Male Privilege? I don't think so.

Here on the wild world of the Internet, one of the most common non-arguments you'll run into by feminists since facile things like shouting you down won't work here consists of a dismissive catchphrase: "check your privilege". This is because the feminist in question cannot rebut or refute what you have said and is looking for an easy way to weasel out.

Sometimes, they'll include a link to a so-called "male privilege checklist" which predictably lists a bunch of things that don't even fit the actual definition of privilege or are quite simply articles of faith with no empirical basis. Some are even dumber than that.

Yesterday, while reading the Men's Rights subreddit over at reddit I saw a post in which a feminist true believer decided to claim that homeless men have some sort of "male privilege" (ipso facto the Queen of England or Oprah Winfrey are oppressed by a guy who sleeps on the streets) and the exchange that followed. I've decided to take it one further than one of the posters there to get rid of this ultimate weasel term in the feminist lexicon by tearing the linked "male privilege checklist" end from end. I've seen others like it but they're all full of similar content.

Yes yes, we know, the bogus of argument of "have it but can't see it" -- therefore we'll work off of the very strange definitions of what it somehow must be from the feminists who actually believe this, since they must not have it and therefore can "see it." Actually, the most humorous thing about this list is that it appears to be written by a male feminist, which makes the argument of "you just can't see it" even more droll.

Before we begin though, let's look at what "privilege" actually is:

Privilege \Priv"i*lege\, n. [F. privil[`e]ge, L. privilegium an
     ordinance or law against or in favor of an individual; privus
     private + lex, legis, law. See Private, and Legal.]
     [1913 Webster]
     1. A peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; a right or
        immunity not enjoyed by others or by all; special
        enjoyment of a good, or exemption from an evil or burden;
        a prerogative; advantage; franchise.
        [1913 Webster]
  
              He pleads the legal privilege of a Roman.
                                                    --Kettlewell.
        [1913 Webster]
  
              The privilege birthright was a double portion.
                                                    --Locke.
        [1913 Webster]
  
              A people inheriting privileges, franchises, and
              liberties.                            --Burke.
        [1913 Webster]

Now let's begin.

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female
applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the
job, the larger the odds are skewed.

I don't suppose there is any kind of real empirical basis for this claim, is there? No, I thought not. What you see here is the maddening logic that was present in the now debunked wage gap myth, where feminists looked at the average earnings of men and women and started screaming "Wage Gap" at the top of their lungs like petulant children, not once stopping to analyze any factors that could lead to that disparity. This myth is still persisting to this day, presumably because many feminists are of mind that a lie repeated enough times becomes the truth.

We now know that this is by and large due to the fact that men work on average more hours that women, in more dangerous jobs that have hazard pay, and often in more lucrative fields.

Similarly, feminists see that the top of society is filled with a majority of males in those positions, and insist it must be due to discrimination. It couldn't be that equality of opportunity doesn't necessarily produce equality of outcome, could it...? They also fail to notice that men are over-represented at the bottom of society, making up the vast majority of homeless, yet posit that male over-representation at the top is somehow proof positive of "male privilege" or systemic discrimination against women.

Yet feminists would trade this phantom discrimination they cannot prove even exists for real discrimination in the form of quotas and affirmative action-- real, codified discrimination. They call this "Equality". George Orwell would have a raging hard-on if he were to read some of this stuff that is passed off in the name of equality.

2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true.

A rather easy to foresee consequence of affirmative action programs, don't you think? How exactly is this "male privilege"? That was something feminists had lobbied for, and now they have the audacity to complain about something anyone with a shred of critical thinking could have determined the logical end of. That if you are likely to be hired based on criteria that has absolutely nothing to do with your merit, people might question whether you actually deserve the job.

3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.

Ah, a "chosen people" argument. You see men--if you're not promoted, well, you just didn't deserve it; didn't work hard enough, weren't good enough for it... but if women aren't promoted then it must be discrimination because why else, right? Don't you know women are just better than you, you sick male fucks.

To tone down the sarcasm a little, I'm seen as a loser if I'm a male who fails, but clearly you think that any female who fails is simply a victim of the nefarious "Patriarchy" or phantom sexism or some kind of other excuse likely related to "historical oppression" that they've never suffered in their lifetime.

4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

And here we delve into mind-reader territory. You know what's going in our minds because you can read them, right? Add in a dash of collectivist identity politics where women are all just some interchangable cogs in a machine instead of individuals and you get what I quoted above. Except it has nothing to do with supposed "privilege" and everything to do with utter bullshit that was made up on the spot.

