victim of social injustice and who can’t as if their gender gave them moral authority on the matter.

      Even historically women of the majority were far better off than the males of victimized minorities. When the men of a given ethnic group do well, the women of that group benefit greatly . The serious oppression or exploitation of competing groups directly benfited white women for generations. The existence of gender roles and expectations are not equivelent to 400 years of slavery, genocide, segregation, interminet camps, or a host of other forms of oppression that relate to tribal style conflicts. Open warfare against a people is not the same as being expected to stay home and care for your own children.

      A ethnic minority today will be born in a home with vastly less wealth, cultural portablity, legacy of education, and opportunity than a white female. If you compare say black men and white women who do you think is doing a whole lot better? A women born of a well to do white man has the luxury of cultural connections, educated parents, and wealth. Even if she were to stay at home she will live in far more comfort than her minority counterparts and have vastly more opportunities to succeed outside the home. The fate of the men and women in any ethnic group tend to be tied together because they form families units.

      “One would only need a brief glimpse into the statistics and enduring evidence to realize that American labor and education systems still significantly privilege white hetero men.”

      Who do white hetero men marry? Who benefits…WHITE WOMEN. Recognize the privilege. Please dismount form the morally superior high horse. The more feminist try to push this intersectionality game the more they look like victim pimps looking for relevance in a culture that long ago accepted equality for women. White men in particular should be outraged at the amount of venom from white women who think they can line up with minorities to bash their fathers, brothers, and husbands.

    • The most egregious and obvious mistake in the thinking presented is: this reads just like a privileged, white, heterosexual able-bodied cis female wrote it.

      shouldnt that be TAB – temporarily able-bodied.
      you forgot to include ‘neurotypical/ aneurotypical’.
      failll 😉

      im just waiting for certain young feminists to come with up acronyms for the current mental state, and for mental health problems

      why do i get the sense that when ‘they’ list these privilegessss, they do so breathlessly while burning the skin of their back with a bull (or should that be a cow) whip

    • I agree with you, Jacqueline.

    • Thank you for having the only sensible opinion in this comments, Jacqueline.

    • DavidByron says:

      Here’s some more stuff feminists have been saying for years:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQWoNhrY_fM&feature=g-u-u&context=G23cfce6FUAAAAAAAEAA

      I guess you’re going to get a lot of responses to your views so I better back off 🙁
      Good luck.

    • The most egregious and obvious mistake in the thinking presented is: this reads just like a privileged, white, heterosexual able-bodied cis female wrote it.

      shouldnt that be TAB – temporarily able-bodied.
      you forgot to include ‘neurotypical/ aneurotypical’.

      • im just waiting for certain young feminists to come with up acronyms for the current mental state, and for mental health problems

        why do i get the sense that when ‘they’ list these privilegessss, they do so breathlessly while burning the skin of their back with a bull (or should that be a cow) whip

  59. Stephanie says:

    I am truly not impressed with this. I can tell you most if not all you say is not correct. Women do not stick up for other women when they are being attacked on a comment thread. I’ve experienced personally. Women generally coward along with everyone else on a thread when someone is being denigrated. If I heard a woman over 40 raving about a young man on the Twilight cast I would think she was just as perverted as the man from “American Beauty”. In my opinion you described hypocrisies not privileges. And honestly when women around the world are murdered because they aren’t virgins this is offensive. So whose female privilege are you talking about?!

    • “And honestly when women around the world are murdered because they aren’t virgins this is offensive”.

      I find it offensive that millions of males around the world are murdered or killed off in various ways because society still considers males the disposable sex.

    • “So whose female privilege are you talking about?!” She clarifies she is discussing her country and other western countries. I find it offensive that you would try to use the problems of one country to dismiss an argument you find unfavorable from another country. You are the kind of feminists that would argue (hypothetically speaking) that one country still only having 10% women CEO’s means all countries, including those with 90% women CEO’s need more women CEO’s. You argue from a perspective that a problem in one country is a problem in all, and that’s not a route to equality. That is why people can see feminism for it’s true colours, female empowerment, nothing more.

      • MorgainePendragon says:

        “including those with 90% women CEO’s”

        Provide an example (documented of course) of a SINGLE country that has 90% CEOs. Or even 50% CEOs.

        There aren’t even any countries on EARTH where women make up 50% of the government, let alone CEOs.

        And what’s wrong with female empowerment? As many, MANY people have pointed out here on TGMP, female empowerment does NOT = male disempowerment.

        • Mark Neil says:

          Ether you honestly don’t understand the term “hypothetically speaking” and didn’t care to look it up, or you are playing dumb, ether way, it demonstrates a failure on your part to even try being reasonable.

        • Hmmmmm,

          I can think of a few instances where feminists definitely believe that.

          NOW’s issuance of action alerts against shared parenting come to mind.

          Also, the fact that Strauss and Gelles are banned from testifying before the VAWA reauthorization hearings and many IPV conferences.
          Strauss and Gelles are the researchers who found 1 woman was abused every 15.5 seconds. But, since there research also shows 1 man is abused every 16 seconds (and they have been trying to push through gender neutral protocals in IPV) they are now banned.

          The female-victim-only IPV fundamentalists can’t stand to have their narrative of DV being a female issue destroyed and the DV “pie” split with male victims.

          Also, Erin Prizzey who opened the first DV shelter in england was threatened with bomb threats and harm against her family by radical feminists (who hijacked the shelter movement and turned it into a female-victim-only business) when she stated women were as abusive as men and was going to open her doors to male victims.

          Feminist theory may be about equality for everyone, but the way it is applied by zealot advocates shows that in fact they do believe in not only empowering women, but disempowering men.

    • Actually, Stephanie I can’t believe that your “take away” from American Beauty was that the father was a pervert.

      It’s been a while since I saw the movie, but the way I remember it was this.
      The father had a lustful inclination of his daughter’s best friend. He started getting in shape and strategizing to orchestrate a romantic encounter with her.

      When the moment actually came, and all the tumblers were turned in his favor and his big moment came, he found out that he had fallen for an over-sexualized image of the girl he had in his mind. He turned down sex with her. I would say that is personal growth.

      It’s interesting that your take away on this is that the guy was a pervert. He was emasculated. His wife couldn’t stand him. It’s not that surprising that under those conditions he would fantasize about a woman who seemed 1) available, 2) the epitome of the young beautiful woman 3) seemed interested in sex with him. But, then he grew up overcame the circumstances and made the right choice in the end.

      It just goes to show how little women believe in redemption if it is a man who has fallen from grace.

  60. Justin Cascio says:

    You feel you have a powerful voice. That is a good and true thing.

    1. You can use it to speak to the men in your life and let them know that you think it is quite all right for straight men to experiment sexually with other men. Speak against talk that perpetuates a culture normalizing rape, when you hear it.

    2. and 3. It’s disappointing that NZ has such sexist laws, and I hope that you will use your voice to speak out on this inequity, as well.

    4. Why do you still want the dates paid for, etc? You have a choice.

    5. You can shut down a conversation, because you have privilege. You also have the power to create dialogue that changes people’s minds.

    You write: “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….”

    This is why it is still a man’s world, Goodchild. It’s because in order to be allowed to compete on that uneven playing field against the “real men” who are invited to leadership, you have to alter your appearance in a way that is both neotonizing and sexualizing. Men who shave (I wear a beard) also neotonize, but our attire is not sexualizing. On the contrary, the suit and tie is a great uniform for success. It masks most of our physical differences in money. This is a privilege for men who don’t maintain their body to peak sexual attractiveness. You see how the uniform for women requires you to continue to appeal to the heterosexual male gaze, no matter your age or position of power.

    • Yes, Justin, this is all so true.

      She is right that she has a lot of privileges, and perhaps because of that, she isn’t really seeing the world as it is for women other than her.

      This article felt to me like just another way to placate men. I don’t believe men need to be placated. I believe they need to be challenged, just as I believe that I need to be challenged, feminism as an institution needs to be challenged, and the MRA organizations need to be challenged.

      • i don't believe you says:

        Really think about what you just said. If “male privilege” was as all powerful as you imply, then all of Goodwin’s supposed other privileges (even combined) couldn’t possibly change her perspective… because she’s not male. Basic Math.

      • “I don’t believe men need to be placated.”

        Men want and deserve peace. Do you want to be harangued for decades on end to be something that some group of men decided they want? You can’t just harass the opposite sex forever because the differences between them create disparities in some areas. We have practical equality, and within this nation at least we should be focused on improving relations between the genders instead of using a gender based movement to squeeze every conceivable concession out of men. In doing so the women in this movement have come to disregard the needs of men along with their desire for love, respect, and kindness from women.

        Simply put, PLEASE STOP ATTACKING MEN IN GENERAL. It’s not nice.

      • John Anderson says:

        I’ve seen this before on feminist boards. There’ll be an article on male perpetrated sexual violence and some poor MRA will suggest that the article should mention male victims of female perpetrators and that is when you see the “what about the mhenz” complaints. I’ve read some feminists suggest that some feminist boards are a female space and complain that men
        comment at all.

        I’ve struggled with these concepts myself. Does every article concerning female rape victims have to mention male rape victims? I think each gender should have a safe space where they can discuss things The best argument I heard against men running in female oriented races was that it was rude.

        Maybe someone at GMP can write an etiquette guide.

        • Was this posted on the right article John? I’m kinda confused at who you are replying to.

          • John Anderson says:

            Replying to Joanna’s statement, “This article felt to me like just another way to placate men.”, but it is something that I have thought about.

            • Ahhhh, makes sense now. And yes I too have noticed the “whataboutthewomenz” type comments on here and other male-spaces, it’s surprised me at first but I guess every group has a few of them.

              I myself am torn on it, I think I prefer articles to have 2 separate discussions, 1 about the female only, or male only, and another that can expand and ask the questions of if both genders suffer it, are their similar links etc. Articles on male privilege though are going to attract whataboutthemenz though because to show privilege without showing the negatives that come with it, it can appear to be a much better deal to some. I mean who wouldn’t want to earn more money from your gender, even though your gender is more at risk of occupational injuries and deaths. Who wouldn’t want to be known as strong, even though your gender is first to fight, first to die, and if you don’t fight you’ll get a white feather by women no less (old example but it suits the argument).

              I just hope people realize that with privilege does exist, but there’s also a lot of harmful restrictions and that go along with BOTH genders.

        • DavidByron says:

          Sex segregationism is bad. People who disagree include radical feminists and the Taliban.

        • I remember reading a jezebel article about MRA’s and whether or not they have authentic complaints about anti-male bias.
          One of those complaints was about unequal DV arrests by cops and unequal services for male victims.

          As I was skimming the comments I found two comments about 3 short posts apart.
          The first commenter said:
          A) Women built there own shelters f*ck men, let them build their own shelters.
          The second commenter said:
          B) Absolutely feminism is about EQUALITY between the genders.

          You just can’t stack the bull sh1t much higher than that. It reminds me of in vietnam when the North would put their anti-aircraft guns next to hospitals. Either the Americans would not bomb the guns, or if they did they were seen to be bombing hospitals.

          The angry inconsolable feminists use the equity feminists as a human shield. What’s interesting is that the (so called) equity feminists never call out the angry feminists on their behavior.

          That tells me there is a complicit agreement here. Even the (seemingly) noble feminists (at least on sights like jezebel and pandagon) WON’T call out their more equality-challenged sisters, because those sisters are STILL advocating for women.

