On reading your post, we should identify two types of privilege: compensating privilege and advantageous privilege.
Why should we?
Compensating Privilege includes:
People with disabilities sometimes receive government money to help cover living expenses. This is compensating for their limited ability to enter the work force.
I don't think women as a whole are handicapped, I think they're fully capable adults. So I don't see the relevance of that point.
Women are not required to register for military drafts because they are significantly more likely to get killed on the battleground (assuming that argument you present is correct)
As stated before, this is inaccurate, I said that selecting people based on other factors than pure capability will lower combat effectiveness (applies to effectiveness in other fields as well) - in this case it means people will get killed, not necessarily the women in question.
Women are given more maternity leave than men are given paternity leave. This is to compensate for the physical hardship of pregnancy.
No. There is no reason to 'compensate' women.
Let's clarify that by defining the term 'to compensate/compensation'
something, typically money, awarded to someone in recognition of loss, suffering, or injury.
"he is seeking compensation for injuries suffered at work"
synonyms: recompense, repayment, payment, reimbursement, remuneration, requital, indemnification, indemnity, redress, satisfaction
So by saying women should be 'compensated' you imply that other people somehow 'owe' the woman for her personal choice to have a child.
Why should they? The woman chooses to have a child, she is not owed anything. If she pays taxes then fine, the state can decide to 'ease' the rearing of children with maternity leaves etc. But that is very different from 'compensation'. That is just a policy aimed at encouraging women to have children.
The issues relating to female privilege in divorce and custody cases results from the past traditional culture in which there weren't jobs for very many women in the workforce and the task of child-rearing was culturally designated to women. That many of these laws remain in a changing culture could in some cases result in an unfair advantage for women.
This is correct
However, it is still true that men tend to earn more money and women tend to do more work 'off the books' taking care of a home and the children.
Yes and so what? Men make more money because they make different choices.
They tend to, on average, choose more lucrative fields, work longer hours, take less vacations. It's only fair that - on average - they'd be paid more.
If women were paid less just because they were women then every company would mostly hire women. I know that first hand having worked in (Gulf) countries where some groups of people would genuinely accept much lower pay for the same work (Pakistanis, Indians, some east Asians) and were hugely over represented in the work force.
To address your comment about women tricking men into pregnancy: While it is possible for women to deceive men into getting them pregnant resulting in the man having to pay them ongoing money, there is also a cost to the woman for getting pregnant.
It doesn't matter that there is a cost - if the woman chooses to stay pregnant or chooses not to take the pill, or doesn't insist on the use of condoms she's responsible. Women are not children.
Any time there is sex it is a gamble because some younger women even get pregnant while on the pill. When people choose to take that gamble, responsibility goes with it even when it is costly.
Yes, if a woman chooses to take that gamble she should be responsible for her actions. Other people shouldn't be in the absence of a contractual-like obligation (marriage basically). Contraception exists. If the woman for whatever reason ends up pregnant without wanting to then it's her choice and her responsibility if she wishes to keep that child whether her reasons for it are rational, religious or others. Again, women are adults. Your arguments seem to steem from a belief that women need to be 'protected'. They don't.
Advantageous Privilege includes:
Attractive women being more likely to be hired into high paying jobs because of their appearance. There is no significant disadvantage to being attractive. It is a pure form of privilege.
Taller people being more likely to be hired into leadership positions over short people because of their height. There is no disadvantage to being tall, so it is pure benefit.
96% of Fortune 500 CEOs are male. This is not because men are disadvantaged.
Yes and so what?
Are you saying we should change human nature to fit your preference? People assign leadership traits to people they literally
'look up to'. There is a reason for this expression to exist, it's down to human psychology (your parents were taller than you most of your life and women tend to prefer taller men for example).
It's absurd to assume that an attractive sales person will not be able to sell more (all other things being equal). For example.
As to fortune 500 CEOs, men tend to show more of the traits needed to be selected for CEO type jobs. So at either extremes of the spectrum this trends are going to be exacerbated.
ie: if men are on average more competitive, logical etc. they're going to be wildly over represented at the top of the corporate food chain. Personally I'm just for the best people getting the job, not for encouraging one gender over another for no other reason than the circumstance of their birth: That's sexist discrimination.
It's the same logic regarding IQ - women tend to have lower standard deviations in IQ - while this doesn't really have much impact on most people it leads to much more high IQ and low IQ men.
96% of Fortune 500 CEOs are male. This is not because men are disadvantaged.
Your logical fallacy is black or white
Saying that 'this is not because men are disadvantaged' does not make the rest of your argument valid.
First off fortune 500 CEOs are in no way representative of men in general. Making this argument cherry picking at best.
Furthemore, If you think men are advantaged unfairly due to sexism you should say HOW they are being advantaged
and how it relates to fortune 500 CEOs being mostly male.
There is however trillions of other possibilities. So your statement is meaningless in making a point, it is however effective at revealing your bias.
ie: your default position is that women are disadvantaged.
Quote of the day:
The unexamined life is not worth living.
- Generally attributed to Plato