Forty Seven Lies : another tool to silence men rebuked.

Check your privilege. This choice nugget of establishment-feminist shit-talk doesn’t get thrown around with the frequency it used to, but the cultural meme of “male privilege” continues to occupy the podium of unchallengeable truths. In fact, this idea has been of such utility to gender ideologues that rather than letting it dissolve and die as feminism becomes increasingly recognized as a violent hate movement built on lies, the trope of “male privilege” should be properly dragged into the spotlight and destroyed.

However, it’s also worthwhile to examine just what the political utility of this lie is. In short, “check your privilege” is a highly effective method of silencing men. By telling men, or when men reject the lie, telling everyone else that men are privileged, a feminist can render their voice mute. For example a man complaining that “stop violence against women” ignores the fact that men, rather than women, are the majority of violent crime victims – but a simple utterance of “check your privilege” renders any man’s complaint void. What he says doesn’t matter, he’s male and privileged and we can all move along and redirect resources to female victims. This has been so effective that for decades gender ideologues and robotic conformists to the status quo continue to use it.

What about male suicide, which is 4 times higher than female suicide, and in men post divorce, 11 times higher? Well, men have the privilege of being unaware of their privilege. Like magic, poof, such complaints for male consideration are vanished behind the over-riding TRUTH that men are privileged. The same simple trick works for any issue. Witness the co-option of citizen activism within the occupy wall-street protests. When gender ideologues injected themselves and their ideology into that movement a protocol for order-of-speakers was established called the “progressive stack.” In this system, at gatherings where activists were to speak before crowds, the order-of-speaker was that “traditionally oppressed” ethnicities and sexual orientations would go automatically to the front of the line and white men would go to the back. Thus, white men were – through rhetorical-ideological sleight of hand, effectively silenced.

However, in addressing this venerable claim of male privilege, some, who argue for recognition of male human rights sometimes have occasion to ask the forbidden question: what privilege is anyone talking about? After all, men die earlier, commit suicide at higher rates, die on the job at higher rates, work longer hours, receive lesser comparative medical funding, are more of the homeless, and in many other areas get the shaft, so what privilege are we talking about here? Where are the examples?

When asked of gender ideologues – this usually elicits one of several predictable responses. The first and most popular reply, when asked “what male privilege” is, of course, silence. The next most popular predictable response is the hilariously stupid: “If you don’t already know, then I can’t help you.”

As this is an irrational response, it’s useful to list several another versions of the same answer. When an ideologue, asked for examples of male privilege offers something as sadly pathetic as “If you don’t already know, then I can’t help you.” what they mean is this:

“I have no evidence, so I’m going to try to shift the burden of evidence for my claim onto you, because you oppose my asinine argument.”

This response, if it’s even to be dignified by continued engagement with whoever offers it, can be brushed aside by pointing out that the burden of evidence always rests on the person making a positive claim. Then again, those arguing for the human rights of men and boys, if they’re not inclined to provide free education to ideologues, might prefer a more succinct answer.

Fuck you, for example.

However, when challenged to provide an example of the claimed “male privilege” feminists so often use to attempt to silence oppositional argument, an increasingly common response is to post a link to a document called the “male privilege checklist”.

This tactic betrays the laziness, ignorance, and intellectual void from which feminist rhetoric springs. Rather than formulating an answer of his or her own, anyone employing this demonstrates their argument as simple repetition of programmed doctrine, rather than an intelligent response. The list itself, if those posting links to it even read it, is an indictment of the bankruptcy of the “male privilege” claim. Sadly, it’s unlikely that those using this “argument” even bother to read it, because while none of the items in the list actually demonstrate male privilege, many show the opposite case. Because of the robotic and intellectual vacancy of such actors, it’s unnecessary – and ultimately pointless to bother -actually addressing the non-argument of any blind linkage to the “male privilege checklist”.

This rebuttal includes the complete text of that so called proof of male privilege, along with explanation of the falsehood of every single claim in the list.