          In other words even the nobler feminists at these sights think it is mens jobs to advocate for themselves against the more hysterical feminists. As long as the radical sisters continue to get her more privilege, then men’s rights are men’s business (even while she is calling for women’s rights to be EVERYBODY’S business).

          The simple truth of course is feminists did NOT do it all on their own. They did not build a damn thing. They approached government, who secured grants to build DV shelters. In other words, feminists made a plea to “big bad patriarchal authority” to help them. Funny how that works.

      • DavidByron says:

        They don’t need to be placated; they need to be apologised to.

    • MorgainePendragon says:

      Yes, thank you, Justin and Joanna.

      Also, as I live in New Zealand (having lived in a number of other countries), I can say that

      “It’s disappointing that NZ has such sexist laws, and I hope that you will use your voice to speak out on this inequity, as well.”

      is just not true. NZ has no more “sexist” laws than the US, Australia, etc– women get no more privilege in domestic abuse, rape and child custody cases than they do anywhere else.

      And the idea that women make better parents and therefore are more likely to get custody is part and parcel of patriarchy and male-privilege– WOMEN didn’t set up those laws. Just b/c a male-dominated socio-political structure maintains values that disadvantage some men (and not the rich and powerful ones either) doesn’t make those values based in “female privilege”, FFS.

      In fact, it’s feminism that has brought Western society around to the idea that men MIGHT want to be nurturers and care-givers and COULD actually be as effective parents as women.

      And although New Zealand ranks in the top 10 of nations in the world in pay equity, that equity still doesn’t exist. The current government, in fact, has publicly stated that it has no interest in ensuring that women receive equal pay for equal work– in the face of Australia’s current multi-million dollar initiative to do so.

      New Zealand is actually sliding backwards in terms of women (and Maori and Islander) equality.

      • Evil Pundit says:

        ‘NZ has no more “sexist” laws than the US, Australia, etc– women get no more privilege in domestic abuse, rape and child custody cases than they do anywhere else.’

        This is technically true. All liberal democracies have sexist laws that unfairly discriminate against men – and all are becoming worse by the year. NZ is not an exceptional case – women have privilege over men in most Western countries.

      • “And the idea that women make better parents and therefore are more likely to get custody is part and parcel of patriarchy and male-privilege– WOMEN didn’t set up those laws. Just b/c a male-dominated socio-political structure maintains values that disadvantage some men (and not the rich and powerful ones either) doesn’t make those values based in “female privilege”, FFS.”

        Actually, MorgainePendragon, it means that “patriarchy” isn’t simply a system of male privilege. There are female privileges associated with “patriarchy.” Trying to say that female privilege and male disadvantage is secretly just all male privilege is willful blindness. “Patriarchy” benefits men in many things and women in at least some things (perhaps many things, in liberal “patriarchies” like ours). It is maintained and defended, in probably near-equal measures, by men and women. Men probably harass more, but I would bet anything women slut- and fat-shame more. Calling this system patriarchy might be valid in the sense that it generally values male leadership more highly, but it also genders the problem so awkwardly that I wonder if the semantics don’t make things worse.

        • MorgainePendragon says:

          “it means that “patriarchy” isn’t simply a system of male privilege. ”

          Nobody said that it was. I certainly didn’t. But the majority of men who try to uphold patriarchy do so because of the privileges it grants them (and ditto for women who try to uphold patriarchy).

          Patriarchy is a system that values power over life (and quality of life); dominance over cooperation; and control over pleasure. It is a system that privileges the few over the many– but within every class, men are privileged over women. Across classes/groups, sometimes SOME men are subordinate to SOME women, but in general, men benefit within their class.

          The truth of patriarchy (and male privilege) is that most of the benefit goes to the elite few. Yet the vast majority of men who uphold patriarchy simply refuse to recognise that they are not the primary beneficiaries. It’s simply wilful ignorance.

          It’s just like the members of the 99% who claim NOT to be members of the 99%, because they believe that ONE DAY they will be members of the 1%.

          Self-delusion is really the most effective means of preventing social change.

          • Marcus Williams says:

            The truth of patriarchy (and male privilege) is that most of the benefit goes to the elite few.

            If patriarchy is understood as a socio-political description, and not a conspiracy (i.e., “The Patriarchy”), then it seems reasonable to compare them with matriarchies. I’m not saying we live in one or that there are many to be found these days, but just in principle, would you agree that in matriarchies, most of the benefit accrues to an elite few, and the scales tip in women’s favor instead of men’s?

            I’m not suggesting we have to choose between patriarchy and matriarchy as the only two options, but my point is that you frequently describe what sounds to me like problems of power imbalances, while making it sound like you think it’s a man thing, instead of a power thing. You describe men wanting to uphold patriarchy, when I think it’s more accurate to say that people try to hold on to whatever power they have.

            When you make it a man thing, it makes me (a man) defensive and inclined to dismiss you, because it sounds like you’re saying you (and women generally) are not susceptible to abuse of power or wanting to hold on to what privileges you have or get in the future. If you make it a power thing, then I feel like you’re talking as one fallible human to another, and maybe we can make some headway (or at least listen without defensiveness) addressing power imbalances that both of us suffer from and benefit from.

            Patriarchy = Privileged males being oppressive on purpose = Why talk to someone who appears to hate me?

            Power Imbalance = Humans suck at wielding power = Let’s talk and see if we can do better.

            • MorgainePendragon says:

              “then it seems reasonable to compare them with matriarchies”

              There has never been ANY evidence that a matriarchy (defined as a society where women oppress men as men oppress women in patriarchy) has EVER existed.

              The vast majority of humans over the vast majority of our time on Planet Earth have lived (and many still do) in cooperative, egalitarian social structures that have very little violence and do not use dominance and control to enforce gender (or any other kind of) roles.

              Patriarchy is a relatively new socio-political phenomenon– before 10,000 years ago, there was almost no war and very little human-on-human violence. As patriarchy spread across continents and cultures, it essentially wiped out all other cultures that valued life over power (ie, cultures that weren’t willing to kill everyone in order to maintain their power structure). The ancient cooperative societies that still exist mainly exist b/c they are far from “civilisation”.

              We have alternatives and many people are choosing them now: I highly recommend Riane Eisler’s work in this area. She avoids the term patriarchy, choosing to describe cultures as either dominator or cooperative (but her research, like the majority of other anthropological and archeological research, shows that dominator cultures are almost without exception androcentric: ie, male dominated and set up to benefit men).

              The point is not who is “right” or “wrong”; the point is, do we change in order to survive? If we continue on this patriarchal military one-up-manship path, or alternatively on the current path to making the planet uninhabitable, it won’t matter who is “right” or “wrong”. But a system that values power over life (patriarchy) will, in the end, destroy us all.

              • @ MorgainePendragon – “There has never been ANY evidence that a matriarchy (defined as a society where women oppress men as men oppress women in patriarchy) has EVER existed.

                To paraphrase you – “No Honey – Really, you need to learn your subject if you’re going to talk about these things” – you need to do your homework – “Never” is such a big thing to address and claim! P^)

                19 January 2012 Last updated at 15:26

                Meghalaya, India: Where women rule, and men are suffragettes

                In the small hilly Indian state of Meghalaya, a matrilineal system operates with property names and wealth passing from mother to daughter rather than father to son – but some men are campaigning for change.

                http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16592633

                Of course this can all be dismissed as it’s from that bastion of bias and anti-feminsit propaganda The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) – and was mainly featured on that Gross Propaganda Service Radio 4 and the Truly Evil World Service.

                Listen to the
                BBC Radio 4 version

                Download the
                podcast

                Listen to the
                BBC World Service version

                Glad to be able to help with your homework, honey! P^)

                • MorgainePendragon says:

                  From the article you cited:

                  “I talk to Patricia Mukkum, the well-respected editor of Shillong’s daily newspaper. She assures me that her heritage is only one of the reasons why she has risen to the level she has and points out that the tradition of excluding women from the political decision making process is still very strong in their culture.”

                  It’s not a matriarchy in the sense that men are oppressed by women as women are oppressed by men in patriarchy. JUST as I originally stated.

                  Yet again, do your homework. Or just learn to read comprehensively.

                  I’ve been studying this for many years. I’ve done my homework. The fact that you never knew that John Stuart Mill and Mary Wollstonecraft advocated for more engaged fatherhood shows that you have not.

                  I suggested sources where you might educate yourself. Since you clearly have not availed yourself of those sources, I take it you have no interest in doing so.

                  • @ MorgainePendragon – a most serious question!

                    I’ve been studying this for many years. I’ve done my homework. The fact that you never knew that John Stuart Mill and Mary Wollstonecraft advocated for more engaged fatherhood shows that you have not.

                    When have I ever indicated anything about or made comment about “John Stuart Mill and Mary Wollstonecraft advocated for more engaged fatherhood”?

                    This is one of the big issues that so many have with what you say.

                    You keep inventing views, attitudes “TO” people and coming up with supposed knowledge about other people – which is wrong! You then fail to address you own errors!

                    Why is that?

                    I’ve done my homework – but I enjoy psychology, semantics and esoteric fields such as Conflict Transformation!

                    Are you Woman Enough to take the challenge P^)

                    Click here! http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/heresy-rape-statistics-and-getting-away-from-the-poles/comment-page-1/#comment-93033

              • John Anderson says:

                @ MorgainePendragon

                You say

                “There has never been ANY evidence that a matriarchy (defined as a society where women oppress men as men oppress women in patriarchy) has EVER existed.”

                Then say

                “other anthropological and archeological research, shows that dominator cultures are almost without exception androcentric: ie, male dominated and set up to benefit men).’

                Since you cite “other anthropological and archeological research”, did you just conveniently ignore yjis when you denied the existence of ANY evidence or are you simply being dishonest?

                I thought that “almost without exception” meant that there were exceptions. If dominant cultures favor one sex over the other and not all dominant cultures were androcentric, that follows that there were dominate cultures that were female centric and set up to benefit females unless there is a third sex.

                Maybe you should work on your writing comprehension, honey, at least before you start working on your thesis.

          • “Yet the vast majority of men who uphold patriarchy simply refuse to recognise that they are not the primary beneficiaries. It’s simply wilful ignorance.”
            Do women benefit in some cases over men (although the sum of female privileges less than sum of male privileges = men have more privileges) and could they too be living in wilful ignorance to this?

            • MorgainePendragon says:

              Sure, Archy. I would NEVER deny that many women uphold patriarchy (just as many men recognise its toxicity and work to end it).

              The kind of women who uphold patriarchy, however, are the ones that many men on this site complain about: They are the ones that value men only based on how much $$ and power they have. They do NOT see themselves as able to become independently strong and self-sufficient (because they have internalised patriarchal values) so they believe they MUST rely on a man for that. And the only ones they trust to do so are the “alpha” males– because those are the people who succeed in patriarchy.

              And of course there are the Margaret Thatchers and Condoleeza Rices who choose to “do” patriarchy better than the men around them, because that’s the ONLY way women succeed in patriarchy.

          • Morgraine says:

            “Patriarchy is a system that values power over life (and quality of life); dominance over cooperation; and control over pleasure. It is a system that privileges the few over the many– but within every class, men are privileged over women.”

            Morgraine, I just don’t understand where you are coming from. This is categorically not true in the US. I have to wonder if you would classify the US as a patriarchy or not.

            Because in the USA when you take the metrics by which scholars show widespread black oppression and disenfranchisement and turn them to gender it can be demonstrably shown it is men who are the oppressed and disposable sex. Homelessness, suicide, victims of violent crime, incarceration (including an unfair anti-male sentencing disparity), education, health care, parental rights all have systematically been ignored for me.

