Barry Deutsch, a.k.a. Ampersand, has a “Male Privilege Checklist” (h/t: Hugo Schwyzer) designed to prove men have it so much better than women nowadays. The issues raised would be persuasive enough, if true. The trouble is, most of them are not.

The Male Privilege Checklist

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.

Wrong. The only odds that are “skewed in my favor” are the odds that I as a male will be qualified for the job in the first place, and that I will seek it. Once those factors are controlled for, my odds are no better than that of a female competitor. If anything, they’ll be worse due to the “diversity” factor.

Advantage: women.

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.

See #1. The reason I can be confident of this is because it is highly unlikely to be true. Whether women have the same luxury depends on whether you work for a company that has (or is widely believed to have) a strong affirmative action program for women. If any company has affirmative action for men, I’ve yet to hear about it.

I’m half tempted to call this one a wash, as the perceived advantage under #2 is met by a very real one under #1, but the two don’t necessarily balance each other out completely. For one thing, reality that some women are hired because of their sex will be a small consolation to other women, who are not, but who may be wrongly perceived as such. For another, affirmative action for women has always had more bark than bite, as there has been no shortage of qualified women applicants in most of the fields that practice affirmative action. Thus, rather than deny the issue under #2 altogether, I’ll just call bullshit on the “even though” clause, and otherwise concede this point.

Advantage: men.

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

Wrong. If I am promoted, that almost certainly will not happen because of my sex. If I am not, it probably won’t be because of my sex, but it might be. It’s not unheard of for employers to pass over the most qualified man to promote a less qualified woman to fulfill a diversity quotient. Does anyone really think that Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood and Janet Reno (in that order) were the three most qualified candidates for Attorney General in 1993?

Advantage: women.

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.

Probably true, or possibly false, depending on the job I work in. If I work as a male in a traditionally male job, my sex will not be an issue for anyone. If, however, I work in a traditionally female job and fail, this might well be seen as a black mark against my sex’s capabilities. The same is true of the first women to break into a traditionally male job, until enough women have worked there to have everyone accustomed to seeing both sexes there. If I work in a job that has many male and female workers, my individual failure (or that of any female co-worker) is highly unlikely to reflect on anyone but me (or her).

Advantage: no one.

The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.

That depends on who I work for, and also means the odds of redress if I am harassed aren’t all that hot, either. Nevertheless, I’ll concede that in most industries, the average female worker runs a considerably higher risk of being sexually harassed than does the average male.

Advantage: men.

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.

There is absolutely no evidence that this is true. I suspect the opposite may be true, in areas where faults may be rationalized as gender differences – my female co-worker “did things her own way,” while I simply “screwed up”- but I don’t know for sure so I won’t claim an advantage the other way, either.

Advantage: no one.

If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.

OK, but then again, if I am a teen or adult, my odds of being imprisoned are much higher, as are my odds of being falsely accused of rape. Also, I suspect, though I don’t know for sure, that my odds of being raped as a prisoner are much higher than that of a female prisoner. More importantly, rape is not the only violent crime out there. Some, like simple assault, are much less serious. Others, like murder, are much worse. All except rape have a much higher number of male than female victims. So once you stop cherry picking the specific violent crime that typically targets women, and instead consider violent crime more generally, it becomes clear which sex is much more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, and which sex is generally shielded from it.

Advantage: women.

I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.

True, but aside from helping to keep the rape rate down, this advice may also be part of the reason why men are more likely to be mugged, murdered, etc. I’m calling this one a wash.

Advantage: no one.

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

By whom? I don’t know any woman who has had her femininity called into question solely because she is a mother. Mrs. X and I went a good decade before finally having our kid. We surely wouldn’t have if she had worried that everyone else might start calling her a lezbo or something. In any event, the chances that a woman’s femininity will be called into question by her decision not to have children are no greater than the chances that a man’s masculinity will be called into question based on her decision not to have his baby.

Advantage: no one.

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

No, but I will be haled into court, have my wages garnished, etc., even if I am not allowed to see my own kid. If she wants to put the kid up for adoption and owe nothing, she can. If I think the kid should be adopted, I have no say. And all that assumes that I am the kid’s father, which I may well not be. I may just be some innocent schmoe who had the misfortune of being named randomly by a woman I’ve never met, and who was legally “presumed” to have received a 30 day notice I never saw. She committed perjury but is almost certain not to be prosecuted. I, by contrast, have to pay for a kid I had nothing to do with, even if that hampers my ability to take care of my own children.

Advantage: women.

