In my previous post, I responded to the first couple of sections in this post by Bailey Poland, in which she deploys a number of fallacious arguments to try to deny the validity of the concept of female privilege.

Here is my further analysis of her piece.

“The Draft”

Bringing up the draft is a perennial favorite for MRAs — particularly young men in the U.S. Women don’t have to sign up for the draft, and this, to them, confirms the idea of male disposability and female privilege. … While it’s true that women are not required to register for the draft, the rest of their argument about this being a female privilege is based on an inability to see the big picture.

She raises several objections to the ‘male-only draft registration is a female privilege’ idea:

The first problem with this line of argument is that the draft in the U.S. was effectively retired over 40 years ago. … it’s unlikely that any [men] will ever be drafted.

This objection may counter the notion that the male-only draft registration requirement is a major female privilege; it does not counter the idea that it’s a real one.



Failure to register for the draft has significant legal consequences, as commenter Spoonwood documents in this comment to the previous post. Moreover, it is not trivial to be legally compelled to make even symbolic avowals that one’s life may be placed at the mercy of the state because one is a member of a less-protected group. It appears to be a prima facie violation of the equal protection clause, something which will soon be tested in court.

Further, holding women responsible for not being drafted to go to war carries an undertone of blaming women for the construction of the draft and the event of war itself.

Here Bailey does the sleight of hand thing again, shifting the discussion from “Is it a female privilege that American women are exempt from having to register for the draft?” to “Whose fault is it that men are required to register for the draft?” Even though majority-male office holders are responsible for the current setup, female draft registration exemption is still a female privilege. Indeed, the fact that majority-male office holders were willing to exempt women is strongly suggestive that the notion that men rule in the interests of men and against the interests of women is at best misleading.

… it is worth noting that women have always been participants in war …

This is true; and not just participants, but combatants, and effective ones. However, this fact doesn’t counter the notion that the male-only draft registration is a female privilege; if anything, it bolsters it.

“Men Pay For Dates”

This is a complicated issue to deal with. It can most accurately be seen as a byproduct of it being much more difficult for the average man to secure sexual and romantic companionship than it is for the average (pre-menopausal) woman. Unless a man is a standout in some way (looks, celebrity, wealth, social status, charm, achievement), he will in all likelihood have to initiate more (and endure more rejection), pay for more dates, and be more successful in his occupations to have as many choices in partners as a similarly average (pre-menopausal) woman.

All of this can be difficult to establish in a scientifically robust way, and deeper arguments supporting this viewpoint would require several posts of their own. But a few points about what Bailey says can be made.

I agree with her that the obligation for men to pay for dates appears to have lessened, which I agree is a good thing. I adamantly disagree with the idea that the proposed alternative of ‘whoever asks, pays’ somehow evens the playing field. In fact, I think it makes it worse for the average man. The obligation to constantly initiate (both for a date and later for sex) and endure repeated rejection can be psychologically corrosive, and the idea that whoever takes on this burden should also be the one who gets stuck with the bill strikes me as more of a ‘double whammy’ than something that evens things out.

Finally, I’m disturbed but sadly unsurprised that Bailey includes this misleading shibboleth in her piece:

A wage gap still exists, and women can expect to earn less than men throughout their lives, regardless of field, role, or success.

Equally qualified women who don’t take extended leave make close to the same amount as men — the difference is less than three percent, according to this — and there are fields where starting salaries for women exceed those of men. (Many people assume the couple of percent salary difference in comparable men’s and women’s jobs is due to discrimination, and while this is certainly possible, it is not a proven fact. In the medical field, for example, a study found that once you take into account things like university attended, field and specialty selected, and hours worked, male and female doctors made exactly the same hourly wage.)

I will finish up my response to Bailey in part III.