            You state in “EACH CLASS” men have more privilege than women, but it can be demonstrably shown that black men face much worse rates of victims of violence and lower rates of education, less employment, more suicide, worse health care. It’s demonstrably shown the base of the power pyramid is built upon black men.

            Even if you direct your views to the first half of the 1900’s, I don’t see wide-spread oppression of women, but wide-spread oppression of all by a few elites.

            Women may have had a greater curtailment of options, but men were expected to undertake dangerous and risky tasks (and to be proud to do it).

            28,000 men died building the panama canal. The only concievable way in which 28,000 women would have died in the US in that same time would be some indescribably horrible natural disaster.
            Whatever the curtailment of choices of women, at least their worth was always affirmed (or when it was denied or minimized it can be shown men’s was even more so). Men’s worth was always denied.

            28,000 dead women? Indescribably horrible. 28,000 dead men = the “low” cost of world trade. Look at the documented story (revised here ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJcAeJ8YRo ) of Patton slapping a soldier who had shell shock and said he couldn’t go back to the front (it turned out the soldier had malaria).
            This is the reality for men in most of modern (and I would hypothesize ancient) history: do what you’re supposed to do, f*cker or be the scum of society (and if a soldier you’ll spend 10 years in leavenworth).

            How can you come to any conclusion that we had systemic oppression of only (or much more greatly) women??

            The choices are so different it’s an apples and oranges matchup: be restricted in choices (and much much safer), or have the illusion of freedom (work this dangerous job or starve) and be much less safe, and be cajoled and castigate if you step off the mark for even one second of what a “real man” is (i.e. chump).

            Why are you so HEAVILY INVESTED in believing women were the sole (or much more greatly oppressed)?

      • John Anderson says:

        In fact, it’s feminism that has brought Western society around to the idea that men MIGHT want to be nurturers and care-givers and COULD actually be as effective parents as women.

        Actually it was the father’s rights movement that first took this position. If I remember correctly that was started by surprise a man, Jeffrey Leving. If memory serves, the battle for criminalizing interfere with child custody which as I recall was strenuously opposed by feminist organizations. I seem to recall that not only did feminist groups insist that women made better parents, but that they were also better situated to determine the fitness of the father than the courts.

        The father’s rights movement eventually got it criminalized, but as a concession to the feminists, men still have to go through hoops to even get it prosecuted and if successful it is categorized as one of the least serious of criminal offenses unless repeated.

        Under the criminal law,4 visitation interference is a “petty offence” (like a traffic ticket) for the first two violations. After that, however, the stakes are raised and the charge becomes a Class A misdemeanor which means punishment may be in the form of imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to $2,500.

        http://www.illinoisdivorce.com/family_law_articles/visitation_laws.php

        • MorgainePendragon says:

          ” it was the father’s rights movement that first took this position.”

          Uhm, no, honey, Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill brought up these possibilities and issues in the 18th century.

          Really, you need to learn your history if you’re going to talk about these things.

          • John Anderson says:

            Mary Wollstonecraft, 1759-1797. That would be the 16th century.
            In 1792, she published her Vindication on the Rights of Woman, an important work which, advocating equality of the sexes,
            I know that feminists claim that this is their goal. It just does not in fact seem to be the goal of a substantial number of feminists. As I’ve said. I’ve been on many feminist boards. I’ve seen anti-male comments and have seen them attacked at points. Unfortunately, the anti-male backlash tends to silence them. I’ve yet to see any of these positions attacked as anti-feminist.

            If we go back through Christian/Judeo religion we see many references to God’s (he) children, God the father, etc. It seems that these were fairly clear illustrations in western tradition that men could be good parents, that is if you cared to look.

            • MorgainePendragon says:

              “Mary Wollstonecraft, 1759-1797. That would be the 16th century.”

              LAUGHING MY FUCKING ASS OFF! That’s so good, it deserves more than just an acronym.

          • John Anderson says:

            Actually you’re right about the 18th century. I should hold off responding until after the football games. On the more substantive point of feminism bringing western society around to the idea that men might want to parent, etc., you are definitely incorrect. The mother figure does not appear until Mary and many scholars wouldn’t even consider her a mother figure as she is not technically a goddess. It seems that in Judeo/Christian traditional, men not only made good (superior) parentsm but made good single parents.

            If you want to argue contemporary thinking, the father’s rights movement had to overcome the feminist lobby to get father’s rights recognized. The feminist lobby actually lobbied against the criminalization of visitation obstruction at least in Illinois.

      • Morgraine says:
        “And the idea that women make better parents and therefore are more likely to get custody is part and parcel of patriarchy and male-privilege– WOMEN didn’t set up those laws.”
        =============================
        A) not true. Feminists (in the USA at least) were a HUGE part of the momentum to pass no-fault divorce laws.
        B) If these laws are patriarchal in nature and an affront to feminism, then why does NOW fight against shared parenting laws in every state in which a state legislature is considering drafting shared parenting legislation?
        Ever single time shared parenting comes up, NOW issues an action alert encouraging their members to write in to various family or law sub-committees to get shared parenting stopped?

        It seems that NOW does NOT support breaking down gender roles for men and women, if it means upsetting a money train for millions of women.

        Instead of narrating your beliefs to others Morgraine, you need to make sure those beliefs are built upon valid evidence.

        • Here’s a woman who understands that feminism and chivalry (or patriarchy if you prefer) are actually the perfect bedfellows.

          ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA&feature=related

          I have NEVER seen so clear, concise, and evidence & logic based explanation of the hypocrisy of feminism.

        • MorgainePendragon says:

          “And the idea that women make better parents and therefore are more likely to get custody is part and parcel of patriarchy and male-privilege– WOMEN didn’t set up those laws.”
          =============================
          A) not true. Feminists (in the USA at least) were a HUGE part of the momentum to pass no-fault divorce laws.

          Ah. So before feminism, everybody believed that MEN were the better primary caregivers, it was MEN who stayed home from the fields and the factories and took care of the children, it was MEN who got saddled with the kids when WOMEN decided they wanted to go off for some “strange”?

          LMFAO, no, I don’t think so.

          “NOW fight against shared parenting laws in every state in which a state legislature is considering drafting shared parenting legislation?”

          Provide documented evidence of this. It is a LIE.

          • Didn’t a family used to need both parents? So your hyperbole assertion of men being the primary caregiver before feminism is a strawman. Before feminism, it took a fathers discipline, a mothers affection, a fathers drive and a mothers support, a fathers providing and protection and a mothers care and attention. But feminism played a large role in telling us all those things fathers did were 1: abusive, 2: unnecessary, or 3: something a woman could do just as well (but the reverse was untrue, as all those things mothers did were inherent to women)

            “LMFAO”

            Offensive and dismissive. this is the gaslighting your precious Hugo was describing.

            “Provide documented evidence of this. It is a LIE.”

            While the action elerts themselves don’t appear to be archived (there are plenty of fathers rights rticles discussing them though, I did find these articles:

            New York Chapter president:
            http://www.nownys.org/fathers_resp.html

            Michigan Chapter president:
            http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html

            • MorgainePendragon says:

              Yes, it is a lie that “NOW fight against shared parenting laws in every state in which a state legislature is considering drafting shared parenting legislation”

              as we can see from this quote from the LINK YOU PROVIDED:

              “Under current law, any separating couple in NY State can choose joint custody if they think that is best for their family, and both the National Organization for Women (NOW) – New York State and StopFamilyViolence.org support their right to do so.”

              Here is a quote from the other link you provided that reveals your agenda and also provides documented evidence of why it is NOT best for children:

              “Michigan NOW opposes FORCED [emphasis mine–mp] joint custody for many reasons: it is unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support.

              “FORCED [emphasis mine–mp] joint custody is also a top legislative priority of fringe fathers’ rights groups nationwide. These groups argue that courts are biased and sole custody awards to mothers deny fathers their right to parent. They allege that, in most cases, mothers are awarded sole custody, with fathers granted visitation rights. The men cite this as proof of bias against fathers.

              “The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases.”

              • John Anderson says:

                “The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases.”

                Do you think that might be that when father’s dispute joint custody it’s because the mother is completely and utterly unfit and that mothers may more routinely oppose joint custody to gain some advantage in a divorce case. That just seems to prove that fathers don’t abuse the system.

                • Well spoken John.
                  Another likely issue with the statement that when mothers get custody it is agreed upon, is the fact that more than likely the fathers attorney told him that if he fights for custody he will likely pay dozens of thousands of dollars and has a good chance that he will actually wind up with less custody.

                  It’s amazing that everywhere else where there is a disparity that favors males (CEO’s, legislatures, judges etc..) disparity DEFAULTLY equals discrimination, but when female-advantaged disparities are pointed out, most feminists will declare “nothing to see here! Just private choices in action!”

                  This in the face of dozens of studies showing kids have greatly improved outcomes and development with substantial time with loving fit dads.

                  If children’s well-being has to be thrown on the altar of feminism so be it.

              • Morgraine,

                Regarding what you said about Michigan shared parenting:
                “Michigan NOW opposes FORCED A) [emphasis mine–mp] joint custody for many reasons: it is unworkable for uncooperative parentsB); it is dangerous for women C) and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it D)ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; E)and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support.

                A) the michigan shared parenting law that was being discussed only instructs judges to start from a presumption of shared parenting for those cases in which the two parents can’t agree to a schedule. So, you’re already going to be reducing conflict in high-conflict cases because you won’t have this huge winnger-takes-all verdict that will breed resentment and anger.

                B) The presumption for shared custody will be set aside when there is clear and convincing evidence that 1 parent is unfit, or a parent is unable or unwilling to assume equal custody. I think a key provision that has feminists mad, is that this part brings the family courts into the 21st century. There needs to be EVIDENCE for 1 parent to be proven unfit to parent his/her children. In other words, this new family law bill will do away with all of the perjury and allegations of wrong-doing just to use the kids as a weapon in divorce (done much more often by women in divorce–at least successfully).

                C, ahhhh the old danger trick. If a husband is truly dangerous then the mother will have ample evidence of that. And, having been proven unfit, the wrong-doing mother or father would not get shared custody (and may not even get unsupervised visitation)

                D in other words, you don’t like a cookie-cutter approach that equalizes time between parents that does away with the cookie-cutter approach that maximizes mothers time? AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

                E and in this quote at the end we see NOW’s real focus:
                “and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support”
                It’s all about securing substantially better outcomes in divorce (hint: some would call that female privilege).

                Morgraine:
                This isn’t the first time NOW has totally misrepresented a shared parenting bill to try and defeat it.

                Read F&F’s rebuttal about what the bill ACTUALLY STATES in refutation of NOW’s alarmism (dad’s having custody is **scary** and **dangerous**)

                ht tp://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=566

                • And, lastly: here’s the kicker. If NOW really believes in shattering gender norms, then instead of trying to defeat the bills, why don’t they try to work with fathers rights activists to make the bill better?

                  Because NOW doesn’t WANT fathers parenting their own children.

                  NOW supports the children being used as weapons and cash cows by women. Aren’t they supposed to be for equality? Aren’t they supposed to be for breaking gender norms?

                  So, why would they try to defeat the bill instead of making it better?

