TW: rape, internal misogyny, me being cranky about it.
I’d like to thank Dean Esmay over on the Twitter for pointing out this blog post, The Female Privilege Checklist, to me. He may not be so thrilled with me by the time I get done with it, though. Oh well, gotta blow up some eggs in the microwave to get me to clean it, or something. (Actually, that’s what happened this morning: my roommate forgot to put one of the parts of his four-part microwave egg-cooker on when he assembled it this morning and I woke up to asploded eggy microwave.)
Anyway, to this fellow woman’s post. I’m going to skip all the part where she goes on about how POCs and other complaining about privilege are just taking part in a victimization contest because I don’t want to be here all day (though I’ll just say this: if you think being a victim is some sort of prize in a contest, maybe you need to rethink your ideas about life). I’m just going to get to my favorite thing, a list — namely, the list she provides of things that I, as a woman, are supposed to be privileged with. Warning: this is a long-ass thing, so I’ve put it behind the cut:
The blog author first tells us “Women are requested to consider whether they can answer “yes” to these questions.” Let’s see what these “questions” (none of which are questions — they’re all statements) are. Also, I’ll start right off the bat and tell you all that these things are all Western-culture-centric, and quite a few of them are pertinent only to the white, upper-middle-class, heterosexual (or cisgender, if you prefer) lifestyle.
1) People are likely to assume I am a warm and empathetic person.
Are they now. Actually, though, isn’t this just the “nice” way of saying people (that is, men) are likely to assume they are entitled to have a woman, any woman, drop whatever she’s doing to tend to his problems. This is not a privilege, no matter how much you try to convince yourself that it means “you’re the one they rely on” or whatever bullshit you tell yourself to keep from punching the next self-involved fucker who interrupts you.
2) People are likely to assist me when I must perform a physically arduous task.
You mean men (quite using “people” when we know you mean men, especially in this instance where the idea of women helping other women would render this statement meaningless) assume that because you’re a woman, you’re immediately weaker and less competent at doing anything physical, so they jump in and “help” you whether you like it or not (and often making a hash of things with their giant, clumsy man hands). Can you feel the privilege? I can’t.
3) If my car breaks down or I am otherwise in distress, people will be more likely to stop and help me.
See above, where women are assumed to be incompetent ninnies who panic if their cars break down or something. Also, privileges that are sex-marked like this suck for other reasons, such as say you’re a handicapped man whose van blows a tire. If you drive past this man on your way to help a perfectly able-bodied woman because “he’s a man, he can take care of himself, there’s a woman who Needs Me!” then you’re not a Sir Galahad, you’re an asshole.
4) If I am being physically assaulted, no matter the gender of my assailant, it is more likely that passersby will intervene.
Something tells me this woman has never been physically assaulted only to be rescued by a helpful man/crowd. (Again, “passersby” being used as a fakeout way of not saying “men” because come on, women doing this would render her whole thesis moot.) In any case, it seems to be more common to women’s real life experience (as opposed to scenes in Hollywood movies) that they are assaulted and no one gives two shits much less stops to help.
5) People are likely to assume I am a competent parent, unless and until I prove otherwise.
Please stop basing your reality on sitcoms and commercials. In real life the only reason people think of “mother” as the primary caregiver is because that’s considered one of a woman’s traditional roles, while men are supposed to be outside the house earning money. Also, this “competent parent” thing dies a final death if the woman is unmarried; that renders her not a supermom, but a parasitical drain on society who is raising a future criminal and drug addict while also being too stupid/evil/slutty/inadequate to keep a man in the house which children need because Daddy is all. Privilege my ass. Where are mothers treated with anything but with genial contempt at best in this society, and at worst as monsters who will turn their children into psychotic wrecks if there is no man to control her or if the controlling hand of her husband isn’t strong enough.
6) People are more likely to respect my right to be offended by inappropriate or impolite behavior.