5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.

The problem with workplace sexual harassment is how nebulously defined it is. How subjective it is. Normal courtship behavior can become sexual harassment or a date depending on whether or not the woman attracted to the man. In other words sexual harassment is entirely up to the subjective feelings of the claimant.


Until we have a working definition of sexual harassment that is clearly defined, you cannot posit such a claim; Especially in a culture where despite decades of feminists claiming otherwise, men's position as the initiator of the courtship process is still set in stone because women simply do not like to approach and risk the same rejection men face time after time in the relation of the sexes game.

6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

Any empirical evidence here? Or is this your "intuition" and flat-out paranoia telling you this...? Or are we reading minds again.


As far as actual policies go, it is in fact the other way around as per affirmative action. Those who are from a group underrepresented are usually given all sorts of incentives and legs up for merely being interested in something that not many women or members of a minority group are represented in, and will often be hired over more qualified applicants.

7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low.

First, let's start off by saying that anyone's chance for being raped is, well, "relatively low." Feminist advocacy research which has produced bogus numbers like "1 in 4" women in college are raped is way off. You are more likely to suffer a fatal auto incident than you are to be raped. Do you fear getting into cars? Dread seeing a bus every time see one going by? If not, why not. Your hate for them should rival or exceed that which you hold for men and boys.

It's good that you acknowledge that prison rape is a real problem (that is mostly swept under the rug or some attempt is made to justify by saying it's deserved) but due to how politicized rape is, you cannot really make this claim.

Here is some non-politicized, non-advocacy research that you may be interested in.

Almost 3% of men reported forced sex and 22% reported verbal coercion in a romantic relationship in the last year. Almost 2.3% of women reported forced sex and 25% reported verbal coercion. 2.1% of men reported forced vaginal sex, while 1.6% of women reported forced vaginal sex.

95% of sexually abused youth in correctional facilities reported being abused by female staff.

Among inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct, ~65% reported a female aggressor.

50% of homeless youth reported being sexually abused by a female.

8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.

Read: You have been indoctrinated to believe that it is somehow more safe for men to be out at night than it is for women. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Men happen to make up most of the victims of stranger violence. Owning a penis doesn't "erect" a sort of force field around you that makes you impervious to harm. If anyone has more to fear of going out in public places alone after dark, it's men.

Here's the thing. It's not a good idea for anyone to take unreasonable risks. We live in a world with some bad people who do some really shitty things, and that's a fact of life you have to live with in this non-utopian world. You can mitigate the risks by making smart decisions.

9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

Instead, my sexuality will! It's even worse if I don't marry, then I have to deal with people asking me if I'm gay or assuming other negative things about me, because clearly something is wrong with me if I don't do these things. It couldn't be that I'm avoiding the well-documented risks associated with the modern marriage system, could it...? Nah.

Perhaps you've heard of "Peter Pan Syndrome"? A term coined by your fellow feminists.

An entirely subjective piece that has nothing to do with privilege here. Pretty lazy.

10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.

Another subjective piece.

Ever heard the term "deadbeat dad"? Ever heard about how a man "doesn't spend enough time with his family" when he has to work all of those extra hours just to be able to support them...? Not seeing any privilege here.

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.

More subjectivity. It's the same sort of principle you'll see when a woman is in the IT field, for example. She'll be praised even if she's only mediocre, because the field has many more men in it and she's a novelty. I'm betting it's the same for men in female-dominated fields like nursing. Has little to do with supposed privilege, and more to do with your own personal subjective feelings.

... but, what kind of advantage do men supposedly proffer from this, even if it is true? Family courts ubiquitously award primary custody to women, regardless of how good a father is perceived. That's real privilege, as per the definition of the word.

12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

If I have children but don't have a career, I'm a worthless layabout who needs to get up off his ass and support his family. See how that works?

13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

Everything about you that can be scrutinized will be scrutinized, regardless of your sex. That is unfortunately how modern politics work. It's by and large a competition to see who can out-smear the competition.

14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

Once again, equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome. By the way, women are the majority of voters so if you want to point the finger at anyone for there being more men in office than women, you can blame your fellow women. If women really wanted to see more women in office, well, they could vote them in couldn't they? Ah, but that would be playing collectivist identity politics rather than voting on someone as an individual because you like their positions on certain issues, wouldn't it.

15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

Companies, and corporations hire and promote based by and large on the bottom line. Since we're speaking in generalities here which as I found out from reading this list that you love to, take a look at how many hours men work on average compared to how many hours women work on average. Now if all things were equal except a woman worked 10 hours less per week, who do you think they're generally going to want to promote?