The Male Privilege Checklist: Or, a great list of lies, designed to exhaust and insult anyone with the intellectual integrity to actually read and address those lies.

[box]A man’s odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in his favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.[/box]This is flatly false. In fact, this is the reverse of the truth. Men, especially white men, are uniquely disadvantaged in getting hired. Affirmative action, multicultural workplace and equal opportunity employment policies in all areas of the working world function to send men to the back of the line when competing for jobs – even when those men have superior qualifications and greater relevant experience. [box]A man can be confident that his co-workers won’t think he got his job because of his sex – even though that might be true.[/box]“even though that might be true.”

The fact that women might be hired based on their sex or retained during a period of lay-offs due to their sex is presented in a list of male privileges as if female advantage – when known by co-workers somehow becomes a male privilege. The stupidity of this claim is beyond explanation. [box] If a man is never promoted, it’s not because of his sex.[/box]Once again, women being promoted due to their sex, which the author of this “privilege checklist” doesn’t dispute; somehow, this is characterized as a male privilege. The fact that men are not generally promoted except when they’ve earned it – this is a privilege enjoyed by males? Holy fuck. [box]If a man fails in any job or career, he can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against his entire sex’s capabilities.[/box]This is no truer for men than for women. It is not a privilege. [box]A man is far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than his female co-workers are.[/box]This is false. Men face sexual harassment at work – the only difference being they have no recourse; if they complain, they will usually be fired or demoted. [box]If a man does the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think he did a better job.[/box]This is false, also in many cases women have an advantage in being able to assume credit for work done by male colleagues. [box]Whether a male is a teen or adult, and if he can stay out of prison, his odds of being raped are relatively low. [/box]This is false, and not a privilege.