                • I would like to add to your point about “the old danger”. As you note, any case that has evidence of abuse is often dealt with accordingly. This leaves the cases of unknown abuse, which is likely what feminists are trying to use (IE, it’s etter to be safe and take the child away from fit fathers then risk abuse)…

                  That said, that argument ignores the fact that mothers and their boyfriends are far more likely to abuse a child then fathers and their girlfriends. This means the current system protecting some children against unknown father abuse by sacrificing a whole bunch of others to full time mother abuse. These children suffering unknown abuse by mothers are with the mothers full time (and if one doesn’t think such a mother is going to deny visitation to hurt the ex/child and hide any evidence…). These unknonw abused children have no way out, they don’t have a loving father to spend half their time with. Add to all this that an accusation is more likely to be more thoroughly investigated when levied angainst a father (because we all know men are the abusers :rolleyes:), meaning less of the abusive fathers are lkely to get through unknown.

                  So, to save a handfull of children from unknown father abuse 1/2 the time (shared parenting), these domestic violence advocates claiming to be in childrens best interests are going to sacrifice at least as many, if not more children to abuse by their mothers full time… AND will risk all non abused children’s relationships with their fathers.

                  Seems to me shared parenting, which grants equal time to both parents, actually does more to protect children, by granting access to both parents who can look after them (a child is less liekely to confess that the mother they live with full time is abusing them to the father they see once every two weeks for a couple days then they are to confess to the father they see every week for a week), and watch for signs of abuse (and just acts as a deterent, an abuser is likely to abuse if the other parent will get to see the child in a couple days, while the bruises still show). These DV advocates are throwing children under the bus to maintain a men are abusers dialog. It’s sickening, and worst, people have been buying it.

                  • Mark, great points.
                    I just had a huge comment in reply to you eaten by the refresh mode.
                    I’ll try to re-type my comment later.

                    • I truly hate that. I don’t trust this site with writing a post, always do it in notepad or word or similar.

              • ““Under current law, any separating couple in NY State can choose joint custody if they think that is best for their family, and both the National Organization for Women (NOW) – New York State and StopFamilyViolence.org support their right to do so.””

                All this says is that NOW supports when women make the choice to have “joint” (not the same as shared) custody. This doesn’t say that they support men’s right to be fathers to their children. It doesn’t say they support the idea that women should be reasonable. Only that in the cases people (read women) choose this option, they suport it.

                “The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian.”

                It’s actually “primary custody”, not sole. Unless you can source otherwise.

                I’m going to try a hypothetical scenario with you again (didn’t work so well last time, but maybe this time you’ll actually acknowledge it)… You are looking to come to an arrangementon the custody of your child. Your partner offers you every second saturday and one sunday a month and an expectation of 25% of your pre-tax salary in child support and spousal support as the agreement. You want a full 50% time with your child and can barely pay the rent on your two bedroom (so you have a place for your child to stay on visits), car (because you are expected to pick up and drop off your child at all times, despite your partner moving to the opposite suburbs 1:1/2 hours away (each way) and credit card debts she racked up at the end of the marrage (which are all in your name since your ex was a stay at home parent).

                Now, you know this deal sucks, but if you don’t accept it, you are going to need to pay a lawyer (which you can’t afford) to fight it out in court (which you need time off work for), all so that you MIGHT be able to get the second sunday a month based on the every second weekend precident that most family courts dish out… Will you take the deal you ex offered?

                Now, set a precedent that you will get 50/50 time with your child instead of every second weekend… now will you take your ex’s deal?
                Think about this for a minute and then come back and tell me again why you think so many of these arrangements are “mutually” accepted?

                “According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases.”

                Again, wrong terminology. When custody is disputed, more fathers win “joint custody” (meaning some time and some say in childcare decisions) then when not contested. Women still remain the predominant winners of primary custody (though they don’t win sole custody as often as they get it when not contested).

                Just for clarification, here is the terminology:

                Sole custody = full say in childcare descisions (medical, schooling religion). Time is split as custody arrangement sets out.

                Joint custody = Shared say in childcare descisions (medical, schooling religion). Time is split as custody arrangement sets out.

                Primary custody = Being the primary caregiver, IE, having custody the majority of the time (usually 65%+)

                Shared custody = 50/50 time and say.

                Not understanding these properly can results in minunderstandings that distort your argument, such as fathers “winning” (like spending time with your child should need to be won) custody when going to court being dostrted to sound like primary custody, when really, it just means they get a say and some time, still usually less. And If I’m not mistaken, the statistics show (and I notice you don’t mention the effects of going to court on mothers) that less mothers get sole custody when going to court, but more actually get primary.

                I don’t have the actually numbers, but it looks something like this, in arrangements, 83% of mothers get primary custody, 57% of those are sole custody, but if you go to court, a mother is 85% likely to get primary custody, but only 51% likely to get sole custody. So mothers are actually more likely to get more time with the child, but need to share the descision making with the father more often.

                • Mark,
                  From what I have read the numbers are much worse.
                  Mothers get sole physical custody 80% to dads 6%, and shared physical custody is given in 14% of cases nation-wide.

                  • disregard that last statement. I see now you were referring to contested cases only.

                  • Mark Neil says:

                    I know you said disregard, but I think you’re making the same mistake as Morgain in confusing they types of custody (in this case primary and sole). Based on the numbers you provided, there is no room left for joint custody with ether mother or father having primary custody. What each type of custody provides causes a lot of confusion, and some people use that to their advantage to imply something that isn’t true… Most common being the claim, “when a father takes a custody case to court, he is more likely to get custody”, but all that means is he is more likely to get a say in how his child is raised (school, medical, religion, etc), not that he gets primary or sole custody, as the statement tries to imply. “Custody” includes joint custody, where the mother remains primary caretaker and the father gets every other weekend, but the statement tries to imply more than that.

                    there are 5 potential arrangements for custody (you numbers would dismiss the 2nd and 4th options. Change the term sole to primary and it works (because sole custody includes primary)):

                    *Mother has sole (and thus, primary) custody (total say), father gets visitation as agreed upon.
                    *Mother gets primary custody, both parents get say in school, medical, religion, etc. Father gets visitation as agreed upon.
                    *Shared custody 50/50 on everything
                    *Father gets primary custody, both parents get say in school, medical, religion, etc. Mother gets visitation as agreed upon.
                    *Father has sole (and thus, primary) custody (total say), Mother gets visitation as agreed upon.

                    To my understanding, regardless of whether it’s contested in courts or agreed upon, mother getting sole custody is most common arrangement, shared parenting or father sole custody is most rare.

                    • You are correct in that I was using primary and sole custody interchangeably.

                      From what I have seen the courts routinely call it “legal shared custody” but the mother receives primary physical custody. The standard cookie-cutter approach is to give dads alternating weekends and every wednesday.

                      whatever you call it, it’s one of the most blatant systematic examples of bias and discrimination I have seen.

                      NOW and other feminist organizations clearly do not fight for the rights of both genders (or for children) when they turn a blind eye (or fight against fixing) the lopsided (80% vs 6%) custody which has remained unfrozen for nearly 40 years.

                      The idea that NOW or WEAVE are equalist organizations is just laughable.

                    • Mark Neil says:

                      “legal shared custody” is another way of saying joint custody, which, to my understanding, came about shortly after the call from fathers for shared parenting. “legal Shared custody” is synonymous with joint custody, in that it is the sharing of legal decision making power (IE choice), not of time involved. It is the counterpart to “sole legal custody” (IE, sole custody) which grants all legal decision making power in the hands of one parent. Technically, the term custody has two parts, legal and physical. When used without a one of these terms to define it, the term generally refers to legal custody.

                      And yes, now and many feminist groups (American bar for women being another big one. is it any surprise, most of them are family lawyers with plenty to gain by the current winner (mother) takes all dynamic) oppose men’s rights, often turning to DV or best interests of children to do so, because area’s of men’s concerns are largely family based. They also use many of the arguments used by old time misogynists of days past to keep women out of the workforce (EG, women are just better at caring for children. men can’t nurture the way a woman can, etc)

              • Yes, it is a lie that “NOW fight against shared parenting laws in every state in which a state legislature is considering drafting shared parenting legislation”

                as we can see from this quote from the LINK YOU PROVIDED:

                “Under current law, any separating couple in NY State can choose joint custody if they think that is best for their family, and both the National Organization for Women (NOW) – New York State and StopFamilyViolence.org support their right to do so.”
                =================
                It is not shared parenting if BOTH PARENTS must agree to shared parenting. That is a hybrid in which only occasionally when the mother is willing will shared parenting happen. In other words in the vast majority of the time dads in NY will be in the same boat as other dads: their parental rights will be doled out at the mothers whims.

                NOW does fight shared parenting in every state it comes up (with shared parenting defined as protocols that instruct the judge to administer shared parenting as the starting presumption unless having clear evidence of why this shouldn’t be so).

                Leaving shared parenting in the hands of a mother (or father) to decide is not equal rights, and is a broken system when we talk about protecting kids. We do see that feminists fight shared parenting when it is administered as a family court protocol, rather than an after-thought checkmark available only when both parents agree (rendering it meaningless: unenforceable shared parenting if 1 parent disagrees).

                What we see is more of the same: NOW endorses mothers deciding the parental rights of fathers. This is not only bad for dads, but dozens of studies show that substantial time with loving fit dads results in happier more well-adjuested children.

                Children have a right to both parents after divorce. If NOW really fought for children they would embrace shared parenting.

              • Morgraine says:
                “Yes, it is a lie that “NOW fight against shared parenting laws in every state in which a state legislature is considering drafting shared parenting legislation”

                as we can see from this quote from the LINK YOU PROVIDED:

                “Under current law, any separating couple in NY State can choose joint custody if they think that is best for their family, and both the National Organization for Women (NOW) – New York State and StopFamilyViolence.org support their right to do so.” ”
                ==========
                So in other words, NOW advocates AGAINST shared parenting protocols (in EVERY CASE) in which the judge is the neutral arbiter who protects both parents rights, but endorses shared parenting in which the father’s parental rights are only protected at the mothers whims? Oh, you’ve so proven me wrong with that one.

                If we applied this logic to other areas of law, I wonder how much women would like it.
                I wonder how much women would like that “male privilege” if she was raped and the only way the case could move to court is if the rapist agreed to it?

                Mothers should not be in charge of a father’s parental rights.
                The fact that you or NOW support this Morgraine just goes to show how far feminist has steered of course.

          • John Anderson says:

            Then I suppose all widowers and their deceased brides must have believed that the men were the better parent as she left the children in his care. There is a difference between what people believe and what happens out of necessity. Before the advent of formula, it made more sense for the person able to feed the child to stay with the child. In the hunter gather stage of human history, it made sense for the stronger sex to do the hunting. It wasn’t patriarchy, but common sense. Common sense is lost on feminists.

          • Firstly, I am doing more research in regards to feminist push for California’s adoption of no-fault divorce. If I find a cohesive enough list of references, maybe I will approach TGMP about running it as a footnote to a story I am considering submitting to tgmp.

            Some of these instances to show NOW’s attacks on shared parenting out of necessity have only the remaining evidence as glennsacks own calls-to-action to combat NOW.
            NOW took their call to actions down from their webpages.

            I think NOW realizes how hypocritical it is to fight shared parenting. They know how little they appear to be an “equalist” organization when they fight shared parenting and take down their call to action web-pages after the legislation has passed or failed.

            If mothers have less parenting time, then they will have the time to volunteer, pursue a career, go to school, perform hobbies.
            You’d think shared parenting would be ideal for NOW. But, then you would have millions of women getting much less $$$$$$ from their husbands. And you would have millions of moms who couldn’t use child visitation/parenting time as a weapon to inflict harm on fathers.

            ht tp://www.glennsacks.com/nysp/index.h tm
            ht tp://www.glennsacks.com/north_dakota_shared.h tm
            ht tp://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.h tm
            ht tp://www.michnow.org/files/jointmandatorycustody.pdf

            The simple fact is organizations like NOW and AAUW *absolutely DO* fight against the equalist concept of shared parenting. The cat is out of the bag. Organizations like NOW and AAUW will have to adapt to a new world in which the sacrifices men make are acknowledged and respected, and fathers have equal parental rights.