Of course, in your warped worldview, they're promoting men because of some phantom sexism. Just like that old wage gap myth where women supposedly earned 70-something cents to a man's dollar working the same hours in the same job. It would stand to reason that companies would hire all women if they could get away with that in order to maximize their profits. They don't do that because they don't pay women less at all. When presented with the facts that debunked the wage gap myth, feminist true believers like yourself went into a sort of cognitive dissonance loop where they were convinced that corporations would rather hang out with dudes at the office than make money hand over fist.

But let's get back to the topic: So what if the person in change happens to share your anatomy. This is more collectivist identity politics garbage. What kind of advantage do I proffer from this...? Is this more insistence that "The Patriarchy" exists to the benefit of all men? If so, then why do men fiercely compete with each other and why are there more men at the bottom of society than women. These are hard questions that destroy these strawmen that this list is mostly composed of.

16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.

Boys were (and are) still socialized like this because boys grow into men who did (and still do) have to earn their own way in the world. They have no reasonable expectation that they can rely on the support of anyone else, wheras women still expect to be able to marry up on the socioecomic totem pole and keep most of the burden on the man. There are few socialist programs which benefit men, and many more that benefit women and women only. This is a large reason why the homeless population is almost entirely male. Privilege goes to women here. Not men.

17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel using fiction here to try to make a point, but failing once again. Could it be because boys were the primary audience and they were pandering to the market's demands? Let me ask you this rhetorical question: Most advertising is geared towards females because women make up over 80% of discretionary spending, so is this female privilege?

18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

Your own cited "proof" for this contradicts your claim of privilege. It shows that boys go incredible lengths to be noticed and to stand out. Not that there is some innate, conscious, codified advantage going on here.

19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

You must be referring to the boorish sexist joke about "that time of the month." Instead, if men complain about negative experiences, we are called whiners regardless of how legitimate the complaint. Can't see any privilege here.

20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.

You can also see plenty of women on the same mediums. Possibly even more as there are likely more female news anchors than male and female interests often receive special attention in local papers. Reading on, I can see this is where you start to get really lazy with these; I'll get to those, too.

21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.

22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.

Sexist jokes are now "privilege"? Is it privilege when women compare men to pigs, dogs or other animals, or when women claim that men "think with their dicks"? Lazy, lazy. Try harder.

23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.

These collectivist identity politics sure are getting old. Let me ask you: How exactly do you know that women as a whole are being judged and not the individual speaker. Rhetorical question, of course. You don't. This claim is nothing more than a claim that you can read the minds of others; and you can't.

24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing."

Really, no equivalent? How about the ridicule suffered by male virgins or men who aren't apparently in a sexual relationship with any woman. Equivalent enough for you? By the way, women participate as much in "slut-bashing" as men do, if not more. Just like men participate in ridiculing of other men's sexual prowess. It's a way to sort of puff themselves up to make themselves look better in the eyes of the those they're sexually interested in.

If you knew anything about biology or evolutionary theory, you'd understand why. Of course, feminists tend to not like these subjects because they put an uncomfortable spotlight on the fact that biological differences create different motives and needs. Science utterly destroys the facile blank slate theory. I'm going to enlighten you though, for the sake of completeness.

The number of sexual partners or rather the apparent promiscuity of a woman is important to men because committing to a promiscuous woman would likely end their genetic line, in the days before DNA testing existed; which is to say, before around 20 years ago when it became available to the general public. Women however have no uncertainty about whether a child is theirs. Heterosexual women want to, or at least want to appear to men that they are interested in to be non-promiscuous in order to attract the men they are interested in. "Slut-bashing" other women they view as competition is a mating strategy, whereas men who are looking for more than just sex tend to do it because such women are worthless to them in the context of serious relationships.

Women on the other hand have different motives and needs. They want a man who has good genes and/or can provide for them and their children as maternity is guaranteed by biology and is thus of no concern to them. When they see a man who a lot of women seem to fancy, they generally think he must be something special. Conversely, when they see a man who doesn't seem to be particularly attractive, they shun and ridicule him-- just look at the scorn for "nice guys" that women aren't attracted to, or the gall to call him "creepy" or other epithets. Other men ridicule these low-status men as a way to make themselves look like a better catch, as a mating strategy. This is why men often lie upwards about their number of sexual partners, to appear as though they're high valued by women.

Did you know that the current population of humans is descended from twice as many women as men? That's a fact proven by DNA analysis. To say men's concerns in this matter are unreasonable is very ignorant to say the least, in light of this empirical fact.

