Update: Bearing in mind the house rules, the comments are now open again.
Readers of this blog may be familiar with the Guardian’s Julie Bindel, who thinks “[get] men off the streets” is “a fabulous slogan” and then wonders why some male readers find her rather stupid and objectionable. Ms Bindel insists on “naming men as the problem” and believes that “sexual violence is the only thing in the world that affects all women.” She also thinks that “male violence towards women and children… is pandemic” and “all women know that if we have not been raped, we are lucky.” Nuance of thought is not, it seems, Ms Bindel’s strongest suit, or an obvious aspiration.
As a riposte of sorts to such adamant idiocy, and to broader claims of “male privilege,” Ballgame has produced a Female Privilege Checklist, which highlights some of the less remarked benefits of being female. Among them,
My chance of suffering a work-related injury or illness is significantly lower than a man’s.
If I shy away from fights, it is unlikely that this will damage my standing in my peer group or call into question my worthiness as a sex partner.
If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, it’s much less likely that my friend will wonder about my sexuality or pull away in unease.
If I interact with other people’s children – particularly people I don’t know very well – I do not have to worry much about the interaction being misinterpreted.
Brandon Berg offers a few further points to mull, including:
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.
Although I am every bit as likely as a man to allow my sex drive to compromise my judgment, I will never be accused of thinking with my clitoris.
Sweating Through Fog also shares some checklist possibilities:
I’m entitled to the benefits of a safe, orderly society, but no one expects me to risk my personal safety to maintain it.
When I find myself with others in a terrifying, life-threatening situation, I have the right to be evacuated first, once the children are safe. Others can wait.
If I see someone else being attacked, I’m not expected to risk my own safety to defend them. It’s okay for me to wait for others to intervene, and it’s also okay for me to criticise others if they don’t.
And,
If I fail at something, I can go to college and study the historical forces and social constructs that make it harder for people like me. If others fail, it’s because they just don’t have what it takes.
Readers may, of course, have suggestions of their own.
(h/t, Stephen Hicks.)
If I do not put myself in danger to save another person, even my own child, I will not be though of as unfeminine or cowardly, nor will I be thought a coward if I ask someone else to do so on my behalf.
I can choose combat assignments in the military, but cannot be forced to accept one.
I have the right to judge a man’s masculinity, but woe be unto him if he dares judge me.
I have a much larger set of clothing and grooming choices, and as a bonus I can complain about easy men have it because their choices are so constrained.
When I want your money, it’s “our baby”. When I want you to disappear, it’s “my baby”.
Who is this ‘I’ supposed to be? Everyfemale? Because if so, you’ve got to be kidding. You do realize there’s a world outside Europe and North America, yes? You do realize it’s a bad joke to say that in, oh, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Nicaragua your typical female can truthfully say ‘If I become pregnant, I and I alone choose whether to terminate the pregnancy or have the baby’ don’t you? And nearly all the other stuff is pretty absurd in much of the world too.
Ophelia Benson is right, obviously.
This does not detract in the least from the relevance of the list to those parts of the world to which it is, equally obviously, meant to apply.
Ophelia,
“You do realize there’s a world outside Europe and North America, yes?”
I’m not sure who you’re asking and I can’t answer for the people quoted above. But the replies I’ve quoted are, so far as I can make out, in response to claims made by a number of European and North American feminists, many of whom phrase their grievances in much the same – European, North American – terms. Hence the assumed context, i.e. of “privilege” (real and imagined) within a developed society, rather than in the world at large.
David,
Maybe, but that’s not self-evident from what’s presented, and to me it looks at least as smug as what Julie Bindel said. No, that’s not true: it looks a lot smugger.
If I find myself in a crowded situation, I will never be expected to give my seat to a man.
If I find myself married and on a tight budget, I will never be expected to do without or with less than adequate tools to perform my assigned chores.
If I am married and am allergic to or dislike certain furry creatures, I will never be expected to “live with it.”
Since I’m never expected to get really filthy building, repairing, or installing anything, I never have to hear, “OMG, what a mess. Who’s going to clean this up? Can’t you be a little more careful? Who do you think I am, your cleaning lady?”
Ophelia,
Perhaps I should have made the assumed context clearer, though I thought it – and the spirit in which it’s intended – was fairly obvious. No, that’s not quite true. The context *is* perfectly obvious. And one would have to be quite determined to misunderstand that.
