There is Something Bossy About Privilege

Cathy Reisenwitz may or may not be privileged. Either way, we need to live in a genderless vaccuum. 

Cathy Reisenwitz has struck again. In her latest blog post, Reisenwitz “checks [her] hot lady privilege” with some confusing results.*

As a philosophy major, I have a certain knack for reading deeply confusing texts that appear nonsensical. Armed with my expertise in reading the unreadable, please allow me to translate Reisenwitz into American English….

Reisenwitz prefaces her discussion by noting the appearance of “privilege” in the libertarian media lately (an article in FEE, a Stossel segment, and the Ban Bossy campaign). Reisenwitz correctly notes that she has become famous for urging that the phrase “check your privilege” become part of the libertarian dialogue.

Now the confusing parts of the post begin:

Beyond the legit criticisms of the phrase [“check your privilege”], I think many people tend to misunderstand the idea. Many people think that acknowledging privilege means putting people in privilege hierarchies, based on their identities. I can see how this could be offensive to, well, everyone. But I think that’s a misreading of the phrase and hides an important truth. We are all privileged. And we are all oppressed.

Translation: If people disagree with my phrase of choice, it must be because they don’t really understand what I mean. I’ll concede that everyone has some difficulty because that seems less objectionable and preposterous.

It’s very difficult to hold two conflicting ideas in your head at the same time. But let’s try, and we’ll use me as an example. Because this is my blog. And I love me. And because the same misunderstanding is marring the discussion of Ban Bossy.

Translation: You idiots, do you need me to spell this out for you?! Here, let’s talk about something I know well: me. Don’t bother reconciling your cognitive dissonance.

First, to my knowledge, [my appearance and gender] have helped me far, far more times and in more ways than they have hurt me.

Second, sexism is still real.

Translation: Being a girl isn’t so bad sometimes if dudes are into you. Other times it really stinks.

Reisenwitz then acknowledges some of the nice parts of being a girl. But we don’t know if she would have been even more famous because “I will likely never know which mentors didn’t choose me, which clubs I wasn’t invited to, which people discounted my opinions because I’m a carrier of a vagina. Or maybe even because they figured (and I’ve been told as such) that my work isn’t good and only gets attention due to how I look.”

Translation: Maybe I have been more successful than I ever would have been if I was a dude. Maybe I’m less successful. Point is, I might have been discriminated against. There’s really no way of knowing.

Reisenwitz doesn’t have to make a lot of the choices that stifle traditional career women, so she can’t really provide anecdotes for that. Instead, “if I check my childless, dirty, asshole privilege, I realize that just because I succeeded despite that discrimination, and just because other women CAN too, doesn’t mean it isn’t real and it isn’t a problem. […] And if it’s true that in general, women are held to different standards for likability, or discriminated against in employment, it would follow that that would discourage them from leading and succeeding. I desire for women to have every opportunity and advantage to lead, both for them, and for the world which will benefit from their unencumbered contributions.”

Translation: Since some studies show that women face adversity, they might not have the same opportunities as men. Even though record numbers of women are graduating from professional schools and college at higher rates than their male counterparts, they are *logically* discouraged from pursuing “success.”**

In short, I can be genuinely grateful for every advantage, every privilege I have, and they are many. And I can still understand that sexism exists, and I can advocate for a world in which generally speaking, it is no disadvantage in any way to be a woman.

Translation: Even though I acknowledge that I appear to be a counter-example for the oppression that I opine about, I am still convinced that there is pervasive disadvantage to women. I won’t be satisfied until women are emancipated from trade-offs!

We must first recognize the problem. Then, let’s work to get better, and teach others to do the same. Let’s all reset our expectations of women, so they are neither incentivized nor disincentivized to work hard or lead outside the home. It’s not going to be easy. There’s only so much we can do, but it’s worth it.

Because this, to me, is freedom. I want to live in a world where arbitrary factors like identity don’t keep people from opportunities to add value. I think sexism is an abhorrent thing, and worthy of voluntary response. But I don’t need to think of myself as a victim to advocate for it.

Translation: We should create a gender neuter society where facts of reality, including biology, check themselves at the door. We should actively countermand the dictates of nature so that everyone can make value free choices from a position of grey conformity. “Arbitrary” factors, like what you choose to identify as or your individual life choices, shouldn’t stop you from doing what you want to do — other people’s interests and priorities be damned!

Editor’s note: The sad part of this piece is that I understand Reisenwitz’s general point and it’s actually not bad: if you want people from other walks of life to understand and respect libertarian ideas, you’ll have better luck empathizing with them and appealing to their particular concerns. This strikes me as a reasonable suggestion that falls in line with the first rule of writing (know thy audience!) and most Marketing 101 books.

Alas, Reisenwitz’s line of reasoning devolves into advocacy of a gender neuter society in what could have been a simple acknowledgement of her gains and disadvantages as a woman. It would be one thing to note the discrepancy in opportunities among humans in order to communicate effectively — it’s another to crusade in favor of a veil of ignorance on society. Not even Rawls thought that could happen.

It’s unfortunate for like-minded libertarians that Reisenwitz has been given the *ahem* privilege of having such a loud voice.

*— For the blissfully ignorant, Cathy Reisenwitz has been pushing for libertarians to consider their “privilege.” What could have been perceived as a simple suggestion for branding the ideology has morphed into her MO for making absurd social criticisms.

** — Which is, of course, a one-dimensional goal of having a particular career path. Leave things like artistic expression and a fulfilling home life at the door, losers.