25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability.

 Instead, I have to worry about what it says about my sexual orientation.

26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.

It's also typically cheaper and easier to manufacture due to simpler design patterns and cheaper materials. Men also care less about designer clothes, as a rule.

Note also that men cannot wear women's clothing without being called all sorts of epithets whereas it's not unusual for women to wear male clothing without anyone batting an eyelash. You sort of covered this in your link. Women can wear a far greater range of clothing than men can without being judged negatively for it.

Not seeing any kind of privilege here.

27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time.

Shaving your face and neck at least 3-4 times a week isn't a walk in the park. There's sometimes these really stubborn hairs on your neck that just won't go away without putting in a lot of time and effort, you know.

Do women have to contend with fascist workplace dress codes that say their hair has to be of a certain length, they have to wear certain types of clothes, etc.? No. Women have far more freedom there.

28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.

 So because men generally negotiate better (a learned social skill) they're "privileged". Riiiiight.

29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.

How wrong you are! You know, if you weren't so lazy you could have just googled this stuff and saved yourself the effort of a rubbing few brain cells together to create some of these brainfarts. Not only do men earn more or less money based on height, but more or less money based on physical beauty. They're also less likely to be interviewed or hired due to female-dominated HR if they are unattractive. The flipside of this is that women discriminate against other, attractive women in an effort to keep competition out. It all goes back to sexuality and those biological differences your type likes to deny can cause different behaviors.

30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.

 Instead you'll be "obnoxious asshole" or the dreaded "that guy."

31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)

This reeks of the same stink as feminist advocacy research like the 1992 AAUW report "How Schools Short Change Girls" and the 2002 report from the National Organization of Women entitled "Family Court Report 2002". Both were the exact opposite of the truth and both were created at the same time as it was apparent that men and boys were getting the short end of the stick.

Let me ask you this, if violence against women were deemed so unimportant, unworthy of examination and not considered a crime (this is bullshit, and you know it), why then is there a Violence Against Women Act in the United States. Why is violence against women somehow considered more heinous than violence against men? Shouldn't they both be considered equally bad. Why the special pleading?

Why are college males subject to mandatory bigoted, fearmongering indoctrination sessions that tell them they are rapists in waiting such as the aptly named "She Fears You"? More uncomfortable questions that destroy this list.

32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.

Perhaps you don't know this, but the root of the -man suffix is, get this, human. As in, the men and women that make up the human race, or singularly, man and woman.

This is one of the laziest ones yet. And the dumbest. Do you refer to women as "womyn" by any chance? That might explain this one.

33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.

Instead it will be posthumously dictated based on performance. Didn't make the right decision, even if there was no way you could have known what the right decision was? Well naturally, men only think with their little heads, those stupid oafs. This is going into the territory of sexist jokes somehow equaling privilege again, and it's really lazy.

[Editor's note: I'm starting to get really bored of refuting these around this point. Maybe this is why no one has bothered before. The inanity is palpable.]

34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.

Welcome to the crazy world of history. Oh, did I say history? Perhaps you would prefer herstory.

This is what we call a "tradition." Do you know where the tradition originated, and why it came to be so? Of course not. Scratching below the surface is not something like you like to do, judging by this list.

Marriage is by and large a construct created to stabilize civilization. Men were traditionally expected to take more responsibility, provide and care for women and children, while women had very little in the ways of responsibility. The burden was by and large on men. This is likely why the tradition developed that women took men's names. Men bore the primary cost of marriage.

The word husband "Comes from the Old German words hus and bunda, which mean "house" and "owner," [or dweller] respectively. The word originally had nothing to do with marital status, except for the fact that home ownership made husbands extremely desirable marriage partners." That's right, hypergamy was recognized even back then.

Now, there are some traditions you might say were actually really wrong. Like foot binding... but last names? What tangible advantage is conferred to men here? I fail to see any. It's a rather harmless tradition with a logical raison d'etre which is blown out of proportion by feminists as if it were a great oppressive force that affects their lives in some tangible way when it doesn't.

35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.

Guess what?  Businesses want to make money. The bottom line is all that matters to a business. I was going to leave it at this but I've decided against the flippant approach.

There is a way around this, of course, but most women don't want to hear it because it involves eschewing their hypergamous instinct. It's very simple.

Marry a man who is willing to work part time and/or stay home to take care of the kids while you chase that high flying career. Just like men do when they marry women willing to do the same. Ah, but the rub is that women generally aren't sexually attracted to such men and until they are, I don't see this problem going away. It is a problem of their own making, and I'm glad to report it's a problem which some women have found the solution to. You simply need to follow their example.