The odds of being raped if a female are also relatively low, however, for males, odds of violent criminal victimization are significantly higher. In addition, rapes of females are treated as a major crime, where rapes of males are treated as comedy. [box]On average, men are taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than their female counterparts are.[/box]While it is true that men are taught to fear less than women, men are much more likely to be victimized by violent crime than women, so this is not a male privilege. [box]If a man chooses not to have children, his masculinity will not be called into question.[/box]This is a false comparison, since men who do not marry are considered “un-manly” or social failures. Thus, once more, not a privilege. [box]If a man has children but does not provide primary care for them, his masculinity will not be called into question.[/box]This is another false comparison, to the extent that a woman who doesn’t care for her children will be criticized, a man who DOES care for his children as a stay-home-dad will also be considered less masculine. [box]If a man has children and provides primary care for them, he’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if he’s even marginally competent.[/box]This is false, men are treated with great suspicion when caring for children, and stay home fathers are regularly considered weak failures. [box]If a man has children and a career, no one will think he is selfish for not staying at home.[/box]Another falsehood. Men do not have the option of retaining a career and staying at home. By contrast, women are socially accommodated in this respect. [box]If a man seeks political office, his relationship with his children, or who he hires to take care of them will probably not be scrutinized by the press.[/box]This is another false comparison, a man running for political office who has any role except working-full-time away from his family will be socially censured and heavily scrutinized. [box]For men, elected representatives are mostly people of their own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.[/box]Another implied falsehood. Having elected representatives the same sex as voters is not a privilege or an advantage. Politicians traditionally cater to women, as women comprise a small but real majority of the electorate, and female favoring policies also appeal to traditionalist men. [box]When a man asks to see “the person in charge,” odds are he will face a person of his own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer he can be.[/box]This is not a privilege; men in positions of power and authority define their identities primarily by relationship to their hierarchy, not principally as men. They see men lower than themselves as tools, and men equal to and higher than themselves as competition. [box]As a child, chances are that boys are encouraged to be more active and outgoing than girls.[/box]This reflects our culture’s requirements of boys to act directly, take risks, and disregard their safety on behalf of others, and our tendency to protect and shelter girls. This is not a male privilege. [box]As a child, a boy can choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of their own sex. Boys never have to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.[/box]Children’s literature provides models for male identity which almost exclusively require sacrifice and service and ultimately, disposability. This is how the literary device of the “hero” is defined, by sacrifice, and disposability. [box]As a child, chances are that boys are given more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.[/box]This is false. Girls are favored and catered to in primary, secondary, and post secondary education; as evidenced by rates of drop out, personality-flattening medication, and educational success outcomes. [box]If a man’s day, week or year is going badly, he need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.[/box]Neither women nor men “need ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones”. Only a paranoid moron subjects all negative experience to this type of minute analysis. [box]A man can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of his own sex widely represented.[/box]This is true of both sexes, and also irrelevant. Not a privilege. [box]If a man is careless with his financial affairs it won’t be attributed to his sex.[/box]To the extent that this is true, it’s true or false in relation to both sexes, and also irrelevant. Not a privilege. [box]If a man is careless with his driving it won’t be attributed to his sex.[/box]This is false, young men typically pay higher insurance than young women, in violation of law. [box]A man can speak in public to a large group without putting his sex on trial.[/box]To the extent that this is true, it’s true or false in relation to both sexes, and also irrelevant. Not a privilege. [box]Even if a man sleeps with a lot of women, there is no chance that he will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”[/box]This is false, creep shaming and virgin shaming are corollaries to slut shaming. [box]Men do not have to worry about the message their wardrobe sends about sexual availability.[/box]False. Men’s wardrobes and other signals of status govern whether women will instantly dismiss them as irrelevant, invisible, and non-persons. [box]Men’s clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While a man has fewer options, his clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.[/box]“Fewer options” [True].“his clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring” [False]. So women’s broader clothing options are rhetorically contorted into a male privilege. The smaller profit margin of women clothing, due to manufacturers producing more variety translates to lesser quality – and this is a male privilege? The dishonesty in this list is utterly staggering. [box]The grooming regimen expected of a man is relatively cheap and consumes little time.[/box]Women’s decoration, in hair, makeup, jewelry, and other adornment might be inconvenient, but this ignores the reason why women wear makeup, jewelry, and so on. Woman are valued; in fact, they are treasured; as individuals. Men, by contrast, have value only to the extent that they are of use to women or to a larger collective. Men are, in fact, disposable. So putting on lipstick is a chore, oh dear, how awful that must be for you, to be valued enough to be decorated with makeup and jewelry. [box]If a man buys a new car, chances are he’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.[/box]If you possess skill at negotiation, you’ll get a better price, if you allow a professional car dealer to dictate to you, you’ll get the shaft. This is unrelated to sex, except that women, by employing their sexual power have a tool of manipulation men lack. This is not a male privilege. [box]If a man is not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.[/box]Women’s attractiveness to men is measured in health, youth, and biological signals of fertility. Things ALL women are endowed with by nature (some to greater degree than others). Men’s attractiveness to women is measured by accomplishment, it’s earned; thus, once more, not a male privilege. [box]A man can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. A man can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.[/box]Word games: Men who are loud and aggressive are called assholes and douche-bags. In addition, a man who pushes this asshole behavior far enough will get punched in the face, where a woman will not. [box]A man 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.[/box]“violence which happens mostly to men”