I was going to post, “I am not required to fold the auto map, after I’ve told you ‘We are lost,'” but then Ms. Benson intervened. I believe the links to which Mr. Thompson refers are attempting to point out, in a humorous way, the benefits which exist for women in our western society. Good Lord, have we lost the ability to laugh at ourselves?
(And I say that, having been married for two decades to a brilliant woman, for whom I would do anything. Yet, her Ph.D. notwithstanding, she still can’t fold a map.)
Cheers.
Sorry Ophelia, I just assumed this was meant to be a humor break for the guys.
Oh well, it just allows me to add another …
I can choose, at any time and at any place, to rag on any guy that so much as steps out of line one iota, but I’ll never have to walk on eggshells when I’m around those hairy, knuckle-dragging, apes when I write or speak!
A humour break for the guys, oh, sorry, I didn’t realize it was segregated.
Ophelia,
Your initial reaction surprised me. The post above was intended as a lightweight and slightly mischievous spur to discussion. The context of the listed grievances (and their various levels of seriousness and frivolity) is, I maintain, pretty clear. And as I think you’re familiar with at least some of my comments on, say, women in Islamic societies*, I’d have thought my own intention was fairly obvious and unobjectionable.
Indeed, one could argue that the existence of real and systemic oppression elsewhere makes the mouthings of Ms Bindel et al seem *more* confused and overwrought. Bindel lives in one of the least oppressive societies ever to have existed and she, like many of her peers, seems to be talking primarily about affairs in her own society. Claiming that “men” are “the problem” and that sexual violence by men is “pandemic” and that “women” feel “lucky” not to have been raped is, given the context, absurd. To wildly overstate in this way is, it seems to me, insulting to women in less developed societies whose hardships and dangers are, very often, rather more serious.
* https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/03/for_the_love_of.html
“I didn’t realize it was segregated.”
It isn’t. Jesus, lighten up a little.
jeezus.
lighten up ophelia!
(who got out the wrong side of her bed today?)
anyways, here’s a couple of photos specially for you 🙂
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28438670@N04/
ha Anna!
beat me to it.
David, sure, I realize that’s one possible reading. I have to tell you, though, to me it reads much more like typical and quite tedious male locker-room or clubroom hawhawing about silly women and their silly complaints. There are lots of feminists who are idiots, alas, but it doesn’t follow that feminism in general is idiotic.
And actually, no, to be quite truthful, your intention is not obvious and (obviously) unobjectionable at least to me. The tone of these lists doesn’t strike me as being at all joky (and they’re certainly not witty, or funny); the tone strikes me as intending to be joky, in a Limbaughesque sort of way (I don’t think you have a Limbaugh-equivalent in the UK, so I don’t know how to translate that), but actually being quite contemptuous and aggrieved and whiny. In short it looks to me like standard issue misogynist crap. I’m not familiar with Julie Bindel, or her pieces from last November, but however silly she is she doesn’t make any of this stuff any more amusing.
Oh blah blah. I’m light enough, thank you. If the stuff were funny it wouldn’t be quite so bad, but there’s not one funny line in any of it.
And I got out on the perfect, ideal, couldn’t be better side of the bed this morning, it’s not a side of the bed exit problem at all; but David pointed this post out to me, so I figure I’m entitled to say what I think about it. I think it’s 1) unfunny and 2) unpleasant.
The Big One-
If I wish to alter my partner’s behaviour I am not required to put my case rationally and my partner must respect my “feelings”. My friends, magazines, television personalities, newspapers will agree that I am right to do so.
If my partner wishes to alter my behaviour, no matter how rationally he puts his case, then he is attempting to control me and I am under no obligation to acquiesce. My friends, magazines, television personalities, newspapers will agree that I am right not to do so.
Ophelia.
“There are lots of feminists who are idiots, alas, but it doesn’t follow that feminism in general is idiotic.”
I don’t recall anyone suggesting it was.
“…it looks to me like standard issue misogynist crap.”
We’ll have to disagree, then.