            I think quite a few female posters are going to have a very difficult time of it 8)

    • ” You can use it to speak to the men in your life and let them know that you think it is quite all right for straight men to experiment sexually with other men. Speak against talk that perpetuates a culture normalizing rape, when you hear it.”

      What? Let me tell you something from straight world about straight women. A lot of them would not appreciate their men experimenting sexually with other men.

      In regard to perpetuating a culture that normalizes rape I don’t think that exist in this country outside of men’s prisons, since prison rape seems to be the only kind we think it’s socially acceptable to joke about. The whole “rape culture” amounts to a generalized attack on men that attempts to make all men responsible for what a very small portion of the male population does. Feminist need stop blaming people who are not rapist for rape. I understand their frustration but at some point they will have to recognize 100% control of all humanity is not possible. There are some broken people in this world and both genders sadly have to live with that reality. Rape is not a crime of ignorance, it’s a crime of violence.

    • Justin says:
      “You write: “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….”

      This is why it is still a man’s world, Goodchild. It’s because in order to be allowed to compete on that uneven playing field against the “real men” who are invited to leadership, you have to alter your appearance in a way that is both neotonizing and sexualizing.”
      ======
      Justin. What I see is a lot of people trying to give a narrative and state this is the nature of reality.
      What you state above as “proof” it is still a man’s world would only stand if things only go one-way. Women are forced to adhere to preconceived notions to please men, and men are allowed to do whateverthef*ck pleases them with no concerns of adhering to women’s preconceived notions of men.
      This is simply not the case. The simple fact is that while there are several dozen thousands of men (in the USA) at the top of the power pyramid (who are great examples of performing the pre-conceived notion of the male role (as policed by BOTH GENDERS), there are dozens of millions of men who are the “washouts” who failed at the male role, and thus get no respect, empathy, or mercy from either gender.

      Millions of men in the USA face much greater rates (over women) of homelessness, suicide, incarceration, on-the-job deaths, work-related injury or disability, victims of violent crime. Men are 38% of college graduates. Fathers get sole custody 6% to mothers 80%. Men live 7 years shorter on average.

      It can be demonstrably shown that men have to run (in many ways a much stricter) obstacle course to please women too. Unlike women, the men who fail at this get no empathy, or advocacy (in a gender-specific solution scenario) or help for their much worse quality of life (compared to women).

      It is BOTH a women’s world and a mans world. I would really like the tendency of people to talk past the other person and cram their narrative down the other person’s throat to end.

      • In fact,
        There have been a lot of articles and books about the perpetual man-child. It seems the younger generations of men are no longer ladder-climbing, overtime working, marrying, child creating machines as they were in the past.
        In other words, men are going their own way to find fulfillment.

        What do these books and articles try to do? Paint the men as having peter-pan syndrome, call them man-child, and generally shame them into their appointed role.

        Many younger men are rebelling against their role as work-horse and the simple fact is that society is beginning to get worried. If the men’s tossing aside of the traditional roles continues to accelerate among younger and younger generations, society might have to actually do something drastic.

        Like make fair divorce laws, or put a time limit on alimony. God forbid, what will women do without the “horribly sexist burden” available to them of being a full-time parent?

        • *applause* Very well said, John! I’ve noted before that this small movement of men toward exploring their own life alternatives has succeeded in unifying both social-conservatives and radical feminists in their condemnation of MGTOW.

          Funny how these two groups disagree on so much, yet they are absolutely united in their insistence that men NOT be permitted to find their own path and reject subservience to the old gender role prepared for them.

          • It is very strange bedfellow indeed. Liberals and feminists want men to continue on their hamster wheel to fund their programs.
            Women want men to continue to father families (even though the social contract only goes one way, the mother has options, and the father has the responsibility to fund those options in perpetuity). Conservatives want men at their hamster wheels for their own social agenda and so that men will continue to be disposable cogs to grease the wheels of industry (and corps will rake profits which will fund campaigns).

            It seems younger men are collectively giving out the line Rage against the machine song: “F*ck you I won’t do what you tell me!”

  61. Thank you for writing this – I very much agree with the points you make.

    The one addition I would make is the issue that if, as a woman, I want to look after children, take my children or their friends to the park, or go into a childcare profession, I am highly unlikely to be suspected as a pedophile. If men, on the other hand, want to look after children, they are seen as untrustworthy. I think that mindset plays a lot into your 3rd point – women are the ones who take the kids.

    It’s important to be aware of the collective mindset that our society has so that we can recognize when we are in a situation of privilege, and then back away from it.

  62. Your story could almost have been mine, in many ways.

    However I do not see “privilege” as something we can really decide who has “more” of. It is ever-changing, and it shifts through situations. I’m uncomfortable saying either sex now has “the” privilege.

    Other than that, I agree with every single one of your points. I just worry that this is going to add some gasoline to a fire that is already burning based upon the false assumption that any one group holds all the privilege at once. Seems to me like drum-beating for the anti-feminism march. And in my opinion, anti-feminism isn’t the next step toward equity.

    • i don't believe you says:

      Anti feminism is a good thing… since that would be counter to the concept of privilege as static and one sided. This post is more like trans feminism where privilege follows the feminist convention, but is used against women, rather than men

    • Anti- feminism has lots of positives.

      Equal rights, services and empathy for abuse victims regardless of gender. Accuracy and honesty in abuse reporting. Strengthening of father rights. Ending feminist misinformation.

      Anyone that believes that firstly equality between men and women can be reached, and that focusing on women and misinformation is the way to get there is mistaken.

      Equity is the way forward.

    • John Anderson says:

      One of the things that concern me is the feminist privilege, when it concerns the struggle for equality. From my own perspective, I looked at feminism first before deciding on MRA as a better fit because feminists were at the fore front of the movement for gender equality. That provides feminism and by extension feminists with credibility. I think this credibility is often times abused by some feminists to take anti-male positions and claim that they’re equality positions.

      In my own, somewhat uninformed opinion, feminism was initially concerned with equality for and improving the lives of women. At some point, I think many feminists realized that women weren’t the only people who were being discriminated against and adopted the approach you mentioned, but they continued to identify as feminists so you have the egalitarian and the traditional feminists. I’ve seen feminists attack anti-male positions held by other feminists, but have yet to see them attack these positions as non-feminist positions. As long as egalitarian feminists concede the title feminist to any woman who advances the cause of women in the world regardless of whether they wish to trample the rights of anyone else, MRAs will continue to attack the entire movement because in order to obtain equality for those groups which traditional feminists are at times hostile to, they need to address feminist privilege.

      I do agree that people are differently privileged.

    • “However I do not see “privilege” as something we can really decide who has “more” of. It is ever-changing, and it shifts through situations. I’m uncomfortable saying either sex now has “the” privilege. ”
      Agreed. It’s like hundreds or thousands of scales and they can shift over time, male privilege can and probably did lower quite heavily in the last 20-30 years. In the last 10 years the pedophile paranoia really shot up and female privilege there is muchhhh higher than the men face, the only time I heard women talk of it was when they told me of this husbands fear around children, of it they’re a photographer (seems even female photographers who aren’t known are under suspicion too).

    • Egalitarianism is the best prospect for productive discussions and progress toward equality.

      For that to happen honestly, feminism will first have to recognize that it does not possess exclusive title to that term, and indeed veers far away from egalitarianism on many occasions.

  63. “… I’m 40.”

    Ha shes probably ugly and old looking.

    *Scroll down*

    *see picture*

    O.O WOW SHES PRETTY!

  64. You are forgetting the lack of privilege women have in writing online today http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis-hasteley/2011/11/comments-rape-abuse-women

    • Evil Pundit says:

      Actually, that’s just another privilege women have. If a woman writing online gets personal abuse, she can claim sexism, and both men and women will support her. If a man writing online gets personal abuse, he’s on his own.

      • Soda Popinski says:

        It isn’t just that she gets abuse like any other blogger, though. As David Allen Green says in the article: “In three years of blogging and tweeting about highly controversial political topics, I have never once had any of the gender-based abuse that, say, Cath Elliott, Penny Red or Ellie Gellard routinely receive.”

        • i don't believe you says:

          Sorry but ANY guy who doesn’t tow the feminist line when commenting on a feminist site gets gender abuse from them. Look at what happened to Tom… he was abuse and that was on his own site.

        • Evil Pundit says:

          I seriously doubt that. Any male writer who criticises feminism in any way, automatically becomes a target for gender-based abuse and shaming tactics. Usually these focus on denigrating his manhood, claiming he’s a potential abuser or rapist, saying he can’t get laid or has a small penis, and so on. In some cases there may be threats as well.

          • “Usually these focus on denigrating his manhood, claiming he’s a potential abuser or rapist, saying he can’t get laid or has a small penis, and so on. In some cases there may be threats as well”

            And denigrating a person’s manhood isn’t gender based abuse because….???

          • I have also encountered wishes of rape upon my mother, sister and (nonexistant) daughter for daring to speak about false rape, so that maybe, I can understand what a woman goes through when she survives. It never ceases to amaze me that someone who claims to be against something would wish it upon others in order to silence descent.

            • John Anderson says:

              This post was taken down by the site, but the comments are still up, almost all male and MRAs including male rape survivors. If you read the comments, you’ll get the gist of the post and that is that male rape has a silver lining because it raises male awareness of rape. The scary thing is the post itself had to be vetted by the editors on the site for it to have been originally posted.

              http://subterfusex.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/hes-asking-for-it/

              • @ John – The Original Blog Post is available if you know where to look! P^)

                http://web.archive.org/web/20110108202940/http://subterfusex.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/hes-asking-for-it/

                This is a confessional about rape. About men raping other men, because the men who are the victims are either gay or perceived to be gay. Contrary to my title, I don’t honestly think men are asking for it. I do not think that men — if rumored to be gay, if he acts effeminate, if he really is gay, etc — deserve to be raped anymore than I think women deserve to be raped.

                But, I must confess…when I hear about it…in a way…I feel like it could be a good thing in disguise.

                … and it’s all down hill from there!

                Men grow up thinking the only time they’d have to worry about being raped is if they go to prison, and then only if they aren’t tough, strong and smart enough to keep it from happening.

                But now, with the increase in men raping other men outside of prison just simply because they might be perceived or rumored to be gay (regardless of whether they really are), men sort of have to stop and think a little more. They are reminded that they have a few orifices that a penis or phallic-shaped object could fit into, as well. They are not exempt from rape, just because they are male and not in prison.

                If the writer and editor had done even the most basic of research on the subject, there would not have been so many errors, fallacies and frankly stupid statements made! They would not have fallen into the great chasm of Only Men Rape meme!

                If they even had a basic grasp of how male rape has not even been correctly reported as rape – how male rape victims have been ignored and mistreated – and if they even considered that Rapists are not 100% male – then they may not have had to pull the piece after so many people had to so publicly correct the errors, rape mythology, rape apologia and rape denial that they published!

                Of course the most fascinating thing said is the closing:

                I feel so much like a reverse sexist when it comes to this. And in that, I feel as if I am the kind of feminist that many “traditionalist” and conservative people insist that all feminists are. That we preach equality and tolerance, but we really are secretly glad when bad things happen to men. I am not glad. But, I know it sounds like I am. It’s terrible and it doesn’t solve a thing to think this way. So, why can’t I stop?