Hello, upper-middle-class white privileged lady! I am just a rung below you on the white societal scale and like magic this privilege has not been extended to me, or to any woman I’ve known, and it has never been extended to any woman of color of any class. Is she actually claiming that no man has made a sexually inappropriate remark and displayed absolutely no remorse about it, instead expecting her to take it with a smile? Or what is more likely, she just didn’t recognize the insult. The internalized misogyny is strong in this one.
7) If I yell, people are not likely to believe I am going to hurt them.
That’s because they just think you’re being an overemotional, flakey woman. Not having your anger taken seriously because “Ooh, she’s just a silly girl” isn’t a privilege.
8) Dress codes in the workplace and in leisure contexts are more likely to allow me to choose clothing that emphasize my most attractive features and minimize those I am unhappy with.
What. What. What does this even mean. What does this mean. What is this woman talking about. I don’t even. Is she telling us, actually claiming, that men are forced to hide their charms under layers of unsightly clothing? No? Then what the fucking fuck is she fucking talking about?
By the way. Having to “dress up” to be noticed and accepted is not a privilege. Women in this society have to dress up to “emphasize their most attractive features” because if not they get accused of being lesbian feminazi things who are refusing men’s entitlement to have attractive female bodies to look at at all times. Also? The clothes used to get women to look “attractive” according to Western standards are often uncomfortable, like high heels, bras, and girdles.
9) I am allowed by society to wear make-up to make myself more attractive without anyone questioning my sexual orientation. I am given a large social leeway in the kinds of hairstyles I can choose that will flatter my facial features.
Dear heart. My dear. My dear young woman. Men have worn makeup and fixed up their hair before and no one dared call them names because it was the fashion. It can become the fashion again. Whatever men want to look like, men get to look like. Why? In part, because there are women like you bleating from the sidelines that you’re privileged, yes privileged, to “be able” to dress how men want you to dress.
My skull is pounding and I’m not even halfway through this list. But I’m doing this for you, my dear readers. All for you.
10) If I work in a profession that is dominated by the opposite gender, people are likely to see it as “heroic”, or a sign of social progress, rather than that I am deficient in some way.
Nnnnot quite. I mean, how is that a privilege, instead of an indicator that there is still inequity and unfairness in the workplace?
11) If I show weakness, the first response of most people will be to console or help me, not criticize me, ignore me, or dismiss me as pathetic.
Wow what planet does this woman live on, I want to go there, a place where people don’t treat you like something that inconveniences their day because you aren’t the stoic one. I can tell you it’s not a planet I, or many other women, live on. Instead, we live on the planet where a “good” woman is a rock, someone who is the comforter and nurturer, while the women who flips her shit at every little thing (or flips her shit at serious things, which because they are happening to her, are never serious, no, never) is the “flake,” the load, the drain, the one you roll your eyes over. Or else, you’ve always been calm, but something happens that gets on your nth nerve (like, I don’t know, reading some princess’ list of charmed life things that she thinks proves something about how great women have it) and you lose your temper, and instead of people gathering around you and agreeing in your righteous rage they gather around you to accuse you of making them uncomfortable. By “people” I mean men and women both here.
12) I am not expected to make the “first move” when meeting members of the opposite sex for the purposes of dating.
But if you are, don’t worry, a chorus of “slut!” will put you back in your waiting-to-be-asked place. Yeah. Privileged.
13) Members of the opposite gender are expected to make the first move; therefore, it is less likely I will be sexually rejected by those I come into close contact with in a dating context.
Yes, since the other person had to do all the “heavy lifting” of asking you out, and you’ve accepted, your date will now be entitled to you doing whatever he wants. That’s how this works, you know.
By the way, I’ve noticed something. Have you noticed something? “Opposite sex.” Yeah. Have a nice day.
14) I am not expected to spend a significant portion of my yearly income on a token that accompanies a marriage proposal.
