<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More &#8220;Male Privilege&#8221; Silliness</title>
	<atom:link href="http://xrlq.com/2005/01/26/more-male-privilege-silliness/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/01/26/more-male-privilege-silliness/</link>
	<description>Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 18:16:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: LTEC</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/01/26/more-male-privilege-silliness/comment-page-1/#comment-13156</link>
		<dc:creator>LTEC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:09:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/2005/01/26/2125/more-male-privilege-silliness/#comment-13156</guid>
		<description>I disagree that &quot;the issues raised would be persuasive enough, if true&quot;. A list of a lot of ways that men are better off than women does not imply that men are better off than women. If one MUST address the issue of whether or not one sex is better off than the other, then one must make TWO lists: a list of the ways that men are better off and a list of the ways that women are better off; then one must compare the two lists.

By making only one list, I can prove whatever I like.  For example, let&#039;s prove that rich, famous people are worse off than poor people because the former:

-- pay more taxes
-- are hounded by autograph seekers
-- are constantly bothered by charities seeking donations
-- Etc.  

Anyone can play this game.  It&#039;s a stupid game.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I disagree that &#8220;the issues raised would be persuasive enough, if true&#8221;. A list of a lot of ways that men are better off than women does not imply that men are better off than women. If one MUST address the issue of whether or not one sex is better off than the other, then one must make TWO lists: a list of the ways that men are better off and a list of the ways that women are better off; then one must compare the two lists.</p>
<p>By making only one list, I can prove whatever I like.  For example, let&#8217;s prove that rich, famous people are worse off than poor people because the former:</p>
<p>&#8211; pay more taxes<br />
&#8211; are hounded by autograph seekers<br />
&#8211; are constantly bothered by charities seeking donations<br />
&#8211; Etc.  </p>
<p>Anyone can play this game.  It&#8217;s a stupid game.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: triticale</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/01/26/more-male-privilege-silliness/comment-page-1/#comment-13140</link>
		<dc:creator>triticale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/2005/01/26/2125/more-male-privilege-silliness/#comment-13140</guid>
		<description>Doing the laundry is repetitive and unrewarding compared to shoveling the sidewalk. Advantage who?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doing the laundry is repetitive and unrewarding compared to shoveling the sidewalk. Advantage who?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Glittering Eye</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/01/26/more-male-privilege-silliness/comment-page-1/#comment-13139</link>
		<dc:creator>The Glittering Eye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/2005/01/26/2125/more-male-privilege-silliness/#comment-13139</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Catching my eye:  morning A through Z&lt;/strong&gt;
Here&#039;s what&#039;s caught my eye so far this morning: When the Geneva Food Crimes Tribunal meets, Beautiful Atrocities&#039;s No-Bake Meatloaf is certain to be indicted. A dialogue with Socrates (although not precisely a Socratic dialogue) about Bush&#039;s inaug...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Catching my eye:  morning A through Z</strong><br />
Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s caught my eye so far this morning: When the Geneva Food Crimes Tribunal meets, Beautiful Atrocities&#8217;s No-Bake Meatloaf is certain to be indicted. A dialogue with Socrates (although not precisely a Socratic dialogue) about Bush&#8217;s inaug&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