                It is suspected that this is the reason the Post Was Pulled – it actually identifies a person identifying as feminist who speaks of “Programming” that requires the person to Ignore rape of men and ignore equality and tolerance – because it is happening to men. No Other Reason Required!

                It’s also known as both covert and even overt Misandry!

                Revelations of Programming and Misandry Side by Sides? Can’t allow that in public – can we?

        • DavidByron says:

          A White Knight says it so it must be true.

          The claim that is being made here is hard to test. It could be done I suppose but it certainly was NOT tested by the author of that piece. She just made it up as if to say well everyone knows women always get it worse. Like in war women suffer worse you know? Like women would suffer worse if an asteroid hit the earth.

    • Moe – even the new statesman does make it clear that it’s not just women!

      ” While I won’t deny that almost all bloggers attract some extremely inflammatory comments — and LGBT or non-white ones have their own special fan clubs, too — there is something distinct, identifiable and near-universal about the misogynist hate directed at women online.”

      I do not agree “there is something distinct, identifiable and near-universal” or that there is only a universality applying to women – I’ve dealt with the GBLT hate for a long time and it’s got a pretty universal pattern to it too. I have to say – some haters are a little low on imagination and what can be done and what can be stuck where.

      I note that they do miss out The Cripple Bloggers though! It seems that Cripples just miss out all the fun and human stuff?

      The last time I had to get a restraining order and have someone prosecuted due to cyber harassment – It was a bit of an issue with “Her” threatening across multiple net venues to have me burned alive – locating my home – and sending some threatening gifts!

      My crime – providing Disabled people with advice of how to exercise their legal rights to be politicly involved and lobbying for their human rights.

      I’ll swap the email bags any day – you should read some of the imaginative ideas some people have for wheelchairs and where they want to push you – and they are so motivated with their own bizzare ideas, they even forget that you don’t use a wheelchair! P^?

      Better still – when the police have had to be called in – guess what. All the perps have been women. It must be a “Privilege” issue.

      • The problem also arises when ones definitions of these things are left to the subjective. “Having only a single gendered minister for the status of women, is a poor way to establish equality” has been labeled misogynistic. “We need to eliminate the minister for the status of women or add one for men as an egalitarian counterpart” has been taken as a threat, a threat of attempting to “silence women’s voices and return them to before they had the vote”. Sure, anyone rational who reads this knows it’s hyperbole, but the person who made the accusation, the correlation, will promote it as such. With such delicate sensibilities of some feminists, the universality of it is really in question

    • Never underestimate the offensiveness some female blog commenters can cause in their using of terms like privilege as a way to minimize the harm men suffer, the insidious way male rape is treated by some in a very dehumanizing way.

      Don’t forget we had a few blogs, a mummy blog in particular, laugh about genitial mutilation of a male. Take a look at the agent orange files for the radfem comments that are sickening. I’ll gladly admit there is a lot of misogyny online, a lot of homophobic slurs, racism, pretty much everything, but there is also quite a lot of misandry which conveniently doesn’t get talked about much and dare bring it up to some feminists and you’ll be laughed at, “Bawww what about the mennzzz”, childish behaviour by people who cry foul of misogynist behaviour yet gladly act in a misandrist way. They also tend to cry “Butwomengetitworse!”, take an action that is harfum to men, ignore the harm it does to men and tell how sexist and misogynist it is, death in war is a prime example of how some can twist it to make like it’s misogynist ONLY and not misandrist.

      I do think it’s quite interesting that many men are told they cannot see their own male privilege, yet we have women commenting who seem to be denying female privilege. Can I say to them that they are blinded by their own privilege and they need to check it? The very same thing I’ve been told when I questioned male privilege and how does male responsibility fit in?

      From reading some feminists and their comments I swear they only compare the bad women face, and the good men face whilst ignore the good women face and the bad men face. Would feminists fight to be more equal in occupational accidents and deaths or do they only want to be equal in pay? Benefits come with responsibility, some can see that but I’m not sure about some of the others…

  65. Thank you so much for writing this. As a woman I couldn’t agree more. You hit on every topic and every advantage women have over men. Women are now more powerful than men in many ways (at least in the USA) and often use it to their advantage. I’m married to man and all I would have to say is that he raped me and he would be in police custody and most likely charged without any evidence, after all, women NEVER lie about rape. But if he were to say to the police that I raped him, they would most likely laugh at him.

    • “But if he were to say to the police that I raped him, they would most likely laugh at him.”

      Thank you for pointing this out, Lisa. It is regrettably because of ideas like this that I, being a man in his 20’s, am scared to death of marriage. Some will brush it off as me being scared of commitment, but I would love nothing more than to be in a committed marriage to woman for whom I would lay down my life, fortune, and sacred honor.

      But I can’t in good judgment enter into marriage in a legal system and society that marginalizes my role as a provider, protector, lover, and father. Where on the slightest whim my girlfriend or wife could have my life destroyed, whisking my children away and me leaving me to rot in prison with nothing more than a word.

      As much as I want to be a husband and father, it hurts me to admit, the risk are too high.

    • Nebu Pookins says:

      RE: “You hit on every topic and every advantage women have over men.”

      Actually, she missed a few, like men being more likely to get drafted into military service than women, or if a boat is sinking, “women and children first”, and men are more likely to be left to drown, etc.. But this article is a good start.

  66. This is an interesting blog. Hope you stay privileged all through your life.

  67. You have a point with 2, 3 and 4, but 5 is absurd (women have no more right to be unreasonable in their accusations than men), and as for 1, if you truly think all examples of men ogling women openly and unapologetically have vanished from the face of the earth, you sure don’t travel in my circles. (More covert ogling is also alive and well.) Besides, women are allowed now to openly ogle men only because it’s considered cute, harmless role reversal–just like little girls being allowed to be tomboys. For a while. Yes, that means a certain amount of woman-on-man sexual harassment gets tolerated that should not. But is it as widespread a problem as male-on-female sexual harassment? Of course not.

    While the article makes some good points about several aspects of inequity between the sexes that favor women, it hardly adds up to women now having all the privilege these days. What a joke. It’s like saying blacks have all the privilege now over whites because they can call themselves the N-word but white people can’t.

    • “It’s like saying blacks have all the privilege now over whites because they can call themselves the N-word but white people can’t.”
      No, it’s not, it really is not. Black people are a minority, females are the majority of all humans. They are 2 very separate groups, and whilst black people (as a group) were enslaved, women (as a group) were still higher than them in the power game. They’re totally and completely different dynamics.

      • Women are considered a minority not because of the number of individuals, and you should know it. Women, blacks, gays… they are all different, but we can trace similarities in their fight for equality. Why are you scared?

        “and whilst black people (as a group) were enslaved, women (as a group) were still higher than them in the power game.”
        Women, as a group, how? You cannot do this without differentiating white women from black women. They were not in the same situation when slavery was still on. Most white women were in a better place than black people as a group AT THAT POINT, but black women were in the worse situation if you compare with white people in general and black men.
        And of course, we are talking about USA here. Black people in Africa, still… can’t say black women in Africa, in general, still suffer the most.

  68. Sorry, I just can’t see all of them as privileges. How’s it a privilege going around making derogatory comments? As a female I don’t condone that for any gender and would see that as exhibiting low morals and classless, and would not associate myself with that so called privilege. Evidently, the author is trying too hard to pull up female “privileges” and just grabbing anything, even the nonsensical.

    Any “privileges” gained by females, we should look at them in perspective, as these are fairly modern advances when compared to the history of male privileges/patriarchy which men have been associated with for thousands of years and continue to benefit from. Women now have more rights than ever (I wouldn’t call these privileges – it’s equality), but just because we have legislation in place, this doesn’t always equate to equality everywhere.

    Equality can be written on a bill, agreed upon and passed, as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; however things like people’s attitudes, behaviors and culture sometimes have a lot of catching up to do with what is written in stone. For instance, the blacks have been freed from slavery for what seems like ages now, ask them if racism still exists? (Other visible minorities also experience plenty of racism). How many more years or centuries, until racism dies and total equality is realized and not just on paper? The same question can posed for sexism and other “isms”.

    One more thing, sure cougars fantasize about young hot men, but not many if any go and look at porn of spring chickens (no demand for that?), while men are allowed to look at younger girls/women or do it illegally (child porn). Remember there’s also a double-standard, society seems to accept older men dating much younger women, but not the other way around…women may fantasize about young hot guys, but the reality of them wanting or dating them is just not accepted YET. Look at all the flack Madonna and Demi have gotten, now Jennifer Lopez is in the same boat…and with them all being mothers, people want them to have this motherly image and setting an good example for their kids and FOR everyone – WHEREAS, men do not have this pressure to uphold! Successful or not, men can get away with dating much younger women, while successful or not, women are not extended the same privilege.

    This is a fairly new phenomenon of older women dating much younger men…these women are breaking rules! It’ll be a long time before this sexism goes in the way of the do do bird. I’m not saying this is great for women, neither do I think the same is great for men…but we should all have equal choices at happiness?

    • Err, men are allowed to view child porn illegally? Was that a typo?

    • @Zorro – Urgent.

      One more thing, sure cougars fantasize about young hot men, but not many if any go and look at porn of spring chickens (no demand for that?), while men are allowed to look at younger girls/women or do it illegally (child porn).

      Sorry – but you may need to revisit that view and idea. I’m not sure which country you are in, but under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – it is illegal for such Porn to be Made, Distributed or Possessed.

      If you are unfamiliar with this I refer you to sections 34 & 35 and the additional convention protocols.

      Article 34 (Sexual exploitation): Governments should protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. This provision in the Convention is augmented by the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. (See Optional Protocol pages.)

      Article 35 (Abduction, sale and trafficking): The government should take all measures possible to make sure that children are not abducted, sold or trafficked. This provision in the Convention is augmented by the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. (See Optional Protocol pages.)
      http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

      Additional Protocol

      (c) Producing, distributing, disseminating, importing, exporting, offering, selling or possessing for the above purposes child pornography as defined in article 2.

      2. Subject to the provisions of the national law of a State Party, the same shall apply to an attempt to commit any of the said acts and to complicity or participation in any of the said acts.

      3. Each State Party shall make such offences punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave nature.
      http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-sale.htm

      Can you advise the country you are indicating that such activity is occurring in?

      Should you have evidence that any person is involved with producing, distributing or viewing the materials you allude to – contact local law enforcement immediately and report such matters. I can’t provide a relevant phone number to be used immediately until you disclose the country concerned.

      • MichelleG says:

        You’re reading that part (about child porn) as though it’s a run-on sentence from the paragraph above it (about human rights), that is a separate idea. I was addressing the “privilege” of older women ogling and commenting on young males and how that doesn’t translate to anything of real substance – in that older women dating/marrying younger men is not widely accepted, compared to their male counterparts. Also older women with children, especially young ones, are expected to date within their age range and stay within the “motherly” confines, whereas older men are not held to accountable “fatherly” standards as older women do in society. Men get away with romping with much younger women, even if they have young children, and can look at porn (young girls are in demand) that’s available to them, whether legal or not.

        • MichelleG says:

          I think in general, society doesn’t hold fathers to the same standards as mothers, from all accounts. Perhaps if we started to balance out this responsibility and sexism, to show the same standards and expectations for men as we have on women, regardless of age difference, children would be more well-rounded and mothers would be less burden as sole child caregivers.