I don’t know why she’s using this coy way to talk about the Western custom (which only has been around for about 100 years) of having a man buy an expensive engagement ring. Also? Why should men buy these things? It’s a scam by the diamond companies. Here’s more entitlement thinking, based on the stupid (not privileged) idea that men have to show they have lots of earning power and that women are entitled to be bought by gifts. No one should be “expected” to give anyone something they can’t afford. This is not a privilege, it’s an abuse. As most privileges are.
15) I am less likely to be expected to spend a significant amount of money on gifts, tokens, and activities during courtship and dating.
Again, this is not a privilege, it’s an exploitation of current gender imbalances. There’s nothing cute about expecting a man to buy you expensive things while you just sit there like a uterus with legs.
16) If I am having dinner with a member of the opposite gender in a dating context, and I do not reach for the check, people are unlikely to assume I am cheap.
Yes more gender-imbalanced unfair treatment, not cute privilege, stop with telling us how speshul this makes women, women should be ashamed that they allow themselves to be owned and put on display like this, men should be ashamed for doing it, everyone else should be ashamed for accepting it as “the way things are,” stop it, stop it, stop it. Raising women to expect to be treated like this is not good for anyone.
17) If I am having dinner with a member of the opposite gender in a non-dating context, and I do not reach for the check, people are still unlikely to assume I am cheap.
See the fuck above, also who gives a shit what strangers think. Stop with the assumption that a woman’s every move has to be made with the intention of getting every single stranger in her vicinity to approve of her actions.
18) If I earn less than my partner, no one will look at me funny.
Yes, just keep on spreading the bad, damaging idea that men have to earn more than women or their cocks will shrivel up inside their bodies or something. Also, since when is it a “privilege” to earn less money than someone else just so your husband (we know you’re not talking about any same-sex relationship so you can quit using weasel terms like “partner”) will feel good about himself? What if you need the money? What if you deserve it? Hell–what if you want it? Nope, the men have to feel like Real Men so you ladies can keep on earning less.
19) If I earn nothing and my partner supports me, no one will look at me funny.
I will. But you know, it’s not so great a privilege to be the one earning “nothing” because resentment on the part of the one who is working is inevitable. Do you think that women who don’t work outside the home and don’t have an income don’t pay for it in other ways? By having to keep a perfect house, or always be in a good mood, or to just put up with the occasional barbed remark because you know what? This isn’t the Imaginary Fifties and no relationship exists without some sort of give and take. Also, it’s humiliating to have to ask for money, like you’re a kid asking for an allowance.
20) If I am unemployed and my partner is supporting me, people other than my partner are unlikely to pressure me because I am “not trying hard enough” to find employment.
I really like to know what she’s basing this on, other than an existence that is already insulated from some of the harsher realities of life. (Note: I don’t know anything about this woman. She could have been born in a ditch, raised in the ghetto, and be currently living on welfare. But she sure doesn’t write like she is, so I’m going with the impressions her writing is giving me.) Anyway, never in my existence have I been unemployed without people I happen to live with at the time getting on my ass in some way. Also, who gave her the right to speak for all women’s existence. Quite a lot of women have not only not been indulged and cossetted, but their men (husbands, boyfriends, whatever) have not only pestered them to get and stay employed, but have sat around on their lazy asses playing video game and drinking beer. In fact, quite a lot of women get beaten if they don’t bring home a paycheck. Yes, even in this marvelous land of ours that has treated our blog author so nicely.
21) If I earn less than my partner, people are unlikely to expect me to contribute equally to our living expenses.
I’d like to actually know why you expect your hubby, should he earn less than you, to pay “equally” in living expenses. And again we have her just assuming all life is like this, everywhere.
22) If I am skilled in activities/hobbies that are commonly attributed to the opposite gender (kick boxing, operating power tools, shingling a roof, knitting, scrap-booking, floral arranging), people will see me as admirable. No one is likely to think I am a weirdo or wonder if I’m gay.