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

This is the flip side of #3. Everyone gets a bonus for performing adequately while doing a job traditionally associated with the opposite sex. When it involves women doing “men’s work,” it works to the woman’s advantage. When men do women’s work, same deal. Fair’s fair.

Advantage: men (or a wash, if 3 and 11 are counted together).

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

Very few people think that about women, either – or at least, few dare to say it out loud. If I have children and stay home with them, many people will think I’m weird, but might understand it if I did so to allow her to continue in her higher-paying job (which itself would pose no threat to her feminity, but might compromise my masculinity in the eyes of some). If I work and also insist that Mrs. X work so we can afford a nicer house/car/whatever, then many will rightly call me a selfish boob.

Advantage: no one.

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.

Tell that to Bernard Kerek, or any other male politician whose relationship gives the press anything to scrutinize. If it bleeds, it leads.

Advantage: no one.

Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.

That’s true, but it won’t do me any good. On the flip side, chances are also that my elected representatives are mostly people attracted to the opposite sex, and therefore more likely to, if anything, give them more attention than me. Still, I trust most of them to be more professional than that, so I won’t play the victim card here.

Advantage: no one.

I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see “the person in charge,” I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

Same deal as 14. Until someone can show me the secret handshake or the magic words that effectively mean “you have the same genitalia that I do, so please give me whatever I want,” I see no advantage whatsoever if knowing that I’ll encounter members of my own sex, rather than the opposite, while traveling up the food chain.

Advantage: no one.

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

By whom, according to whom? Then again, I grew up with one brother and no sisters, so maybe I’d better take a pass on this one.

Advantage: no one, for now.

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 heroes were the default.

True in my case, but then again, I watched mostly “action” shows that appealed to boys more than girls. I’m sure if I had watched shows about cooking, homemaking, etc., most of the role models would have been positive, active, non-stereotyped heroines of the opposite sex (or, perhaps, that the author of this checklist would weasel out of it by claiming all shows aimed at girls are “stereotyped”). I’ll assume that there probably are fewer such shows, however, and let the fembots have this one.

Advantage: men.

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

Absent proof, I don’t believe it. With proof, I’d want to see it in a more comprehensive context, e.g., good vs. bad attention, or the role of behavioral factors and other externalities. For it’s pretty much a given that teachers will pay more attention to those who raise their hands and and scream out “me, me, I know it!” than to those who quietly raise their hands and mind their own business – and those two groups may not be divided evenly between the sexes.

Besides, didn’t items 14 and 15 rest on the assumption that there is some inherent advantage to dealing with authority figures of your own sex rather than the opposite one? Well, chances are much greater that most of your childhood teachers – especially those in the earlier, more formative years – were women. So if I bought that argument for Congressmen and CEOs, I’d have to chalk schools up to “female privilege.” I don’t, though, and I have no desire to replace silly feminist shibboleths with equally silly “masculist” ones, so I’m counting this as a wash.

Advantage: no one.

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.

Translated: women menstruate, while men don’t. Thank you for sharing. Men make a few crude jokes about it, but they make jokes about all things crude, and judging by how they talk about their own bodily functions, probably make a lot fewer cracks about menstruation than they would if they menstruated themselves. “Sexist” cracks aside, however, PMS is a double-edged sword, which explains away some hysterical behavior which, if performed by a man, would never have been excused under any circumstances.

Advantage: no one.

I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.

Another tired variation of the already tired meme underlying 14 and 15 (but curiously, not 18). Seven adult males appear on the front page of today’s Orange County Register. The first, Leonardo DiCaprio, has zero appeal to men. He’s there for the ladies, making his inclusion about as “patriarchal” as it would be “feminist” to display a clothed version Miss January instead. The next, Jamie Foxx, is depicted because of his Academy Award nominations, as is DiCaprio for that matter. Others include Jeff Thomason, an O.C. native who recently rejoined the Philadelphia Eagles just in time for the ultra-patriarchal Super Bowl (which, yet again, will feature zero female players), an unnamed construction worker, and an 84-year old engineer from La Habra tutoring a young man in Los Angeles. And there is Roy Hallums, whose “male privilege” consists of being held hostage by Iraqi terrorists threatening to kill him.

Until someone can please explain how any of these seven men in today’s paper affect me, as a man, while competing pictures of Osama bin Laden, Michael Moore, Abu al-Zarqawi or Terry MacAuliffe in other papers do not, I’m calling this a wash.

Advantage: no one.