How is this a male privilege? Legal protection against criminal victimization (outside of domestic violence) is applied to women and to men, with extra vigor in applied protection for women, due to men’s naturally wired behavior to protect females more than males. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.) This is another lie, domestic violence is committed against men and women at nearly identical levels, except where it is one-sided (where the victim does not reciprocate the violence), and in that one-sided violence, women are the majority of perpetrators. Despite this, almost all public narrative perpetuates the falsehood that men are the universal aggressors in DV. Being falsely labeled as evil and violent based on sexual identity is not a privilege. [box]A man can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include his sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.[/box]Through most of history, men and women have had differing roles, based on the social disposability of men and the tendency to protect and care for women, thus the names of careers reflect male undertaking in these pursuits. This is not male privilege; it’s a byproduct of male care-taking of women. In other words, a byproduct of historical female privilege. [box]A man’s ability to make important decisions and his capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.[/box]This is because men do not vary in their emotions or capabilities based on what time of the month it is. Social recognition of the REALITY that women’s emotions and capabilities DO vary in such a regard is not privilege, it’s a reflection of observable reality. Privilege would be the public agreeing to a consensus that indeed, women are unaffected by their own biology, and are exactly identical to men in their capabilities. This consensus agreement with fiction is increasingly the norm, as entry standards for physically onerous jobs such as soldier, firefighter, and police officer are lowered for women, even as their pay and powers within such jobs are legally the same as men, who perform those physically onerous tasks at a higher average capability. [box]A man will never be expected to change his name upon marriage or questioned if he doesn’t change his name.[/box]False, men will sometimes be expected to change their name, and belittled when they do, as well as when they don’t. In addition, WOMEN will almost never be expected to get down on one knee and beg a man’s hand in marriage, nor shell out 3 months salary for a bauble, nor fill the role of financial underwriter of the entire enterprise. Those “privileges” are reserved for men. [box]The decision to hire a man will not be based on assumptions about whether or not he might choose to have a family sometime soon.[/box]This is true to the extent that men are not allowed the option and luxury of suspending their career to be parents, while women enjoy such privilege, while their jobs are legally preserved by federal law, should they chose to return. Men who do take such indulgence are expected to start new jobs on their return to the work force- without intercession from the state. Oh, those lucky, lucky, privileged men. [box]Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of the male sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.[/box]Except for hinduism, and its offshoots, and Buddhism – which has no god figure.

Concerning Islam, Allah is both male and female, so god being male is limited even in abrahamic traditions to Christianity and Judaism. Judaism being the western faith which brought us the innovation of cutting off the most sensitive tip of the male sexual organ.According to renowned biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins, the god of the bible is: “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” What a privilege it is to be the same sex as this character. In addition, within christianity, Mary, the mother of Jesus was the closest to the deity through her giving birth of humanity’s apparent saviour. Women, as the direct creators of human life are naturally most closely associated to the creative powers of god. Also, the absence of a gospel of Mary Magdelin – who was Jesus’s companion (wife) removes from Christian canon any pathway to naturalistic male spirituality through men’s bodies. Women, by comparison do have such a path. Men’s pathway to “grace” within western religious tradition is through service and sacrifice, and explicitly excludes their own bodies. St. Augustine of Hippo, born 354 AD, declared the penis a demon rod, and semen a sort of toxic glue. Semen, within a more naturalistic religious philosophy would be a spiritual sacred elixir, rather than male sexual expression being a road to damnation. If a this is a privilege, we’re going to need a new definition for privilege. [box]Most major religions argue that the man should be the head of the household, while a wife and children should be subservient to the man.[/box]Feminine submission is a method of control and indirect domination. It is a way of enslaving a man into the role of total responsibility, without any exit or relief. The traditionalist Christian “surrendered wife” is a way to make a man into a draft animal. [box]If a man has a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are that household chores will be divided so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. [/box]This is false; the reality is that she will do the safest, easiest, and the indoor tasks, while the man will do the most physically onerous tasks, those outside the house, and those which are the most dangerous. But whenever housework is mentioned, this fact is omitted, because this is almost always presented in the context of a dishonest list of supposed male privileges. [box]If a man has children with his girlfriend or wife, he can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.[/box]This is true, but what’s also true is that those men performing any child care task are automatically suspected of and frequently accused of sexual deviancy and child molestation, and demeaned and belittled based on such pursuits being un-manly. Also, men are expected to hustle out to the workplace to fund home-childrearing activities, without complaint, and with no recognition that maybe they’d rather be with their families instead of grinding out some unrewarding and potentially dangerous 9 to 5 on behalf of wife and kids at home. So guess what, not a male privilege. [box]If a man has children with his wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of them needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are both will assume the career sacrificed should be hers.[/box]False. (see above)

