David Thompson has linked to a number of “Female Privilege Checklists” that seem to be percolating in response to “Male Privilege Checklists” generated by old school feministas like Wellesley College professor Peggy McIntosh (who framed her checklist as one of “white privilege’). For example, Thompson excerpts several from Brandon Berg, including these:
If I marry, there is a very good chance that I will be given the option to quit my job and live off my husband’s income without having my femininity questioned.
If I become pregnant, I and I alone choose whether to terminate the pregnancy or have the baby. As a result, I can be reasonably certain that I will never be held financially responsible for a child I didn’t want to have, and that I will never have my unborn child aborted without my consent.
Because I am not expected to be my family’s primary breadwinner, I have the luxury of prioritising factors other than salary when choosing a career path.
RTWT, natch. I suppose I could add one about how women will never have their sexuality questioned for loving ABBA, but the main point here is to raise the profile of said checklists, because of the patriarchy. Or to tweak people drenched in their divisive multiculturalism and identity politics, because I checked Technorati last night and the usual suspects have yet to discover this particular outrage. They can thank me later.
They also totally win at Vagina Heron
errr….Heron? Damn eeepc keys
I will never have my unborn child aborted without my consent.
Is this a minor point? Nature will cause abortions that many women would not consent to. They can bleed out, get sick and lose reproductive organs, other organs, limbs, and even die, as well as lose a pregnancy they would rather keep. So woo to the exclusive “control” of pregnancy all women have, which does have some minor connection to the fact that she is the person actually pregnant.
Not to mention that it is possible for a woman to be assaulted or injured in assorted ways by third persons that will similarly cause fetal demise and abortion or stillbirth.
So I’m hating on that part of the list.
Roe isn’t based on women having some exclusive right to avoid financial burden; it’s based on rights that all men have. And that is discretion to manage the risks and rigors of pregnancy and its impact on her own flesh and bone, not her pocketbook.
I perfectly accept that many believe the life interest of the fetus trumps any or most physical burdens or health risk to the mother, however, the law is not based on pocketbooks and their emptying.
Killing a child is okay because sometimes children die of natural causes? Yeah, right.
I think Gary Beusey had it right.”How come women are so up tight? They got half the money and all the pussy!”
Hot chicks can make out with each other in public and nobody ever says EWWWWWW.
And sugartits, But not PMS.
Boo herons which eat frogs and fish which eat mosquitoes and mosquitoe larve.
Though yellow-crowned night herons are pretty to look at. Still boo.
And yeah, SarahW, who notices nature.
SarahW
The list chaffes, because it makes all sorts of assumptions just like the “White privilege” list does. IMHO that’s why Thompson offered it, and he even links to some feminist ‘male privilege’ posts in demonstration of his mocking counter-list.
I find the whole ‘privilege’ meme – usually offered up in deadly serious tones – most mock worthy.
and yes, SarahW, I totally agree with your Roe analysis at #5
It is one of the unfortunate consequences of Roe that numerous males and females have taken advantage of it to use it as an economic weapon.
Women don’t have to wear pants.
If I marry, there is a very good chance that I will be given the option to quit my job and live off my husband’s income without having my femininity questioned.
The wording of that bugs.
Kilts, see Bolus.
RTWT, natch. I suppose I could add one about how women will never have their sexuality questioned for loving ABBA,
A woman could have her sexuality questioned for loving The Three Stooges.
Try showing up for work in a kilt.
Kilts, the new tattoo. I can see it.
Maybee
Yes, because it dismisses what defines the institution of marriage – it is a partnership where the couple pools and shares equally in its resources.
Hmmm…I don’t think there’s anything in the corporate dress code that specifically prohibits kilts. Wonder where I can get one? It’d have to be a summerweight wool, though, because Florida’s 95/95 days will tend to produce a rash with your standard kilt.
I’m tempted to give it a go. I’d have to look up the family tartan, though. And then there’s the problem of finding the proper sporran.
exactly, Darleen.
And I’m the first person to say that men that support their families deserve more praise than they get these days–especially compared to working moms and single working moms.
All men that want to show up somewhere in a kilt are welcome to come to my house. Should I link to my favorite kilt photo for JD?
Florida’s 95/95 days will tend to produce a rash with your standard kilt.
And if you go sans Nut-Bra, you’ll take care to not walk through any thistle fields as well.
It’s the mosquitoes we fear down here, alppuccino, as noted above. Though sands spurs can be nasty, no matter where they penetrate skin.
Mmmm…. kilts.
Unmmmm…kilts.
#17
“A woman could have her sexuality questioned for loving The Three Stooges.”
Not at all. You’d prabobly get asked out on more dates. Most guys don’t like ABBA. All guys like the stooges.
RE: Rusty vs. Maybee.
Consider “There’s Something About Mary.” Dudes would kill for a hot surgeon who loves to watch ESPN. And if she wants sex as much as most dudes, so much the better. Her sexuality will be celebrated, not questioned. By dudes, anyway.
MayBee may be referring to the henhouse, and she would know better than I. But most women don’t want their men too sensitive, whereas I think the reverse tolerance is higher among men.
http://www.utilikilts.com/
Darleen and SarahW are wrong about Sarahw’s commnent # 5.