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

That depends on the manner in which I am careless. If I fritter away my money on beer, TVs, guns, motorcycles, Superbowl tickets, or any other activities generally associated with my sex, my carelessness will indeed be attributed to my sex. If I blow all my money on stuff women approve of, it won’t.

Advantage: no one.

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

Tell that to any male under 30 with a clean record who has tried to get auto insurance.

Advantage: women.

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

That depends on the group you are speaking to, and what you are speaking about. A biologist who just happens to be a woman can deliver a speech to any group of biologists anywhere in the world without putting her sex on trial. She can’t deliver a pro-feminist speech to Glenn Sacks’s group or Warren Farrell’s without raising some eyebrows, of course, but good luck delivering an anti-feminist speech, as a man, to your local chapter of NOW.

Advantage: no one.

If I have sex with a lot of people, it won’t make me an object of contempt or derision.

On the other hand, if I don’t have sex with anyone until marriage, or even late college, it will make me an object of contempt or derision, and may lead to rumors that I am gay. Best case scenario: I say I’m abstaining for moral reasons, and everyone snickers behind my back that I just haven’t gotten lucky yet. If a girl says she’s waiting, her decision is respected unless it’s obviously not true (e.g., she’s already slept with half the football team, and conveniently became a born again virgin when it was your turn).

Thus, once the issue is broadened enough to account for the choice not to have sex with a lot of people, each sex has the advantage in one area, and a disadvantage in the other.

Advantage: no one.

There are value-neutral clothing choices available to me; it is possible for me to choose clothing that doesn’t send any particular message to the world.

That’s true of both sexes. If anything, it’s truer of women, who can wear men’s clothing without objection. There are plenty of value-neutral options for both sexes, though, so I consider this a wash.

Advantage: no one.

My wardrobe and grooming are relatively cheap and consume little time.

That’s true; however, it’s just a nicer way of saying, “by comparison to the average woman, I’m a slob.” There’s a reason why so many people get a kick out of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and it’s not because the joke is on the queer eyes. Women who want to be slobs are free to make that decision. Most choose not to. Cool.

Advantage: no one.

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

If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered the highest price the salesman thinks I am willing to pay. Men are more likely than women to do their homework, find out what the dealer is paying for the car, and negotiate accordingly. Most women hate to haggle, but those who are willing to do so fare just as well as men who do, and men who are afraid to negotiate fare just as poorly as the women who don’t. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results.

Advantage: no one.

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

Translation: if I am conventionally attractive, the advantages are relatively small and easy to ignore. This is a side effect of Items 14 and 15; if my boss is a straight member of my own sex, I have one less avenue available to get on his good side. I have little to gain by making myself conventionally attractive, and thus, equally little to lose by failing to do so. Conversely, all unattractive women have to lose by failing to be attractive is that extra “edge” that attractive women enjoy; they’re not disadvantaged relative to equally unattractive (from the boss’s perspective) men.

Advantage: women.

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

That’s true. However, we have plenty of other choice words to describe loud, aggressive men. None of them are good.

Advantage: no one.

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.)

Ah, yes. That’s why I expect the cops to personally escort me anywhere I go, as long as I ask for legal protection against being mugged, murdered, or whatever. It’s also why you never hear about domestic violence or acquaintance rape on college campuses, only about the need to be “tough on crime” generally. After all, we know they want to “take back the night” from all types of crime, not just the few categories (or only one, rape, if you ignore the “domestic” modifier and count all assaults and batteries together) of crime that affect women disproportionally. And when they say “no means no,” they’re not talking about dates, sillybuns; no doesn’t always mean no in that context. No, no, no, no, no! They’re talking about muggings, as in “no, I don’t want you to have my wallet,” or murders, as in “No, no, don’t kill me, please, no!” Each of which is a firm but polite request by the (usually male) victim, which their assailants are expected to respect.

Returning from La-La Land, there is no question that in most people’s minds, crimes against women are taken more seriously than crimes against men, not less. There’s crime, and then there’s crime against women, and everybody knows which is taken more seriously.

Advantage: women.

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.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was fully debunked decades ago. There is absolutely no evidence that grammatical genders affect anyone’s perception of the word. “Mailman” is no more likely to evoke a masculine imagine that “doctor” or “surgeon,” though at some level all three are since they refer to typically male professions. “Teacher,” on the other hand? “Nurse?”

Advantage: no one.

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

Your ability to count a single issue as two, however, will be, 30 days a month and 365/266 days a year. See item 19.

