Without commenting on the first two paragraphs, your last paragraph makes it sounds more malicious than reality probably is. It's entirely possible that attractive women got BOTH privilege and harassment.

"It's entirely possible that attractive women got BOTH privilege and harassment."

Women tend not to report on minor sexual harassment incidents, since it is socially disadvantageous to do so. They only speak about it in aggregate terms, which will have zero effect, except in the very long term, on the number of sexual harassment incidents they will experience. Speaking about in aggregate terms, also draws in attention from people sympathetic to the woman's situation, at the expense of other people who may be in even more need of attention, (e.g. say starving children in africa, elder women unable to pay bills, foster children being abused), and enables the attractive women to earn additional privileges.

I agree it probably isn't their deliberate intention to have that effect on society, but I do think that effect exists.

There's a woman who's written a book about this sort of thing: http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the_manipulated...

> The reason women complain about being 'discriminated' is because it works so well for them

Probably the most bullshit thing I will have read this month.

You have a point - a woman can always choose to be relatively unattractive by cutting her hair short, not wearing makeup, wear unattractive clothes, etc... They choose to present themselves as attractive because there are more social advantages of doing so.

Well, today, Paul, I'd like some of this "terrible reading comprehension" you have so prominently on the menu (I mean, reading both an article and a testimony about actual discrimination, and then saying it's a "lifestyle choice", it's either that or something so much beyond bad faith, it's positively Luciferan). Additionally, I'd like a healthy serving of victim blaming, because I too subscribe to the idea that any abuse suffered by attractive females is completely their fault, why should they be attractive in the first place?

(edit: obviously sarcastic)

Your post doesn't contain an argument regarding my claim that beauty is to a substantial degree a life-style choice.

The style of your post is typical for white-knights who, in my considerable experience, reflexively hit-out against any man who doesn't defer to the feminist/misandric party-line that woman must not be held responsible, that women have only rights, no responsibilities. The great Africa-American philosopher and gender-researcher Christopher Julius has pithily summarised the underlying motivation for this disposition.

> Your post doesn't contain an argument regarding my claim that beauty is to a substantial degree a life-style choice.

I'm not debating this point because it is completely irrelevant. Your argument boils down to "if a woman is attractive, it's perfectly legitimate for her to suffer from discrimination, because she is privileged". There is a word for that, it's "misogyny" (as if your "white knight" dig wasn't sufficient). Women have the right to makeup and skirts, and they have the right to not have strangers grab their hand and put it on their dick. Of course, you're free to disagree with this statement, and you'll find a number of countries, particularly in the Middle-East, agreeing with your views, but that's not what I consider a part of modern western values.

Imagine being an attractive skinny guy in a prison? Or a token burned-out hacker at a business school where everyone needs a "coder" to be the next Steve Jobs? How will you make friends? How much privilege will you be granted to compensate for the perpetual annoyance/fear of being taken advantage of?

> Or a token burned-out hacker at a business school where everyone needs a "coder" to be the next Steve Jobs?

I think this is mistaken. First, the burned-out hacker can always just say no. Second, he has the advantage, not the disadvantage.