          Also unfair is that, single mothers are often “stuck” with raising children, often full-time…so they have less opportunities to date, romp in the sack with men, and find a life-partner again. Men generally, I think, do not like dating single mothers who raise kids full-time. Comparatively, single fathers, with no custody or limited, are seen as the better deal and have the advantage when dating and higher chances of re-marrying.

          • I think this is an excellent example of the two-sided nature of unfairness, as described by Kyle Lovett above. If I was a father, I sure wouldn’t see not being able to be a part of my child’s life as she/he grows up as unfair towards the mother.

          • I think it varies on age level, but I’d say there are quite a few men and women in their youth prefer to not date someone who has a child. Like it or not, children are quite expensive to raise both financially and time-wise, that can be a great burden on a relationship especially for people in their teens and 20’s who (generalization alert) may want to “have fun” before “settling down”.

            You also have to ask yourself, WHY are these mothers single with child. Is it because the father was a deadbeat? didn’t work out? father lost custody for a genuine reason or there was foul play?

            For me personally, I am nervous around kids as I haven’t had much experience with them as an adult (born in a generation gap, friends don’t have kids) and I am still in a stage of my life I would like to be more selfish with my funds and not ready to settle down with a family. If I meet the right woman and she has a kid, that’s fine, but I do prefer single women without kids. Besides, just hearing from parents about kids and the horror that goes on has made me consider a vasectomy, if only they were reliably reversible!

            “Comparatively, single fathers, with no custody or limited, are seen as the better deal and have the advantage when dating and higher chances of re-marrying.”
            It’s interesting you said that comment in such a way that seemed to push stereotypes, want to fix the problem? Ensure the child custody laws are completely egalitarian, legit, no funny business going on. We also need to have workplaces that are more flexible in hours, but we are shifting perceptions slowly allowing for male primary carers, female bread winners etc. And it’s about damn time!

        • @ MichelleG

          It says “.. or do it illegally (child porn). “ – it is very clear! There is “No” run on as you indicate.

          The response to any person indicating that they have knowledge of child porn usage in any form is to provide the correct advice and urge that they contact law enforcement.

          My experience in the field obliges me to act! I do not care for others making excuses! The matter is addressed directly to the named party.

          • MichelleG says:

            Okay, I see. I agree child porn users/holders must be reported to authorities or called out on their illegal behavior.

    • “Sorry, I just can’t see all of them as privileges. How’s it a privilege going around making derogatory comments?”

      The privilege doesn’t reside in her ability to make those comments, but with the open way they are reacted to. Anyone can post derogatory remarks, but generally women are received openly when they do so while men are discouraged from doing so.

      “Any “privileges” gained by females, we should look at them in perspective, as these are fairly modern advances when compared to the history of male privileges/patriarchy which men have been associated with for thousands of years and continue to benefit from. Women now have more rights than ever (I wouldn’t call these privileges – it’s equality), but just because we have legislation in place, this doesn’t always equate to equality everywhere.”

      1] Even if I assume Patriarchy/Male Privilege exists and Matriarchy/Female Privilege doesn’t (what I assume to be your viewpoint), I fail to see the relevance to the fact it has been in effect for a period of time. If we were able to gain full equality tomorrow, should we instead put into place Matriarchy, a male oppressive societal structure, for an equal amount of time to balance it out?

      2] Women having more rights than ever isn’t a problem. Women having more rIghts than men is the problem. (As an aside, I feel compelled to also put in writing: Men having more rights than women is a problem.) On both sides there are legitimate examples of privilege. Just because your viewpoint (as I understand it) is ‘Men have had them longer’ doesn’t negate thier existiance and negative effects.

      “One more thing, sure cougars fantasize about young hot men, but not many if any go and look at porn of spring chickens (no demand for that?), while men are allowed to look at younger girls/women or do it illegally (child porn).”

      I personally don’t agree this assertion is true, but I will for the sake of argument. Do you consider this a Male privilege?

      •Men can commit an illegal act (viewing child pornography) and society will view them with less disdain than a woman had she committed the same act.

      •Women can commit an illegal act (abuse) and society will view them with less disdain than a man had he committed the same act.

      If one is a provilege, both are.

      • “The privilege doesn’t reside in her ability to make those comments, but with the open way they are reacted to. Anyone can post derogatory remarks, but generally women are received openly when they do so while men are discouraged from doing so. .”

        I hardly see evidence of where women make disparaging remarks like the ones given by the author: “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”.

        To tell you the truth, this is the FIRST time I have ever heard of these comments coming from a female or anything of that nature, and surprisingly have never seen this kind of stuff online or in pop culture; while slut shaming and rape culture material from boys/men are prevalent on social networking sites, pop culture and encyclopedia dramaticas et al. Is it a privilege if a miniscule number of females (vs males) are doing this? I’m racking my head trying to recall evidence of this…and I come up with zilch. I think pop culture is a good gauge of what the general population is into and what is prevalent and seems acceptable…it feeds people notions of what is good and bad regardless of true morality.

        If according to you, that women are received “openly” for these comments, I’m sure then this warm reception is coming from men? Are men encouraging this type of language and giving females this so called privilege? Of course women discourage disparaging remarks/jokes (slut-shaming, rape culture), because they don’t need further victimizing at their expense.

        • @ zorro

          no prob and i agree Gaara is hot when he’s innocent and when he’s a raging psychopath! go gaara!!! he’s probably number four on my I’d Do Him List
          ….admittedly its a very long list lmao
          and my top four are like the definite I’d Even Rape Him List

          http://comments.deviantart.com/1/260324735/2211653535

          Would you like all the other links to the questionable “Rape Culture” language coming from females about men.

          Is one example enough – or do you require more?

          If you want more just let me know! P^/

          I have not seen it or experienced it is not a good excuse!

          It’s actually Rape Apologia – something men are “Accused” of all the time!

          Kindly stop supporting and excusing Rape Culture – It’s highly antisocial and Grossly UNFeminist ! P^/

          • I had the experience of a radfem telling me she hoped I was raped, beaten, etc every day so I could know what she felt or women felt. It’s pretty disturbing to have those threats against you, especially when she was quite into the anti-rape and anti-rape culture movements. Probably the worst was trying to compare her abuse to my abuse or others abuse and act like she had it worse….I don’t care what level of abuse people get, it’s all bad and comparing it as a way to say I had worse, yours is nothing compared to mine, is absolutely stupid. She knew nothing of me, I knew nothing of her, there’s no way to compare our experiences and there’s no point in doing so. She also tossed the whataboutthemenz and male privilege silencer around like candy, pretty much denying suffering of males.

            Out of the humans I have known, that’s one of the most disgusting attitudes I’ve experienced in another person. It was ironic she was adding to rape culture but couldn’t see it.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              “I don’t care what level of abuse people get, it’s all bad and comparing it as a way to say I had worse, yours is nothing compared to mine, is absolutely stupid.”

              This is just so true, and as soon as people (all people) start to realize this, I feel things can start to change.

              Also, this is SO true!

              “It was ironic she was adding to rape culture but couldn’t see it.”

              Lately I am absolutely disgusted by things being done in the name of feminism. Disgusting things are being done and said in the name of Men’s Rights and Feminism, and we cannot grow or change as a society until we boot these types out of our movements.

              • Amen to that, it’s partly why I don’t label myself as either since it pulls peoples past polarizing experiences in, egalitarian/equalist seems to be free from that bias which is the only label I really like. Trying to get a point across to someone is extremely hard when they call up memories/experiences of bad feminists/mra’s, hell even bad men n women, and you get lumped in with them. I have to watch this behaviour in myself, but people like you Joanna kill off the stereotypes and allow me to see things from all sides without feeling like I need to take a side.

                We’re humans, if our women suffer, we all suffer, if our men suffer, we all suffer, happy and safe people make for a much better world!

        • I’ve seen quite a bit of hypocrisy in some feminist sites on sexism, dispaging remarks/jokes being allowed against men whilst they rally the call of being for equality. Posts not deleted/moderated, others actually encouraging and participating. Maybe it’s pointing out the moral high horse behaviour and how their own behaviour contradicts it?

          Thing is….I’ve seen men do it as well, however when done on TV men as far as I know tend to lose their jobs for such remarks whilst women don’t get too much. The genital mutilation “jokes” the ladies on “The Talk” made had an entire audience of mostly women laughing, even after one host pointed it out. They weren’t fired as far as I know but they could laugh about gendered violence quite easily and willy-nilly, whereas other male hosts of various tv shows have been fired for sexist remarks. It’s only one example but it could point out a double standard that she is probably talking about, sexism against men is seen in way that treats it like it doesn’t even matter in many cases.

          In the times I’ve seen misandry, there have been a lot of women supporting it, more than half I’d say on my own experiences of witnessing that stuff. Though I see some men and women both support and encourage misandry and misogyny. But what surprises me is when it’s on media meant for equality debates and not encyclo dramatica, youtube (full of every damn stereotype and insult imaginable, ugh), etc.

        • @ zorro – you may also want to look at the Pop Culture angle too!

          A Twisted Turn in Rape-Culture
          Posted on October 12, 2011

          And now before this blog entry starts to sound even like a scare tactic Geraldo Rivera expose from the 80s, I’ll establish this group of people right here and now. You might have seen them typing things out in YouTube comments that read something along the lines of, “OMG, I’d rape him sooooo hard! He’s so hawt!” Stamps on deviantart, “YAOI: I rape because I care.” Even fan fictions rape is a popular romantic plot device. I am referring to a budding youthculture in which non-consensual acts of sex or otherwise unwarranted affections have become considered attractive or even desirable.

          http://www.thecatalystmagazine.com/?p=591

          Maybe you need to get up to speed?

        • @ Zorro – you may want to have a lool at facebook and the number of pages dedicated to the rape of male celebrities.

          These are slightly ironic!

          “We Should Totally Gang Rape Johnny Depp! is on Facebook
          Because Johnny Depp is basically a visual orgasm and we love him”

          “If I ever met Johnny Depp, I’d rape him.
          Girl: If I ever met Johnny Depp, I’d rape him.
          Boy: How does a woman rape a man?
          Girl: If I ever met Johnny Depp, you’d find out. ” ”

          “I wish Michael Jackson was alive to rape Justin Bieber | Facebook”
          Description: that would be nice ^.^”

          “I wish Justin Bieber would gets raped by an AIDS dick.”

          … and they are all marked as just for fun! Nothing Cultural There! P^)

          … and by the way – I’m not even looking hard – these are all coming up as top hits on google! P^/

    • “One more thing, sure cougars fantasize about young hot men, but not many if any go and look at porn of spring chickens (no demand for that?), while men are allowed to look at younger girls/women or do it illegally (child porn).”

      Why do you conflate child porn with dating younger women? Typical bad behaviour of trying to throw the emotionally charged child porn term in to further enhance your point of how bad men can act. Considering up to 20% of child sexual abuse is done by women and plenty of women get charged for producing and distributing child porn, it’s dishonest to try paint that as a male only trait. Stop it. Seriously.

      Explain how men are allowed to look at younger women, and the illegal act IS NOT ALLOWED and is socially unacceptable. Good lord Zorro, you’re better than this.

      • DavidByron says:

        When you say “up to 20%” did you mean to say “a minimum of 20%”?

        • Good catch, the last statistic I saw was around the 20% mark but it is probably much higher. Minimum of 20% is what I meant yes.

          Never comment when tired, 5 hours of sleep a night and I’ve totally messed up quite a few of my comments on here in the last few days. Thanks for catching them. Apologies also!

