I found this list generally ofensive and one sided. Label me as a supresser if you will, but you’ve never been a man,

The author of the list is male.

16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
—-A sweeping generalization. In all cases i know, this is not true.

21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
—Sex has nothing to do with it. If you fuck up your financial situation, it’s your fault. It’ll be attributed to your intelligance.

22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
—Once again, nothing to do with sex. It’ll be attributed to your intelligance.

28. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
—-Try telling it to a small man with glasses.

41. I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight.
—True, but you’re not expected to be tall, handsome, or an athleate. I tell you, better where the times when it was intellect that was valued.

I found this list generally ofensive and one sided. Label me as a supresser if you will, but you’ve never been a man, and I’ve never been a woman, so I’d please ask you to stop acting like you know how it is.

I think this should be of concern to men, because it works against them. That if a woman is sad, the world stops. If a guy is sad, he has to “take it like a man” and just “get over it”. Demanding someone always have a pleasently carefree outlook is unrealistic. People have problems, and sometimes people are upset. It’s like, the only expression you can show to people is being mindlessly happy.

No wonder it’s so hard to find friendship, when everyone is playing beat around the bush about their true thoughts about things.

If so, why is this a privilege here when considered a negative on the other list?

It’s not the same deal. The male privilege applies only in areas such as childcare, which are presumed to be women’s competency. The white privilege applies to all areas. Also the marginally-competent male child-carer is less likely to be called a credit to his sex, because his sex is not regarded as needing credit.

There was one point I hoped someone could clarify for me. In the white privilege list the following privilege is listed:
“20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.”

My understanding of the above is that the praise is bad because it simply means people expected you to fail.

In light of this, I am unsure of item 11 on this list:
“11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.”

Isn’t this just the same deal - abeit even worse since you just have to be “marginally competent” to out do peoples expectations of you.

If so, why is this a privilege here when considered a negative on the other list?

Yes… my father does this, and he’s been a stay at home dad for decades. I think it’s his way of coping with the role reversal, being able to say “At least I don’t ____. Only women _____.” I told him last week that I want to split household chores equally with my (theoretical) husband, and he pretty much said “good luck finding a guy who’ll put up with that, gay men don’t even like cleaning.”

Men are allowed to be loud. People may not like it, but they dont get sex oriented insults or labels meant to shame them into being quiet.

Men are also not called ball busters (for example) when they’re agrressive, and it IS considered a strength that men are admired for.

Donald Trump is an aggressive business man. Martha Stewart isnt MORE aggressive than Donald Trump, but her aggression is labeled as bitchy.

Being loud for a woman doesn’t always mean being LOUD. Usually it means the woman is merely louder than other women.

Not quite the same thing as being obnoxious.

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

I don’t find aggressiveness or loudness attractive qualities in either gender and I associate neither attribute with strength. I’m unhappy about the efforts of misguided feminists to “reclaim” “bitch,” along with the “a ‘bitch’ is just a strong woman” argument. That bad behavior is acceptable for memebers of one sex does not mean it should be for both.

Great list, btw.

I use sie (he/she) and hir (him/her).

I also use they, even though it seems ungrammatical, cuz, eh. Screw the grammar nazis who don’t know what they’re talking about. (Informed grammar nazis on the other hand? Purr.)

(Of course, “After 411 comments” technically didn’t start til your comment, but I’ll let that slide.)

We need a gender-nonspecific third person singular pronoun that’s more casually acceptable than “one,” and a corresponding plural pronoun that’s more formally acceptable than “they.” All of which is pretty off-topic, though I guess it tenuously ties in with #31 on the checklist.

Admittedly, the use of “they” for the third person singular gender-ambiguous is infrequent and depricated for formal use (although it has a long history and is not a new usage).

Plus, it still leaves difficulties in conjugation: One wants to have their cake and eat it too seems ungrammatical, while have his cake and eat it too is obviously problematic to pro-/feminists, and have her cake and eat it too is equally arbitrary.