Oh yeah, everyone thinks that when men take over a woman’s “hobbies” (like dress-designing, cooking, quilting) they’re “gay.” Not, instead, turning something that used to be thought of as just those little tasks women are supposed to do because they’re “women’s work” into something that is suddenly all professional and important needs schools and special hats because OMG men are doing it now so ladies, out of our way! (Also WTFBBQ slurs against gays HOW FEMINIST.)
23) If I am completing a task with a member of the opposite gender, it will be expected that they take the greater physical burden–such as carrying the heavier boxes.
You know what the stronger person should do the harder physical tasks. This is not privilege, this is efficiency. If the woman is stronger, let her do it.
24) If I cry or am hurt, men and women are unlikely to tell me to “suck it up”.
Love that “or women” in there. Anyway, the truth is if women cry we, as the supposedly more “emotional” sex, are often ignored or our hurt downplayed. If men do it, stop the presses hold the phone OMG a man is crying there must be a crisis should the president use the red phone? Get real.
25) If I choose to stay at home with my children while my partner works, people are unlikely to think I am a deadbeat, unskilled, or shirking my responsibility to my family.
Yeah and that’s not a privilege, that’s another indication of gender imbalance in this country. If a man is the one who is better suited to stay home with the kids, and some are, while the women go out to work because 24/7 with the kids would result in an Andrea Yates situation with drowned kids in the bathtub, the man is treated like some sort of weirdo. It’s not “privilege” to have to live a life you’re not suited for.
26) If I choose discontinue, temporarily leave, or reduce my participation in a high-status career in order to spend time at home caring for children, people are likely to consider it a “noble sacrifice” rather than a waste of my talents.
Have you never read a magazine article on “women in the workplace” in your life. Also, why should you get to be the one who does this? See my reply above. Not all women are suited to staying home with the brats. Those who don’t, who are eager to get back to their career that they love as soon as possible, are the ones getting treated like bizarre monsters.
27) If I work and have a family, my employer will be less likely to require me to work overtime or bring work home with me. This will be the case even if I equally share domestic duties with my partner, or have outside domestic help (housekeeper, nanny).
That’s because your employer will likely to have single, childless women to dump the burden on. Thanks, privileged moms for making me work extra! (Also, for the overtime pay, which I need since I don’t have an imaginary overworked unprivileged husband bringing home more money than me.)
28) If an employer claims to have “non-sexist” hiring policies, I can assume this to mean that members of my gender will be more likely to be hired, rather than less.
Ha ha assume all you like it doesn’t make it true. And actually, though, I’ve noticed in my non-privileged working life, that most offices in the US are staffed thusly: some female supervisors, all male heavy physical workers and anything to do with machinery, clerical staff 97% female. (I’ve known exactly one administrative assistant who was a man. I’ve been working since 1980.)
29) If I choose a career in early childhood or elementary level education, or volunteer to work with youth, no one will wonder if it’s because I am a pedophile. They will trust me, even if they are aware that members of my own gender can and sometimes do use these positions to facilitate their sexual abuse of children.
See exploitation of gender imbalances above and god I’m tired of this. These are not goals for our side, ladies. Also? Thanks to a few sensationalist news stories, more and more people think of nannies and lunch ladies and teachers of teen boys as potential abusers, just like men. Achievement unlocked?
30) If I commit a crime against children, even before details come out, people are likely to want to believe I have been falsely accused, was “failed by the system”, or was somehow “driven to it” by factors outside my control (such as mental illness, poverty, lack of social services, childhood abuse), because members of my gender “just don’t do stuff like that”. It is unlikely they will automatically attribute my actions to unprovoked aggression or hold me entirely responsible for them.