Also, women have legal reproductive rights. Men, by contrast have only the obligation to support and to finance whatever reproductive choices a woman may make. Whether a couple come to agreement on reproduction or not, in law, the woman’s choice is supported and enforced by the state, for a man, there is only the obligation to pay. [box]Assuming a man is heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to him sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.[/box]Feminine sexuality is feminine power. Men are manipulated through commercial exaggeration of, and the marketing of feminine sexuality. The “male privilege” being complained of is the privilege to be manipulated by this imagery. The comparative salaries of female and male porn actors express this power imbalance quite clearly. On average, female performers earn 6 times what their male contemporaries do. [box]In general, a man is under much less pressure to be thin than his female counterparts are. If he is fat, he probably suffers fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.[/box]This is another false comparison. For men, the social pressure is to be lean and muscular. The claim that men face fewer social consequences for failure to conform to a body ideal is simply false. [box]If a man is heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that he’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.[/box]False. Peer reviewed research on domestic violence shows that in reciprocal violence, men and women commit violence at equal levels, and in one-sided violence, women are the majority of aggressors. In addition, men seeking outside help when they are victimized risk being arrested rather than helped and men who have been victimized are routinely mocked in mainstream media as weak, un-manly, and sissies. [box]Complete strangers generally do not walk up to men on the street and tell them to “smile.”[/box]False comparison again. A man looking directly into the eyes of another man risks violence in response. Women generally do not carry such risk. Men are also far more likely to be victims of violence generally. [box]Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to men. Men do not need to plot their movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment.[/box]Another false comparison. Sexual harassment in a female heavy workplace is common, and generally has no remedy through the company’s HR department or through law. A man complaining of such harassment will likely be fired and publicly mocked. In addition, men in public are the overwhelming majority of the victims of violent crime. [box]On average, a man is not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.[/box]False. Seriously, come on, this is a prepared list of supposed “male privileges”, and what we’re delivered is pathetic falsehoods, so obvious, unsupportable and blatantly untrue that reason isn’t even required to dispute them. [box]Men have the privilege of being unaware of their male privilege.[/box]In reality, men have the privilege of being endlessly told of privileges which don’t exist, and being silenced, marginalized, sent to the back of the line, and belittled based on a cultivated narrative that they are privileged when they are not.

So there you have it, a list of forty-seven feeble lies. What’s most appalling about this list is not that any individual lie is so easily debunked. Rather that this is a prepared list, not vomited up in the middle of a debate, but assembled and collected in advance of challenge of substantiation of the worn out lie of “male privilege”. Even after passing through many hands, this pathetic collection of moronic falsehoods is the best rebuke which feminist has to offer?

This list, offered up as “evidence” of masculine advantage in a patriarchal society serves, ironically to illustrate the total intellectual and ethical bankruptcy at the heart of feminist ideology. In fact, a casual perusal of the list, absent of the rebuttals included here shows something else as well. These 47 feeble lies, collected together indicate the intent of so-called arguments pretending to establish the veracity of any claim of male privilege. These forty seven pathetic falsehoods, collected into one document are not meant to provide evidence, rather, they are meant to overwhelm anyone demanding evidence. Forty seven pathetic lies are intended to exhaust any proponent of male human rights with so much bullshit that it cannot be reasonably addressed within a debate. The weakness of each individual lie in this list is irrelevant. That there are forty seven separate claims – weak as each one is, the length of the list is intended to exhaust and to silence any individual arguing for the human rights of men. That intention, shown by the weakness of the arguments, and the length of the list is most revealing of all.

Forty seven separate lies are not intended to convince, they are intended to overwhelm, to exhaust and to silence debate. This document, saved as a PDF is all the answer such dishonest and ill-intentioned tactic deserves.