A few points of conflict with Jackie L's (Eilonnwy) article.

[Edwardo Piet]

Fuck privileges for either sex I don't give a shit about that. What I do give a shit about is people whining about shit as if anyone deserves or doesn't deserve X or Y any more than anyone else does.

IOW the one privilege I do give a shit about is when people automatically privilege themselves as if their own moral judgements are automatically superior, by-fucking-default.

[fr0d0]

Insurance companies don't set up policies based on prejudice, they're motivated entirely by the assessment of risk. That women generally speaking make worse drivers skills wise they do nevertheless have fewer expensive accidents. The stats for collisions at 5mph or less have women in the majority. It's a fact and something statistically proven to be linked to sex. Get over it.

[tavarish]

Insurance companies don't set up policies based on prejudice, they're motivated entirely by the assessment of risk. That women generally speaking make worse drivers skills wise they do nevertheless have fewer expensive accidents. The stats for collisions at 5mph or less have women in the majority. It's a fact and something statistically proven to be linked to sex. Get over it.

I'll reply with what Adrian wrote, since it addresses this exact thing:

"I should also mention to fr0d0 that in addition to my point earlier, it is irrelevant if the statistics say men are worse drivers; the fact that women can get better car insurance deals is still a privilege."

[Tiberius]

I should also point that the better deals isn't my main complaint here. My main complaint is with companies that decide to only offer insurance to women, and not to men. Offering better prices to women might be a good business strategy for an insurance company, and might not be sexist (just female privilege), but not offering insurance at all? That is clear sexism.

Whilst we're on the subject, what about clubs giving free entry to women after certain hours, whilst still charging men? What statistics and studies support that idea? It's privilege.

Also, who said anything about "policies based on prejudice"? Is that how we are assessing things now? If the reasoning behind an action isn't based on prejudice, it's fine, even if it affects a certain sex more than another? If that is the case, you can't defend any of the things on the list of "male privileges" (or "female privileges"), since one could easily claim they aren't being prejudiced.

[fr0d0]

I feel that I'm in kindergarten here. To say that because something is gender exclusive isn't anything to do with sexism... that's fair gender bias where men and women are um... y'know ...different!? You can get male only car insurance too. Men pay more money - that isn't sexist - it's economics.

Clubs give free entry to women to make them more attractive to men. It's a money making scam that benefits women. If anything this promotes the view that men and women are defined in this narrow way.

Yes prejudice is wrong, unprejudiced is right. The sexes are different and it's not prejudiced to recognise that.

[Violet]

I should also point that the better deals isn't my main complaint here. My main complaint is with companies that decide to only offer insurance to women, and not to men. Offering better prices to women might be a good business strategy for an insurance company, and might not be sexist (just female privilege), but not offering insurance at all? That is clear sexism.

"Female Privilege" is sexism. Just as "Black Privilege" is racism. Just as "Elderly Privilege" is ageism. La de-whooping da.

People do things for reasons, even if they don't know them. Perhaps said insurance company to which you refer is a feministic insurance company. Perhaps it is scared of male drivers because of the media. Perhaps it has discovered a secret to making fantastic money with insurance that rival companies don't yet understand. I think it is amusing that a company would bar men from buying from them... alienating perhaps 50% of their potential customers. Either they are fools, or geniuses beyond my time

You also seem to view sexism as a bad thing... if this is so: why?

Also, who said anything about "policies based on prejudice"? Is that how we are assessing things now? If the reasoning behind an action isn't based on prejudice, it's fine, even if it affects a certain sex more than another? If that is the case, you can't defend any of the things on the list of "male privileges" (or "female privileges"), since one could easily claim they aren't being prejudiced.

Prejudice is often completely safe. I am prejudiced that all trees will follow the same patterns as they have all my life. But I have to look out if they start moving around or something. That would be bad.

People are not trees (though some trees may be people... > _ >). Many 'female privileges' disappear if a woman is ugly, and especially 'deformed'. Many 'male privileges' disappear when a man is effeminate.

Therefore: transexuals have next to neither of these sets of privileges until they are nearly done with their transformation(s)

[Dotard]

I feel that I'm in kindergarten here.

History is made today. Fr0d0 gains insight.

[Violet]

I feel that I'm in kindergarten here. To say that because something is gender exclusive isn't anything to do with sexism... that's fair gender bias where men and women are um... y'know ...different!? You can get male only car insurance too. Men pay more money - that isn't sexist - it's economics.

Are you in kindergarten though?

Hmmm, it is true that gender ≠ sex. However, few people note this difference. I think half the people are too stupid to get past their childhood indoctrination in factuality... and the other half aren't assertive

"Men pay more money" is sexist. It's a good thing in many cases (especially for the person receiving the money)... but sexist does the economics remain

Clubs give free entry to women to make them more attractive to men. It's a money making scam that benefits women. If anything this promotes the view that men and women are defined in this narrow way.

To non-homosexual men*, which happen to be the minority, therefore they attract more customers. I don't think such places benefit many people at all... but maybe your understanding of it is better for having experience

It does indeed promote the view that men and women are to be so shallowly (heterosexually) defined. This is unfortunate for some people, ie: me.

Yes prejudice is wrong, unprejudiced is right. The sexes are different and it's not prejudiced to recognise that.

Although I agree with your sentiment... prejudice is extremely convenient. It can lead to disaster easily enough, but much less time is taken when one doesn't apply prejudices (or other assumptions out of first impressions and the like).

Everyone is different... to treat everyone the same is to do the lot a disservice.

---

I feel that I'm in kindergarten here.

History is made today. Fr0d0 gains insight.

Along at least three lines! ^_^

[fr0d0]

I feel that I'm in kindergarten here.

History is made today. Fr0d0 gains insight.

Ageist bastard!

[tavarish]

I'll revive this thread for the sake of two comments I read on her page which had me rolling:

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-bosto...t-the-door

and another:

[quote="ANON"]
Feminist diatribes, this one being no exception, are so often blatantly self-loathing and hypocritical. You call out others on their discriminatory practices through blanket statements, stereotypes, vacuous emotional pleas and ad hominem attacks. You make a futile attempt to portray yourself as taking the moral high ground, while never delving beyond a cursory look at your own privilege, or how this privilege affords you the opportunity to write what you do. The term "privilege" is a tool of the left, used almost exclusively to berate white men--the same color men who crafted the Western Civilization you cherish--and the same who now tolerate your drivel. Circumstantial advantages are contextual, and only an idiot would "check" such advantages. You are angry because you perceive in yourself a lack of such advantage and wish to possess it for yourself. The ironic thing is that you devalue this privilege while directly benefiting from it.