This woman has obviously never cracked open the Daily Mail website. Also, two words, a name: Andrea Yates. She was enjoying the privilege of living as an unemployed housewife in her husband’s trailer home taking care of her five kids (because she was privileged as their more competent parent) when she drowned them all in the bath. I don’t recall a whole lot of mercy being extended to this woman. But in any case, any such care for a murderous mother’s sensibilities is extended in this society only to white women. Don’t even argue with me you know it’s true.
31) If I am a victim of domestic violence, there are many services in my community that will help people of my gender. It is unlikely I will be denied services based on my gender.
Erm, yeah, that’s because there’s so much domestic violence against women. Privilege? Not one I want, thanks.
32) If my partner physically abuses me, I will be believed by the authorities. Their belief will not depend on whether I have physical signs of injury.
The hell it won’t. Where do you get this? Also, there may be less “she drove him to it” from official channels, but the idea is still in our culture, like a fungus. Just read the internet. You are on the internet, aren’t you? Also a courtesy not as often extended to poor women, women of color, etc. the drill, you know it.
33) If I physically abuse my partner, people–including the authorities and victim’s services personnel–are likely to assume it was in self defence. Even if I tell them I hit first and my partner is non-violent, they are likely to wonder if my partner did something to instigate the assault, like cheating on me, yelling at me, or otherwise provoking me to lose control.
There’s a whole lot of assumption to unpack in this. I mean, yes, women who hit men hard enough to cause injury have usually been driven to it by some unusual circumstances but… how is this even a privilege. Women are for the most part less physically strong, and thus less able to do physical damage, than men. How is this a privilege. Women in this society are conditioned — not privileged — to not be physically confrontational, mostly for good reasons (like, they’ll be the ones who get hurt worst ninety percent of the time), so when they do attack men, it’s usually not for trivial reasons. (Unlike an abusive man — dinner is five second late, the meat was slightly overdone, he just was in a bad mood that day, and kerpow!) But there’s this cutesy “Aww, she tried to punch her guy. Aren’t they cute when they’re feisty?” Also see the sexualization of “girlfights” with female mud wrestling and all the rest of it, while male wrestlers are considered professional sportsmen. How is this a female privilege.
34) If I physically abuse my partner, and they reciprocate, they are as likely or more likely to be the one arrested as I am, even if my partner’s reciprocation was in self-defence.
Maybe, maybe. But maybe he just ended up hurting you badly, because men are physically stronger (usually) than women. There’s nothing privileged about this. We’ve left privilege and entered the sphere of domestic abuse. And the presence of so much talk about these situations in a list like this, about privileges supposedly extended to “all” (well, all Western, white, upper-middle-class) women, makes domestic abuse situations look like they’re a normal part of existence women should expect to have to deal with in their lives. And, you know what? They aren’t.
35) If my partner physically abuses me, and I reciprocate–even if I admit my reciprocation was not in self-defence but out of anger–it is unlikely that I will be arrested.
That would depend on circumstances. If he decided to press charges (and few men would, not because women are speshul delicate flowers but because men are afraid of looking like “sissies” because cultural gender inequity) then you bet your ass would be arrested.
36) If I am divorced, and my ex-partner earns more than I do, it is more likely I will be awarded spousal support, even if am employed and self-supporting, than if our positions were reversed.
This isn’t a privilege. It’s a necessity born of the fact that most women are not these fantasy earners-of-more-than-their-exes. Stop extrapolating your privileged existence to that of all women.
37) If I am divorced, the default assumption in the family court system is that I will have primary custody of my children. This will be the case, even if my ex-partner and I shared breadwinning and childcare duties roughly equally during the marriage.
That’s because in our society we still think a woman’s proper role is in the home raising the kids, and that kids need mommy more for vague emotional reasons extending from this belief. It has nothing to do with thinking the mother is the “better” parent. Nothing.
38) If my ex-partner sues me for custody, they are unlikely to be as successful as I would be were our positions reversed. The burden will be on them to prove I am an unfit parent, rather than that they are more fit, before this likelihood tips in their favor.