Roe isn’t based on women having some exclusive right to avoid financial burden; it’s based on rights that all men have. And that is discretion to manage the risks and rigors of pregnancy and its impact on her own flesh and bone, not her pocketbook.
Money is a fungible form of labor. That money was garnered by work, which always has an effect on one’s “flesh and bones.” Roe sets up a standard of choice for the woman only, but leaves responsibility shared with the man. If we are to have choice, then men deserve it too.
Darleen, you know I respect you, but this is hogwash: Yes, because it dismisses what defines the institution of marriage – it is a partnership where the couple pools and shares equally in its resources.
Partners get to negotiate terms. Marriage doesn’t allow for that. Partnership agreements allow for discretionary pooling of resources, commensurate with the value brought by each partner. Marriage doesn’t. Most partner agreements do not have “no fault” divorce terms. There are real penalties for infidelity in a partnership. Courts enforce none of that in a marriage.
Marriage is not a partnership. It is a government-mandated, one-size-fits-all, contract — mostly designed to take care of women.
The list chaffes, because it makes all sorts of assumptions just like the “White privilege†list does. IMHO that’s why Thompson offered it, and he even links to some feminist ‘male privilege’ posts in demonstration of his mocking counter-list.
Darleen, that’s one way to look at it, but perhaps there are different but commensurate privileges granted to women and men. As women complain ceaselessly about various forms of male “privilege”, it’s right for men to point the good graces society gives women and denies to men.
In my view, there is an imbalance in favor of women. It’s arguable either way, though.
Labor theory of value has been overthrown by marginal utility theory in the minds of most economists, I think. I’m no expert on this, just throwing it out there. I don’t think it would change the point you are making even a little. Just, the less Marx, the better.
Sdferr, wrote Labor theory of value has been overthrown by marginal utility theory in the minds of most economists
Nope. The Surplus Value Theory of Labor (you left out the the surplus part) is clearly wrong. Marginal utility is a (very accurate) description of how people value things, i.e. evaluate the utility of a thing in making economic choices. Money is most definitely not a measure of value, but it is rather the most marketable good. It serves as a fungible and durable medium for which one can exchange other goods — including labor.
At root, you confound the concepts value, opportunity costs (via marginal utility), and money.
I stand well corrected and happy to be so.
I find myself in the position of being able to “prioritis[e] factors other than salary when choosing a career path” because my husband’s dream after we both worked in geology for a number of years was to get an MBA and become an energy finance guy… and I’m grateful every day for his weird interests and our marriage pact. But as I’ve told him all along, if he’d decided that he wanted to pursue, say, lit crit (bow to our esteemed host) rather than finance, I would’ve supported him to my best ability, only because I love him and want his working hours to be as satisfying as possible – just as he wants mine to be.
Jeff
With all due respect, while ” It is a government-mandated, one-size-fits-all, contract  mostly designed to take care of women” contains a kernal of truth, your presentation reads fairly hostile. Marriage contracts have existed long before any kind of political sex-equity. The state has a vested interest in behavior that can lead to children, and thus it offers a default marriage contract wherein it gives an overall template of the rights and obligations of those who enter the contract. It certainly doesn’t bar pre-nup contracts (see John and Cindy McCain) anymore than it bars people drawing up their own wills rather than going by the standard way the state will divide your assets upon death if you die without one.
Regardless of modern American political culture where men and women rise and fall upon their talents (ideally), the fact remains that a woman is always going to be the one physically inconvenienced by pregnancy. The sexes are equal before the law, but not in reality. The law must then balance competing interests – man, woman, nascent human life. I do not believe there can ever be a set of statutes that will please all parties because of the vagaries of individual motivations.
However, basic marriage statutes must be geared to treating the adults within the marriage as equitable partners, regardless of how the labor is divided, and protect the interests of the children. The health of the family unit as an autonomous entity that generates wealth for the individuals (couples in long term marriages have more wealth and financial stability than do singles) in it and contributes to the well-being of the society at large is as much the interest of the government as is basic business contracts and statutes.
Unfortunately, the push for the mythical sex egalitarianism has been foremost among many cultural trends that has negatively impacted marriage and marriage statutes. Certainly where out-of-wedlock births are highest also exists the highest poverty and lower levels of education.
Consider “There’s Something About Mary.†Dudes would kill for a hot surgeon who loves to watch ESPN. And if she wants sex as much as most dudes, so much the better. Her sexuality will be celebrated, not questioned. By dudes, anyway.
That’s true.
I’m just saying that if you find a woman that likes the Stooges, she’s not a lesbian, she’s a man.
Sports are different. Sports are hot, especially college football.
Do not click on MayBee’s links. Your mind’s eye, it will bleed.
#29 urthshu
“…you panty-waisted gopher”
ROFLMAO … almost lost a flatscreen there…. bwhahhahahhahah
They also totally win at Vagina Heron
That’s like “Penis Bird”, right?
(don’t google that if you value your sanity, btw.)
I’m just saying that if you find a woman that likes the Stooges, she’s not a lesbian, she’s a man.