Advantage: N/A (item void)

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

I, on the other hand, would indeed be questioned if my wife had not chosen to change her name upon marriage. Nevertheless, I took pains to ensure that my concerns not enter into the equation when she made that decision alone. If all men thought like I do, this would be an example of female privilege. Since I can’t assume that, I’m calling it a draw instead.

Advantage: no one.

The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.

It probably won’t be, but if it is, I’d have a heckuva time proving that in court. In any event, what do you expect employers to do? Ignore the fact that some employees are likely to stick around indefinitely and others are not? The only reason it’s an issue is because as a practical matter, women have the choice between staying on the job and quitting to stay home with their kids. Nevertheless, this may work some disadvantage on those women who are sure they don’t want to stay home with their kids, and fear they can’t convince their potential employers that this is the case.

Advantage: men.

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

“Every major religion in the world” is irrelevant everywhere in the world, as “every major religion” doesn’t predominate everywhere or anywhere. Here, the traditional religion, Christianity, clearly favors men over women in certain respects. However, as our society becomes increasingly secular, this matters less and less. It matters a huge deal in fundamentalist Islamic countries, of course, and the tables are almost never turned (matrifocal paganism being a rare bird), so on the balance, this example of male privilege means something, just not much in western society.

Advantage: men.

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

See question 32 regarding double-dipping. This question is a rehash and will not be counted.

Advantage: N/A

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.

From the perspective of one who looks down on mothering, I suppose so. I suspect Mrs. X would beg to differ about the notion that raising our son at home is “repetitive and unrewarding.” Given the numerous ultra-educated, high-earning women I know who have chosen to stay home with their kids rather than sending them to daycare, I have little choice but to conclude that for most women, staying home is the more rewarding task, which as a practical matter is unavailable to most men.

Advantage: women.

If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.

See above regarding double-dipping, again. Or don’t, but if you don’t, it counts twice in favor of “female privilege,” not male privilege.

Advantage: N/A

If I have children with a 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.

This one is barely different enough to warrant a separate analysis, given that the choice between who stays with the kids is usually as much a function of who wants to stay with them as anyone else. In the rare situation where both partners want to work but both agree only one should, chances are that both will assume whoever has the lower paying job will be the one to sacrifice his/her career.

Advantage: no one.

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 much rarer.

The relative popularity of male and female hard and soft porn is strictly a matter of supply and demand. If women enjoyed peeking at pictures of scantily clad / unclad men as much as men looking at women, Playgirl would soon sell just as many copies as Playboy, and female equivalents of Penthouse, Hustler and the rest would soon join the fray. Women prefer to watch Trading Spaces or made-for-bad-TV movies on Lifetime: Television to Repel Men instead, so that is what the market provides.

Advantage: no one.

I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight.

And as a result, I am more likely to end up spending my entire life 20-40 pounds overweight, and am at a higher risk for all manner of health problems.

Advantage: no one.

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

Not that unlikely. What is incredibly unlikely is that I will be believed and a facility will be available to help me if/when I report such an accident – assuming my misplaced sense of machismo allows me the luxury of reporting it at all. And what deranged women lack in physical strength, they can easily make up by using whatever heavy objects happen to be lying around. Still, given the reality that most sociopaths, psychopaths and fruit loops of almost all varieties are male, it probably is true that statistically speaking, a heterosexual woman is more likely to be beaten by her male partner than the other way around.

Advantage: men.

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

Translated: the author of this study knows, at some subconscious level, that he/she is full of it. However, they say the grass is always greener, so at some level it is understandable for a woman to assume men have it “better” when in fact we just have it different. It takes a rare version of a dolt for a male to believe this stuff, however, so to the extent being allowed to be “aware” or “unaware” of a supposedly existent privilege is an advantage, I’d have to give this one to the ladies. Still, I’m not convinced that it is a privilege, and in any event, men are free to think that women have it better, too, if they want to. So I call it a wash.

Advantage: no one.

In the end, that’s 43 items, or 40 after the duplicates are removed, all of which were supposed to prove the existence of male privilege. Of these, a solid 24, almost two-thirds, afforded no inherent advantages to one sex over the other. Of the remaining sixteen, 7 favored males and the other 9 favored females. If the three illegal questions were counted after all, 32 and 36 would favor males, with 38 favoring females, bringing the final score to 9 male privileges vs. 10 female ones. To Washington “Governor” Christine Gregoire, a race that close counts as a “virtual tie.” To anyone else, it’s slight evidence that female privilege outweights male privilege, albeit by a whisker (yes, whiskers favor men, but they’re not part of the survey).

UPDATE: Commenter LTEC thinks I’m wrong – in that I was too generous.