nerds wrote:
so under the slates argument I am privileged for not being super rich. Under the slate's argument, I am privileged for not having the privilege of not being a guy. There are many more fallacies in his arguments that relies on propaganda and hyperbole. Every op ed writer will usually have some faults, so no one is perfect. What it is important to be able to see through the nonsense, and recognize that some "journalist" are nothing more than an uneducated mouth piece serving an nefarious political agenda who have nothing to say.
A woman has more to worry about in a car than she does a man, yet most people do not fear a car. And even if she still fears the man, there are certain profiles that are likely to increase a mans likelihood to engage in violent criminal conduct such as substance abuse or a lack of education. Granted there are a few exceptions, but generally speaking the hatred and judgement of all men for the actions of a small, often identifiable, minority is illogical, unnecessary, and hurtful. I am not saying feminism doesn't have any merits, I am just saying that people need to see the world objectively and not be governed nor govern others by politically induced paranoid delusions nor isolated incidences nor propaganda.
got any evidence to support that dangerous men are "often identifiable"--or is that just baseless supposition of your own? the man who raped me was not a monster, or a sociopath, or an uneducated drug addict. to this day, he likely does not view himself as a rapist (even though he knows perfectly well he had sex with someone against their will), and likely has a "normal" life with friends, family, and acquaintances who, if they were to find out what he had done, would be shocked and disbelieving "
because he seems so normal". like ted bundy did to most of the people who knew him--except for the women he killed, that is. they knew otherwise, but only too late.