My wife loves the Stooges and, last time I checked, she’s not either of those.
She’s just saying that to make you happy, SBP ;-)
xoxo,
Miss NevarWrong
Hey, I can’t help it if I found the only woman on the planet whose sense of humor is sophisticated enough to appreciate the subtle comedies of manners created by Larry, Moe, and Curly (Shemp, Joe, and “Curly-Joe” can go piss up a rope, btw).
(Shemp, Joe, and “Curly-Joe†can go piss up a rope, btw).
Amen, brother, Amen. It’s like post-Roth Van Halen or post-Ozzie Sabbath or post-Matlock Sex Pistols. Even though you tell yourself it sounds okay, you know in your heart its just shite.
Spies – You are one big honking racist sexist homophobic degenerate. You had to know that I was going to google that.
JD — linking to Penis Bird or Goatse (along with a strong warning) provides a perfect illustration of what was going on in Genesis 3.
if she wants sex as much as most dudes, so much the better
Just an observation, but I’d say most women over the age of…hmmm..24? 25? seem to want sex much more than ‘dudes’.
And a woman over 35? Yep, fact.
Darleen wrote, your presentation reads fairly hostile. Women say that when men communicate directly. I think many woman today are used to being sassy, without being sassed back. I usually just say, “you’re a big girl, you can take it.” Considering lots of stuff you write here, I don’t think you are really in a position to accuse people of hostile blog comments. No offense meant. I actually like your direct style. I wish more women spoke as plainly. Do you want special treatment for women in blog comments too?
I agree with all you wrote about the state’s interests in raising children. I’m not a libertarian. However, the “contract” standards in family court are wholly different than in civil courts. They are so different as to be incomparable.
Darleen wrote, the fact remains that a woman is always going to be the one physically inconvenienced by pregnancy.
Here’s where we really disagree. If pregnancy is an inconvenience it’s assumed by a woman voluntarily. Every decision has opportunity costs, including pregnancy. The desire to unburden women from the opportunity costs of their decisions will produce undesirable effects. Your approach will produce the same distorted economic decision-making one would find in any Socialist system. You’ll get a surplus of babies born to women who can’t afford them. You’ll establish incentives for women to bear children without fathers. Etc. The effects of subsidized opportunity costs are well known, and you can see it at work in the current illegitimacy rates.
Insulating women from the opportunity costs of pregnancy (mostly by shoving them onto men), will have the same effect as a government subsidy. You want a little Socialism for pregnant women, and I don’t.
I advocate two simple principles which are really equivalent: (1) all rights come with concomitant responsibilities, (2) the person who has the choice is the person who should bear most of the consequences of that choice.
When we redistribute the opportunity costs of pregnancy onto men, we subsidize sexual irresponsibility. That’s bad for men, bad for women, and especially bad for children.
Darleen wrote, However, basic marriage statutes must be geared to treating the adults within the marriage as equitable partners, regardless of how the labor is divided, and protect the interests of the children. But the law doesn’t. It gives women more rights. I’m all for equality under the law. It’s women, including you, who argue against that principle.
If the law treated parties equally, then child custody would be presumptively joint. This would protect the childs interests best, too. But most family courts give presumptive custody to women, de facto if not at law.
Darleen wrote, [the family] contributes to the well-being of the society at large is as much the interest of the government as is basic business contracts and statutes.
True. But the same could be said for commercial contracts. The government sets minimal standards for such contracts under the UCC and then allows parties to negotiate form there. Moreover, the negotiated terms are enforceable. None of this is true in family courts. Even prenups are subject to the judges discretion. Commercial contract terms aren’t.
Darleen wrote, Unfortunately, the push for the mythical sex egalitarianism has been foremost among many cultural trends that has negatively impacted marriage and marriage statutes. Certainly where out-of-wedlock births are highest also exists the highest poverty and lower levels of education.
Here’s where I always get confused in our discussions. I fully endorse your thoughts here. But elsewhere, you seem to push for egalitarianism. For example in statutes that encourage women to behave irresponsibly with their sexuality. I gave the example of opportunity costs.
Consider this. Women have choice. Suppose men had choice, then a husband or boyfiedn could terminte his parental responsibilities by filing paperwork with the courts during the same period a woman could legally have an abortion. Also, any women who gets pregnant and can’t support her child will be considered presumptively unfit. Her child will be taken from her and put up for adoption by the state.
Under this scheme, women would be unable to force men to subsidize their reproductive choices, just as men are unable to do at present with women. Women would lose the benefits of motherhood if it’s used irresponsibly, placing opportunity costs where they belong. And children would be placed in homes with economically and sexually responsibly parents.
Choice for men has many benefits for children. In this age of choice and contraception, I see no better policy.
Darleen wrote, Just an observation, but I’d say most women over the age of…hmmm..24? 25? seem to want sex much more than ‘dudes’.
Yes. Women are more sexual than men. Moderns have somehow gotten this quite backwards.
#36
Darleen. I forgive you. It is a mans prerogative to be magnanimous.
The reason there are fights over the Male Privilege and Female Privilege lists is because people are claiming the rhetorical benefits of Victim Privilege