An underlying issue, which informed the checklists above, is the tendency of some feminists, including Bindel, to assume collective culpability on the part of men. Hence the notion of “male privilege”. Her articles often insist that the vile behaviour of some men is in some way indicative of men generally, and that not being a sadistic bastard personally, and not knowing anyone who is, isn’t enough to excuse one’s continued male existence and alleged privileges. It is, of course, slightly galling to be told that one’s entire gender is by default “the problem” and that nothing short of complete and emphatic agreement with Ms Bindel and the Sisterhood will correct that. (To reverse that formulation and suggest that the nasty, passive-aggressive tendencies of some women are indicative of, and the responsibility of, all women would, of course, be denounced as misogyny.)
It’s the sweeping, non-reciprocal nature of such arguments that, I think, prompted the checklists above.
Ophelia – personally I’m all for locker room hawhawing. Its part of our beautifully intricate male psyche and must be affirmed and protected. Now someone pass me a wet towel, that boy has bosoms!
I know what it is – everyone is trying to channel Kingsley Amis. Trouble is, of course, Amis was wildly funny as well as misogynist. Take away the wildly funny and all you’re left with is the blimpish sneering. Unfunny blimpish sneering – woo hoo, what a treat.
Ed, well that’s funny at least! Makes a nice change.
Isn’t something being funny or not funny sort of….I don’t know….a subjective matter? Humor hardly seems to be determined by pronouncement or decree, although I can see why some would like to conduct themselves as if it did.
No, humour is as objective as arithmetic. Der. Of course it’s subjective – and if you think all this stuff is Amisesque in its funniness, far be it from me to disabuse you.
I however will continue to think it’s predictable, stale, and unamusing. Until we get to the wet towel.
Exactly, it’s locker room stuff. But since men-bashing has become such a mainstream activity, since you see it everywhere — in adverts, TV shows, magazine columns, on T-shirts — and since it’s become axiomatic in popular culture that men are lustful, stupid, hairy oafs while women are smart sexy sassy wonderful, it’s inevitable that locker room talk — which has more than a grain of truth in it — will sooner or later come out of the locker room. Why should men remain polite about women, while women have free license to be as rude about men as they like?
But if humor is subjective and all that, then what exactly does one owe to someone who finds it unfunny, once they’ve lodged their opinion? What if the someone in question doesn’t necessarily understand the humor or (perhaps) lacks more than a rudimentary sense of humor themselves?
What a revealing exchange.
I was just listening to Radio 4’s PM programme, on which there was a discussion about sex in older people (a study has just been published in Sweden that suggests the over 70s are enjoying good sex lives, at least some of them, at least in Sweden). A female gossip columnist was interviewed by the female presenter, and proceeded to describe – for some reason – the way Viagra-fuelled older men scour the internet for sexual partners, and find them. It was impossible to tell, from this conversation, that there are any women seeking sex on the internet, though how men find partners when they’re not available in the same medium in which they are searching was not clear. Moreover, if any female equivalents of male impotence were ever described in such pejorative terms there’d be outrage.
This is the simple asymmetry that saturates our public discourse today. It is straightforward sexism. Quips like those in this post are a reaction to this asymmetry. The quips themselves describe asymmetries that are, on the whole, real.
“It was impossible to tell, from this conversation, that there are any women seeking sex on the internet…”
I guess the Radio 4 audience aren’t ‘Metro’ readers then:
“Fountain concedes the idea of heterosexual ‘cruising’ is hampered by one obvious fact: there are still far more men involved than women. However, female attitudes are changing: ‘There are now far more British female sex tourists,’ he says.
‘I met a woman out in Egypt who was 48 and on the hunt for young, local men.
She said, “I love it here. The beer’s cheap, the men are cheap and they have Emmerdale on satellite.” Some women behave like men on a stag do.’ ”
Link: http://www.metro.co.uk/metrosexual/article.html?in_article_id=211038&in_page_id=8
And for what it’s worth, I enjoyed the quips!
Peter,
“Moreover, if any female equivalents of male impotence were ever described in such pejorative terms there’d be outrage.”