    • Random_Stranger says:

      i said this before, but race and gender are not the same. The victims of racism face a system that attempts to destroy them as a group. The gender binary, by contrast, is a system of control intended to maximize the success of the culture even as it seeks to exploit individuals within it. It hands men and women a narrow script of approved behaviors and uses sticks and carrots to incent and direct our lives in a manner that benefits the collective, irrespective of a individuals agency.

      Now, whether we think your script is better than mine is a matter of vantage point. From your perspective, it is unfair that an older women cannot date a younger man while an older man can date a younger women -a male privilege as you said. But from my perspective, I see that a young man is prohibited from dating an older women and, while young women may not only date an older man, its also acceptable for her to so to acquire herself of his wealth without an expectation that she earn it independently. Not so for her male counterpart.

      Its time we stop the non-sense and accept that the gender binary is a system of MUTUAL exploitation, and has been since the dawn of civilization.

  69. “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.”

    What is most interesting is that often times there are men who will go along with this too, sometimes even promote it. All too often it’s the men repeating lines like “happy wife, happy life.” It is as if they like advertising to the world that they have been castrated.

  70. Anonymously Annoyed says:

    I don’t normally agree with many of the articles on here, but you hit the nail on the head. Here is a much longer and more detailed privilege list that you and others here might find interesting: http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/2011/05/female-privilege-checklist.html

  71. I find your perspective interesting. Given your philosophy, what would you say to young adults who are learning how to be in relationships and explore their sexuality?

  72. Why is my post at 8:48am moderated (and all others)? And Peter’s post goes through, when there is nothing civil about his? Name calling women stupid and dumb and making threats against Tom, is against commenting policy, right? What you let through and don’t let through are highly hypocritical of the commenting policy you have set forth. I find this site truly problematic for this.

    (Moderators Note-We have moderated the posts mentioned by you (Peter’s) and appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Moderators are not always online and some things are modded automatically, some are not.)

  73. Gina Beavers says:

    So glad I have the ‘privilege’ to do some horrible things, like abuse my husband, talk demeaningly about men in mixed company, or have a baby and make my mate pay for it (after poking a hole in his condom I presume?) But it turns out the only privilege I want as a childless woman nearing 40, trying to compete at the top in a male-dominated profession, is the one hinted at in half a sentence, in the reference to ‘the sting’ of discrimination in a male-dominated workplace, the ‘privilege’ to be seen as an equal, regardless of my gender.

  74. Personally, I don’t think that points 1,4 and 5 fit in the literal meaning of privilege as they are more about social attitude and are non-enforceable without consent of other parties involved. Point 3 and 4 are the real female privileges which are legally enforceable. These privileges are the main reason for the male oppression.Men can be removed from the family using these legal measures pertaining to domestic violence and child custody in divorce cases. Yet we have not ever heard the theory how Matriarch hurts us all?

  75. Thank you or writing this, it was very thought provoking in many ways. A couple of items you mentioned, and what another comment made above does really show that somethings are two sided. While I dislike the word privilege when talking about people, whether they be male or female since often times it can be used to hurt people or silence them, I think a few topics give some interesting insights.

    MRA’s such as myself, will often talk about the disparity in the family court systems which give preference to mothers over fathers as primary care givers. Many fathers want to be more a part of their child’s lives and want more time with them, but are upset that society automatically paint men as less than capable of being a care giver; hence why we see this issue as a disadvantage to men. But I think many of us forgot to realize the other side, which many mothers can feel somewhat unhappy that they are automatically seen as the primary care givers, and therefore feel responsible for the lion’s share of responsibility of raising children. Raising a kid, while extremely rewarding on a very basic human level, also means a lot of work and a lot of responsibility, hence why some mothers might feel trapped by the expectation of duty.

    Same goes for the issue about career. While women under 30 on average make more money then men, men work longer hours on average overall. In the US men work 40.1 hours and women work 37.2 hours on average. As I written in a previous article, MRAs will see the longer hours of work as a disadvantage feeling a bit like a cog in the economic wheel. But one thing I failed to see is that many women may view longer hours at work as the advantage of a better career, and hence see less hours as a disadvantage. In 10-15 years, this point will be moot since women comprise almost 59 percent of college enrollee’s and will soon pass men in hours and overall wages, despite men still filling that traditional gender role of working much more hazardous jobs, which comes with a massively higher rate of fatalities and serious injuries.

    But I think it is important for both sides to see that some issues are perhaps two sided for men and women, and that one person’s disadvantage is also another person’s concurrent disadvantage. It’s all in perspective. Thanks for the very well written and thought provoking article.

  76. Thank you for this. Beautifully stated.

  77. Thank-you for this, it is amazing to see a woman acknowledge female privilege. It’s been needed for a long time, especially noting number 5 which drove me away from a few feminist-blogs because of a subtle but serious bigotry.

    I could add a 6th point, you’re seen as safer around children and less likely to be thought of as a pedophile. As a photographer it’s always in my mind to avoid children when I have my very visible dSLR with me, even though the only children I photograph are friends kids and family members. If a child smiles at me I look away because I don’t want to be seen interacting with a child by parents if they’re strangers, it’s a very real fear that many men I know share.

    Thank-you again for actually seeing how women can be privileged over men in some areas.

  78. Rachel – you evidently have quite a high ability to keep your balance!

  79. Hi Rachel (fellow kiwi here) I see from your site that you’re an author. Do you have any relatively recent releases that examine the state of contemporary gender relations in NZ? (say… post 2000)

  80. This is a step in the right direction. I’m used to feminist outright denying the existence of female privilege or re-framing it as oppression in the style of the very dishonest Finally Feminism 101 site.

    I do think the OP is being a little coy with disclosure and is framing privilege as something that doesn’t exist without feminism. Feminism keeps traditional female privileges and ads what it calls male privileges to the pre-existing privileges and invents new female privileges, while working to strip men of male privilege.

  81. It’s very difficult for me to get past the first couple paragraphs of this (looking past media propaganda, there’s not a single country in the modern world in which men are privileged over women), but the intent of the article is certainly commendable. Especially the final female privilege you mentioned. I’ve never seen a self-professed feminist recognize the rampant anti-male shaming language that routinely takes place when conversations or arguments (not just online) get sticky. Feminists in general like to make a fuss about female-associated slurs like “bitch” or “slut”, when male-associated slurs outnumber them 50 to 1

    Anyway, thank you for the much-needed article.

  82. I wouldn’t say that women have all the privilege but I do appreciate you acknowledging that female privilege does exist. For too often have I heard people try to write off female privilege as “benevolent sexism”. Yeah somehow when it comes to gender some people believe that privilege only flows in one direction. Like this.

    Take physical violence.

    Its argued that men have the privilege of being allowed to be physically violent and women don’t. What people who think privilege only flows in one direction ignore is the fact that the flip side to this is that men are socialized to express emotions that would be better suited to words as violence. Actually I won’t say they ignore. In fact some of them do acknowledge it. They just then claim that that flip side does not negate the fact that its male privilege.

    On the other hand if one dares to say that women have the privilege of being allowed to be physically violence and men don’t what’s the first thing you’ll hear? The flip side that reason that happens is because the violence women commit is not taken seriously. Therefore the fact that a woman is allowed to be physically violent suddenly becomes sexism against women because her violence isn’t taken seriously?

  83. You’re just saying all that to get laid. 😀

  84. Random_Stranger says:

    Great article, but I disagree with “Because as a woman … I NOW have privilege.”

    You’ve always had privileges. Perhaps unique and separate from male privileges, but privileges none-the-less. Not being considered highly expendable comes top of mind for one. All feminism did was preserve a woman’s traditional privileges and grant her access to former male privileges.

    • Agreed, it was a great article and women have always had special privileges. “All feminism did was preserve a woman’s traditional privileges and grant her access to former male privileges.” Your comment was one I would have written. It is an amazing thing to me that some men still decide to get married, have kids, or even risk living with a woman. As a man, I have decided that the cons of a risky modern relationship outweigh the pros so I go my own way.

    • Nonsense on the expendable account: female babies have been murdered for being female since the beginning of civilisation. There’re 80 million missing (i.e never born) women in India and China alone.

  85. Thanks for the article.

    The concept of privilege interests me greatly, because so many privileges are two-faced. Men may have the privilege when it comes to seeking higher-paying jobs, but that also pairs with the female privilege for it to be socially acceptable for her to not have to pursue a career. At the same time, child custody rights are a favorite topic of complaint for MRAs, and yet, the reverse side that the woman can suffer from being expected to raise the children, even if she would rather not have that responsibility. I don’t advocate that every issue is inherently two-faced, but I think it’s incredibly important to the search for equity that the double-sided nature of privilege is acknowledged.

    • Completely with you there ! 🙂

    • Random_Stranger says:

      You know, the wage gap issue is something I always found highly demonstrative of feminist myopia and obsession with all privileges male even while privileges female are totally overlooked.

      Why do we care about the wage gap? B/c its a proxy of wealth? Any economist will tell you that income can be measured as good and serviced produced OR as goods and services consumed. Maybe we chose to examine the gender wealth gap in production terms b/c its simply convenient and objectively measured (ie payroll), but I can’t help but think that we don’t discuss wealth in consumption terms b/c feminists would really rather not explore a dimension of the gender binary that would very probably find a female privilege.

      • The Wage Gap Myth has been proven many times to be false. Please don’t promote feminist agitprop on a site for men.

  86. Thank you for this.

    No, seriously. I mean it. After submerging myself in the “genderblog(wo)manoshphere” or whatever the hell you want to call it for a few years, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen the very advantages you cite (and more) being dismissed as illusionary or “reverse sexism.” And after awhile my attitude became “Okay, I’m privileged, so what?” Because it seemed very hypocritical that anything that benefitted me as a man was some sort of privilege, while anything that “benefitted” women was *really* just another way that the system was sexist… towards women.

    So, frankly, it got to the point where if women felt free to deny their own privileges, why shouldn’t I?

    So, thank you. I know you’re not the first woman to say this (on this site, anyway) so that thank you is directed at all the women who have said it. And not just as a throwaway remark. It’s things like this that help me believe there really are feminists out there who are interested in walking the walk.

    • Wow. First time I’ve heard a woman say something like that. I’m forwarding this along for sure.

      • Me, too. I’ve finally seen something I thought I would never see. A woman has finally admitted it. I’ve been an MRA since 2002. I wasted a lot of time online debating feminists and trying to point out women’s privileged status in Western countries and its inherent sexism towards men. I stopped after I realized feminists weren’t interested in logic, facts or equality, for that matter. The usual response was ad hominem attacks, as the author points out, or to be banned by a white knight forum mod. Focused on waking up men after that.

        The author makes a great start in listing female privilege in our society. However, it is not complete. Here is a checklist that has been posted by MRAs across the globe and added to over the years.

        http://mensresistance.wordpress.com/female-privilege-checklist/

    • ” So, frankly, it got to the point where if women felt free to deny their own privileges, why shouldn’t I?”

      Because we must all strive to set the example we wish to see in our worlds. We struggle with our weaknesses and prejudice but what strengthens our resolve is when we choose to recover from our stumbles.

      • “we must all strive to set the example”

        This, right here. One must never consign society into a race-to-the-bottom, rather, we all must strive to be better. What ‘better’ actually means is certainly up for debate, but if you find yourself saying “should I abandon the principles I hold because someone else did?”, then it’s pretty clear that a violation of moral fiber is imminent.

Trackbacks

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

  2. […] 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 […]

  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. […] 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 […]

  5. […] 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 […]

Speak Your Mind

*