Male privilege is integral to the feminist concept of patriarchy. I was recently having a debate with a feminist and I asked her the key question... what the heck do you mean "male privilege" in this day and age??? She responded with this website the "male privilege" checklist. My girlfriend, who writes erotic fiction for a living, wrote this response lampooning the list. Check it out. I think that it's pretty awesome, esp. when it's coming from a woman who gets it.

edit: I asked her, and she said it'll be cool if I threw the list in right here (bolded points are the original feminist checklist of male privilege. Note finished in comments here and here:

Just gonna give my perspective as a woman. Note: I'm in a relationship with Wabi-sabi, and I agree with him on most of these issues.

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.

In many cases now, this point is specious. For artificial reasons, but still. My sister, a doctor, was repeatedly offered promotion over male doctors who were "more qualified" (her words). She turned down the promotions because they would mean too much time away from home. The promotions were then offered to another female doctor, rather than the more qualified males. This is the way it goes more often than not these days. She knew she was offered those promotions because of her gender.

So one could counter this argument with current levels of female privilege. "My odds of being hired for a job when competing against male applicants, are probably skewed in my favor."

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.

Why should you be allowed to feel confident about that if there's a significant chance you did get your job because of your sex. Likewise, women share the same "privilege" in female-dominated professions--they can be confident that no one would assume they got that job because of their sex, right? Likewise, a man who gets a job as a nurse might be assumed to have gotten the job at least in part because of his gender, since there are so few male nurses.

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

I think many men have to ask themselves exactly that these days, if a woman is promoted over them. See my commentary on item 1.

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.

Depends on what your career is. If you're a man working in a female-dominated field, you might just. Men are bashed for being insensitive, stubborn, uncooperative, selfish, aggressive, unfeeling, unnurturing, etc.

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

Certainly. But I've dealt with some serious sexual harassment before, but it's been my experience that the kinds of guys who pull that shit are usually abusive in some way to everyone, regardless of gender.

Then you have to take a look at what actually constitutes sexual harassment. Like the definition of rape (did you feel violated?), so much of it is subjective, and based on the feelings of the victim and the level of attractiveness of the perpetrator.

There's a great deal of sexual banter that goes on in my workplace, the women dish it out as much as they take it (including our GM, a woman), and none of the female employees there would say they "felt uncomfortable" if a male coworker or boss told them, "You look great in that dress--it really emphasizes your figure."

But an unattractive male, a particularly sensitive woman, and a little unwanted attention often translates into feelings of discomfort that are unfortunate, sure, but not (in my opinion) harassment.

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.

That hasn't been my experience. I suppose other's experiences may vary. Frequently, I've found that if a woman does even a competent job at something male-dominated, she's lauded much more than a man who did an equally capable job. So I guess it could go both ways, no?

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

According to the ever-broadening legal definition of rape, and the definition some feminists have tried to apply ("all penetrative sex is a form of rape", or "physical examinations during labor can be considered violative when not done in a sensitive enough manner"), hell, I was raped by eleven female nurses, three male doctors, and every man I've ever had sex with.

That said, yes, the odds of violent stranger rape are less for men. But not "less enough" to justify society's blanket encouragement of women to walk around in a default state of terror after dark, or the fact that boys and men are expected to walk without fear at any time of the day or night.

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

Who's teaching women to walk around in fear? These days, most of the rape/women are victims/all men are perpetrators rhetoric I come across is out of the mouths of feminists.

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

You're kidding, right? Men who won't commit are called boys by women nowadays, or players, or Peter Pans, or even closeted gays. Men who don't want the whole shebang of marriage and kids are derided for not being "real men". A 40 year old man who's childless and has never been married is looked at with suspicion by a lot of women--there must be something wrong with him. I know this, because it's the FIRST thing I consider when deciding whether to contact one on a dating site.

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

If a man has children and does provide primary care for them--especially if he stays home while the wife works--EVERYONE initially wonders what's wrong with him that he obviously can't hold down a "real job".

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

And if I install a laminate floor or build a fence around my yard, and I can handle my skilsaw or pour concrete with any degree of competence (which I can), I get extra special cookies too! Because I can do "guy things" well. See how that works!

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

Joking again, right? Both men and women look askance at stay-at-home moms now, because (arguably due to second wave feminism), unpaid, domestic labor has been deemed of no value. A woman who stays at home is considered lazy or unambitious--often by other women. A woman who works in a day care center is seen as doing "real work", while a woman who looks after her own kids all day is scorned as being unproductive, or doing nothing worthwhile, or wasting her potential.

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.

Case in point: In 2006, Stephen Harper made the front page of major Canadian newspapers, was sound-bited to death, and lampooned in numerous political cartoons, when he walked his son to school and said goodbye with a handshake. How cold! How distant! How unfeeling! What a horrible father. I do, however, personally know he ties his kids' skates before their hockey games, and I also wonder just how eager a preteen boy would be for his father to hug him while reporters and cameramen (camerapeople, sorry) looked on.

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

This may be the case, but I don't consider it privilege. Just because my political representative is a man doesn't mean he'll share my partner's views. If my rep is female doesn't mean she'll share mine (in fact, I'm pretty sure she won't).

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.

How does that translate into privilege for the average man?

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

Not any more. Boys nowadays are told to sit still, don't be competitive, stop focusing on winning, it doesn't matter who's faster, be quiet, stop disrupting things, cooperate dammit, and stop pestering your neighbor. My stepson was told these things, constantly, all his life, because he was a spirited boy. My daughter, who was arguably more rambunctious than him as a small child, encountered much less discouragement when she was explorative, energetic, took physical risks (you have no idea), and did messy "boy things" like digging up worms or playing with mud.

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.

That has changed, but not as much as I'd like. Or rather, it's hard to find remotely relatable, dynamic female protagonists--those who aren't Mary Sues and who get shit done. However, most male protagonists are, and always have been, stereotypical (or archetypical) in some way or another.