Much the same point is touched on here, regarding the Guardian:
“How many pro-feminist pieces, making sweeping anti-male statements that wouldn’t be tolerated were any other group the subject and often containing all kinds of misuses of statistics in support of their arguments, have there been on CiF?”
http://questionthat.me.uk/2008/07/this-comment-has-been-removed.html
But there’s more than a double standard at work. Among some, there’s a quasi-religious fervour. I’ve encountered several hardline feminists who insist that men who disagree with them must *therefore* find feminist theorising “threatening”, when the theorising in question may simply be regarded as opportunist, delusional or morally vacuous. For instance, I was once told that my disagreement with some feminist theorising is, by definition, proof of some heinous and oppressive intent, and that only when I confront my own “invisible privileges” and renounce them publicly will I be deemed free of sin. And I’ve heard formulations of “male privilege” which insist that I – personally, by virtue of being male – contribute to the oppression of women, even to violence against them. I am, apparently, to blame for things I haven’t actually done and can’t readily imagine doing. And, conveniently, any rejection of this claim is proof of my guilt.
One might dismiss such “theories” as ludicrous and unworthy of reply, but similar kinds of thinking have acquired a degree of traction in the less reputable parts of academia.
“But if humor is subjective and all that, then what exactly does one owe to someone who finds it unfunny, once they’ve lodged their opinion? What if the someone in question doesn’t necessarily understand the humor or (perhaps) lacks more than a rudimentary sense of humor themselves?”
What does one owe? What an odd question. Who said anyone owed anything?
However, the sly and witty point is taken: I’m thick and don’t understand the humour, and I lack a (more than rudimentary) sense of humour myself. Quite true: I’m well known for that.
(Mind you, that makes it all the more baffling that David bothered to tell me about the post, as he must know that I’m too stupid and too humour-impaired to appreciate it.)
Ophelia,
“it looks to me like standard issue misogynist crap.”
What’s misogynist about the items David quotes? They’re not all serious (or funny) – but “misogynist”?
I’m reminded of a joke.
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: That’s not funny!
🙂
“I am, apparently, to blame for things I haven’t actually done and can’t readily imagine doing. And, conveniently, any rejection of this claim is proof of my guilt.”
You’re only making things worse for yourself, David. 😉
Anna,
Well, quite. And it’s the same self-justifying template (“heads-I-win-tails-you-lose”) that’s found in claims of “white privilege”. See, for instance, the “work” of Dr Shakti Butler and her associates:
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/10/soft-student–1.html
Or Dr Peggy McIntosh and Dr Caprice Hollins:
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/05/prejudice_revis.html
Behold the new Witchfinders General.
Be fair: These kind of idiot “feminists” want to extend most of those female privileges to men as well, particularly the items on Sweating Through Fog’s list.
“I’m entitled to the benefits of a safe, orderly society, but no one expects me to risk my personal safety to maintain it.”
Find me a lefty, of any sex, who doesn’t feel that way.
Ooopppsss!!! I stayed away too long! What a revealing exchange indeed!
What began as a kind of lighthearted, tongue-firmly-nestled-in-the-cheek dialog has morphed into a full blown salvation message for men everywhere.
Hawgwash! I for one don’t need my male privilege changed, rescued or excised; and I have a wife and three daughters who will tell you they like my masculinity just fine … in spite of all my blemishes. We accept each other as we are, because we love each other … all eight of us!
Someone above hinted at the underlying foundation here; even though humor was intended (I believe David said as much) there is actually a shred of truth in what’s being said by our “misogynistic” quips.
Feminism has cost some men dearly. Where I come from (California) there are hundreds of men in jail and in anger management classes who don’t belong there. They’ve been put there by trumped up charges by women with agendas, a Cinderella complex, and feminist incontinence.
So, if you want to whine about a few people (mainly men, but not all) needing a moment of levity, then let’s change the subject 90 degrees and address all the damage feminism has wrought in this desperately flawed world of ours?
You first, Ophelia!
In all fairness, I guess I should add there are thousands of California men in jail and anger management who deserve to have their sorry-selves right where they are.
If I systematically drown my five children in the bathtub, one by one, or give birth to my baby in a WalMart toilet and leave it there to die, my plight will inspire sympathy and forgiveness for deeds done in a post-partum haze or overwhelming anxiety about the soical constraints of motherhood.
If a man does it, he’s a monster.
And nearly all the other stuff is pretty absurd in much of the world too.
True. Hard to accuse a woman of thinking with her clitoris in those jurisdictions which routinely cut them off.
Unfunny blimpish sneering – woo hoo, what a treat.