Well yes, when you go against societal norms you’ll have all sorts of unfair hurdles to leap over. This is not so much a female privilege, though, as it’s based on those ideas of “mother” I talked about above.
39) If I am divorced, I will in almost every case be awarded child support. If my ex-partner does not abide by the terms of the custody/child support order, they will face legal consequences as serious as a prison sentence. They will face these consequences even if their reason for not paying is that their financial situation has changed since the marriage. They will face these consequences even if I do not fulfill my own legal obligations spelled out in the custody order to permit or facilitate their access to my children–my right to distance myself from my ex-partner is likely to take precedence over my children’s right to involvement with their non-custodial parent.
Again, child support laws are based in the reality that when a man leaves a woman, especially one with kids, their existence drops several notches down towards poverty if not right into it. This is not due to some fake female “privilege” but in the reality that men have always been the main breadwinners, because proper mothers have to stay home with their kids and at most work part-time lower-paying jobs, and when their men go their jobs and the money from it go with them. Just because this existence has changed for a privileged class of women (our favorite upper-middle-class white woman) doesn’t mean it’s not still reality for most other women in the country. This is not a female privilege. It’s necessary to keep the kids from starving to death while their often feckless dad goes out and lives a responsibility-free life.
40) If I am divorced and my partner is awarded primary custody of my children, I will only rarely be required to pay child support, even if I can afford it. If I am required to pay child support and I do not, for whatever reason, it is unlikely that I will face any legal consequences.
This again is due to the fact that unlike the very small number of women in this country who make more money than their exes, most women don’t. This has nothing to do with privilege, except for a very sifted few who are privileged not due to their sex but to their placement in society’s economic and racial hierarchy.
41) If I abuse the legal process during my divorce by obtaining a fraudulent temporary restraining order, misrepresenting my financial status, hiding assets, or otherwise perjuring myself, it is very unlikely I will be charged with a crime. In fact, my abuse of the legal process–even after it has been discovered by the court–is likely to benefit me in matters such as custody. Moreover, “the good of the children” will be treated as a reason to not penalize me monetarily–such as by reducing my share of joint assets.
I’d like to know what she bases this on. When a divorce case has gone this bad — when one of the party is going to illegal lengths to get what they want — a whole lot of other factors come into play, not the least of which is our sluggish, lawyer-burdened justice system. I doubt situations like this are very common. In any case, I doubt some privilege extended to all women is at play here. People who have “joint assets” have other privileges that are more useful, like having the money and connections to be able to hire competent lawyers.
42) If my ex-partner abuses the legal process in the above ways, they are more likely to be penalized criminally by being charged, or monetarily through reduction of their share of our joint assets.
Again, I’d like to know what she bases this on. How are men getting treated worse than women in this area. I just don’t see it being based on something so overarching as “female privilege.” As a matter of fact, in our culture it’s usually the woman who gets blamed, at least by societal censure, in rancorous divorce cases like this. Unless she puts on a real good Suffering Sue act, she comes off as the bitch, while the ex-husband is treated like a sad, put-upon puppy. So, you know, where’s the privilege?
43) If I have consensual sex with my partner and we are both underage, and a charge of statutory rape is filed, I will never be the one charged. This will be the case even if I pressured my partner to have sex and they objected.
Yes this is wrong, no it’s not because of “female privilege,” but because of our sucky attitude towards sex. Also, in this society, in the majority of these cases it’s the girl who was pressured. And then she gets to be called a “slut” later. Hooray for privilege!
44) If I am raped by a member of the opposite gender, and I am not below the age of consent, no one will tell me such a crime does not exist.
Wait, what? You know those women who had sex with underage boys were arrested, don’t you? Also, how is this a privilege. “Well, I was raped, but at least they believed I was raped! Thank God for female privilege!” I know we went through the looking-glass some time ago, but…
45) If I am raped by a member of the opposite gender, knowledgeable members of the medical and criminal justice communities are unlikely to consider my body’s involuntary and automatic responses to sexual stimuli as “proof” that I gave consent.