36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.

Collectivist identity politics masquerading as a claim of privilege. again? What is wrong with your brain, Barry. This might be getting more condescending as it goes on, but after going through so many entries like this, I think it's safe to say you deserve it.

37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.

These same religions also argue that men have far more obligations and responsibilities to a wife and children than they do to him. So this was a good go at selectively presenting what you found convenient for your argument, but not really an effective one because anyone who actually does the minimal amount of research on this shit would be able to call you out on it. People could also, you know, choose to not be religious. That's an option, too.

38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.

There's also the fact that men on average work more hours at their jobs and do a bunch of household work that many women tend to not count as housework like yard work, handyman work, do it yourself jobs, etc. If you think these things are "rewarding" or fun in any way, I have news for you.

39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.

Your arguments are veering into unsupported stereotypes rooted in what can only be described as the 1950s through a feminist lens rather than any kind of objective reality. They just keep getting more ridiculous as this list goes on. How do you do it?

40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.

Couldn't be because women tend to marry up, and as a result the decision made could not at all be a rational decision based on who brings home more money? Nah, I must be obnoxiously myopic and making this stuff up. I'm just not cool enough to live in the feminist world where you don't look at any kind of causal factors or anything like that. Seriously, fuck that non-political, non-lazy advocacy research. Must be a tool of "The Patriarchy" or something. Jeez.

41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.

Couldn't be because sex sells easier to men due to the scarcity of it for men in general, could it. Why do you think, outside of female sex tourism, there isn't much male prostitution for female buyers? It's because sex is more readily available to women than it is to men.

42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are.If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.

Already disproven in the response to #29.

43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.

Have I got news for you, pal.

This isn't even new information, either. It's just been suppressed for decades by powerful feminist lobbies. Erin Pizzey, the woman who opened the very first women's shelter in Britain knew about this. For her "insolence" in attempting to open a men's shelter, she received death threats and even found one of her pets had been killed. She was run out of the shelters she started by the feminists who hijacked them.

44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile."

Thank you for the wonderful anecdotes in your links as if they were proof of this being a "male privilege." Here is my own anecdote: When I was in high school, several of my school bus drivers told me to smile. Also, I've had strangers on the street tell me to smile as well. To "turn that frown upside down" a couple times, even.

What we have here is your personal, subjective feelings masquerading as some sort of claim of privilege and is probably one of the worst entries in this entire list.

45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment.

You've never seen a woman uninvitedly grab a man's ass, grind up against him, or try to touch him inappropriately in any other way? Never heard a woman make comments of a sexual nature to men on the street or in public venues? Or, if you have (and you must have if you're not some kind of hermit), you must believe that everything's cool, the men clearly wanted it or must have been asking for it; the exact attitude you claim men have and that is unacceptable when they do it. You must, because otherwise you wouldn't have made this entry.

Your unreasonable fears that necessitate your "plotted movements through public spaces" are your own problem. An unreasonable fear resulting from years of feminist indoctrination and rape hysteria. Perhaps you should see a mental health specialist about that rather than claim it a "male privilege" or demand the world change for you or write sexist screeds about how men should do this and that to appease your unreasonable fear.

46. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.

 [Editor's note: This was actually a duplicate entry marked "45"]

Bothered? I assume you mean by men they deem unattractive having the gall to approach them as if such a lowly peasant were to have a chance with the princess any woman who makes a big deal of this must fancy themselves as.

Men are bothered by women all of the time, though. Not in that way, but in another way. In an attempt to have that man do something for them, usually employing false sincerity and a fake smile. In this way, women attempt to manipulate men into serving their own desires and into doing things that they either do not think they should have to do themselves, do not want to do themselves, or do not want to pay money for someone to do for them. Women often evaluate men on how useful the men are to them, or what they can get by associating with the man. Esther Vilar blew the whistle on this one years ago with her book "The Manipulated Man."

47. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

This is the worst and laziest one of them all. Nothing really needs to be said about this. Irony, Barry. Do you know what it is? A mirror, with you gazing into it while you write this entry.

---

That's it, folks. The end of the list. I was sure there would be at least one or two where I could go "Well, they sort of have a point there" but no. Due to the intellectual laziness of the author and the legal reality that men have less rights than women in western society, there wasn't a single one. Not one.

Feel free to circulate this and use it against those who mindlessly drone on about male privilege as some sort of nebulous, universal thing that they think actually exists in the western world.