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing for some reason.
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: That’s not funny!
“So, if you want to whine about a few people (mainly men, but not all) needing a moment of levity”
I’m not “whining” – I’m commenting. I don’t whine. I frequently tease or mock or criticize or deride, but I don’t whine. As I said: I feel more or less invited to comment, because David emailed me to point out this post.
It’s interesting that David thought I would like the post. I have something of a reputation as a teaser of trendy academics, including some deranged branches of feminism – and I guess that occasionally leads people to think that I like all manifestations of such things.
You know what I find predictably, stale, and unamusing? The propensity of arrogant twits to shriek “Misogyny!” in an effort to preempt even quasi-serious discussion of the protected status that women do enjoy, in a very real sense, in the West.
It find it ironic that Ophelia objects to the examples mention by citing the status of women in the Middle East.
When and where, exactly, have Western feminists ever declared their solidarity with such women?
Ophelia,
“It’s interesting that David thought I would like the post.”
I’m not sure I expected you to “like” it as such; I wasn’t sure what you would think; but I thought you might have something interesting to say. What’s interesting to me is why you took such a pointed dislike to the quotes. It isn’t clear to me why you should think the extracts I used are obviously “misogynistic”.
Oh for fuck’s sake – on my (quite influential) website, that’s where, every day; I’m writing a book on the subject (with another author); I’ve argued with the kind of feminist who refuses to declare solidarity with women in the Middle East, but I also know a lot of feminists who do declare solidarity, as well as a lot of feminists who ARE women in the Middle East.
David, I didn’t say they were “obviously” misogynistic. On the contrary, I said that the reading you offered me was one possible reading. I said “it looks to me like standard issue misogynist crap” – note the “it looks to me.” Saying it looks to me is different from saying it’s obvious.
However I suppose the tone of the comments has by now firmed up my opinion a good deal.
Hahahaha, thank you OB for your comments. They are perfect! Hahahahaha. Oh, the rage. I hope you stamped your foot, too. Women Power! You go, girl.
PS – Try that Activia stuff JL Curtis is pushing. Hahahahaha.
Ophelia,
“I didn’t say they were ‘obviously’ misogynistic.”
Granted, but you seem to be dodging my basic point – one that’s been raised more than once in this thread. The actual items I quoted range from the fairly frivolous (hugging, work-related injuries) to the serious (abortion), but none of them strikes me as misogynistic in nature. That they should be construed as such, quite readily, at least initially, is… well, interesting.
“Oh for fuck’s sake – on my (quite influential) website, that’s where, every day; I’m writing a book on the subject (with another author); I’ve argued with the kind of feminist who refuses to declare solidarity with women in the Middle East, but I also know a lot of feminists who do declare solidarity, as well as a lot of feminists who ARE women in the Middle East.”
Well I’ve never heard of you and I think you flatter yourself as to your importance. As a faculty member in the humanities I am quite aware of the LACK of influence such a feminist universalism holds. Either way, I admire your efforts and I think you are being quite unfair to Dave. I think he makes a good point that is revealing to the decadence of Western feminism. It was certainly not meant to be a claim regarding the status of women in general the world over, and interpreting it in such a way strikes me as captious.
I said “quite influential,” I didn’t say “importance” and I certainly didn’t say you should have heard of me. I think I’m within my rights to say “quite influential,” considering the people who write articles for the website along with some other evidence. I don’t think that’s a hugely grandiose claim, or even a terribly self-flattering one.
Universalist feminism is possibly somewhat more influential outside universities. It is at any rate by no means completely dead, and I have every intention of continuing to insist on it until I’m carted away.
It’s possible that I am being unfair to David, but on the other hand, I think a critique of Julie Bindel (whom I’ve never read, as far as I know) is one thing while those silly lists are another. To me they read like Limbaugh on a very bad day.
David – sorry, I didn’t mean to dodge. It is, admittedly, somewhat intuitive – but then that’s partly because it has to do with having seen and heard lots of ‘joky’ antifeminism over the years. I think female privileges are an interesting subject, in fact, but in this form – not so much. (And with these commenters, really not so much.)
Obviously Ophelia is on her period.
Now have a seat and let a big, strong man bring you some cold water and a towel to deal with your bad case of the vapors.