Where on earth is she getting this information. But I really don’t want to know that. What I really want to know is how is she even using rape to illustrate her female privilege thingie. How.
46) If I am the victim of a statutory rape committed by a member of the opposite gender, and it results in a pregnancy, I will have a choice as to what my parental responsibilities to that child will be. I will not be legally required to be financially responsible for a child that results if I have been raped by an adult.
Wait wait wait wait. Wait.
I don’t get this. How. How is this a privilege. No. How is this a thing that illustrates privilege. A man rapes a woman. She gets pregnant. And there’s even a question that she should be the one with a choice of what to do about it? This is even a question another woman can ask? And we shouldn’t expect a rapist to at least pay some sort of compensation to the woman he raped if she decides to have his child because what, she shouldn’t have made him rape her? She had anything to do with getting pregnant beyond existing and being female? She should be punished by being made to take care of that child on her own because how dare she even think of burdening her poor rapist with the results of his actions?
This is appalling.
She had five or so more questions, all dealing with her fake equivalence between male circumcision and female genital mutilation, but you know what? I’m not going there. All the rape stuff was gross enough.
Just a few more things, for your delectation. She goes on for several more paragraphs. Here are some of the things she says:
What feminists–and many groups claiming disadvantage in whatever area–don’t seem to consider is that privilege is an inherently oppositional and proportional concept. In order for men, for instance, to have male privilege in a specific context, it requires that women’s disadvantage in that context be in opposition in relation to that privilege.
Wow. People claiming disadvantage don’t realize that privilege is necessary? Is that what she’s saying? Or that it’s inevitable and that we should just accept it, because if we try to correct this imbalance here it will just cause an imbalance someplace else? Wow.
Also how binary is this woman’s thinking, but you knew that from all her citations of “opposite sex.” Maybe we aren’t all standing on one or the other of two balanced scales. Maybe giving more power (not “privilege”) to poor people and women in general and non-white people altogether won’t, in fact, mean all the rich white men end up in the poorhouse. What happened to “a rising tide lifts all boats” and other trite yet true sayings?
The greater the female privilege, the greater the male disenfranchisement.
No. That is not true. “Giving” women more “privilege” — that is, ceasing to keep them down below men in almost every way — does not result in men losing anything. Don’t libertarians believe that life is not a pie, but an endless wellspring of opportunity? I’ve noticed that libertarians believe the things they say only when it’s convenient for their arguments though. Also, I’ll bet this woman has a blog post somewhere where she says that all those oppressed women in Muslim countries are why their economies are so depressed, “half the population out of the workforce” etc. It’s standard libertarian dogma that is magically not applied to the idea of Western women advancing in the workplace.
…these are the very areas where men suffer the greatest disenfranchisement in our society
Preceded by some blah blah on mean women using children as weapons and shattered lives and oh what about the poor, poor menz, won’t someone think of them?
Here’s some red meat:
Way, way, way up at the beginning of the post, I mentioned privilege in regard to an Asian applying for a tech job. It’s foolish to think that if he beat out a black or white candidate who was better qualified for the job, even if he knows it’s due to stereotyping and the privilege that derives from that, that he will he will take the boss aside and say, “Hey, you know, I think that other guy is actually better than me. Just because I’m Asian doesn’t mean I’m great at fixing computers. You should probably hire him instead.” The more of a positive effect a privilege has on an individual, the less they are inclined to give it up.
1) You really think there’s an employer out there who will hire “Asians” just because they’re supposed to be better at “tech jobs” without actually vetting that person. You think this is how someone stays in business. “Gotta find an Asian! Need to fill a tech job!”
2) Hey “Asians” who have jobs “fixing computers.” Give them up now, because it’s obvious you got those jobs because of “privilege.”
I’m done here.