I have a question for male feminists

Post Reply New Topic

Oooooohhhhh...I see... So it's really only 1/4 of women? Ok, and out of that, how many identify as feminists?

https://www.prri.org/spotlight/less-tha ... S_MQCmUeS3

Less than half of millennial women identify as feminist. However, that doesn't specifically indicate the size of the overlap between the two groups. It could be as few as none or as many as all, but maybe we can stipulate that it's about half.

Male pattern baldness is genetic. No doubt stress can contribute to accelerating the hormonal mechanism that leads to hair loss, but lack of stress only delays the inevitable. Mine started right at the end of high school and was pretty nasty looking by my early to mid 20's. I quit paying for haircuts by my mid 30's. Now I just get the clipper out once a month.

You didn't really answer my main question, though. Have you answered no to any ONE of those other questions? Have you ever been denied maternity leave? Have you ever been terminated due to pregnancy or been given a negative job evaluation while pregnant?

So basically a relatively small number of abused women even identify as feminists, just based on the limited data we have on-hand.

Which means the rest of the all-men-are-evil camp are on the bandwagon--why, exactly? Maybe because of someone they know, sure, supporting a friend or whatever. But it's not from "lived experience."

It won't work to limit the definition of abuse to intimate partner violence. I haven't encountered a man-hater in decades, but I'm keeping an eye out. I have a growing list of questions.

I don't know how many you think there are, but these statistics don't address that. What percentage of feminist women do you think hold that belief?

I really would have no idea. I'm not the one who is so worried about it. You're the facts and figures guy. But apparently there's enough beyond abuse victims to be uncomfortable. Certainly enough to show the idea is not "dumb."

To those who are following this, pay attention to what's happening here. This is a good teachable moment. See, I don't have a dog in the fight, so keeping this going is low on my priorities.

I was challenging the notion of all-men-are-evil is dumb. My opponent qualified that by saying all your man-haters are victims of abuse. I already know that to not be the case. If that were true, you'd need a sizable majority of women who are reportedly abused, and domestic relationships are the most obvious places to look since this is where women are most often vulnerable.

I threw out some good majority figures, like 3/4 or 2/3 of all women in LTR, and my opponent comes back with, like 1/4, maybe less of women who are abused. Not ALL women, though. Just millennials. I chose to ignore that bit for the time being. If I'd really wanted to kill the argument right away, that alone would have done it, but getting into a feminist argument wasn't my goal. I allowed my opponent to run with a statistic that worked in his favor. It's ok to be generous sometimes.

I am IN a relationship with a rape victim who suffered through PTSD for YEARS and has nightmares to this day because the abuse happened during an ongoing relationship in which she felt trapped. She is NOT a feminist.

So not even all abuse victims support feminist causes. I seriously doubt my wife is unique in that regard.

My opponent admitted he cannot show the kind of evidence I'm asking for that would support his assertion of my "dumb"ness (he's attacking my idea, not ME personally. I know that and appreciate the respect shown here).

Remember my previous generosity? NOW my opponent complains about the data being too narrow! lol I'm not the one calling anyone out on it.

What happens next is so predictable. My opponent attempts to shift the burden of proof. I don't HAVE anything to prove, so why ask me what I think the statistic should be?

The final thing I need to point out is a classic feminist argumentation tactic--denial of the problem. I don't know if it's authentic, or feigned ignorance, or indoctrination/reeducation/Room 101/not seeing the fnords, but it's another very predictable tactic. Note how he says

Oh REALLY? Fascinating. But he'll "keep an eye out." If this follows the usual pattern, I sincerely doubt it!

I remember one feminist on here who hit me with a burden of proof argument after I asserted some point on radical feminism. Ok, she was right. So I dug up some prominent names, some influential and oft-quoted feminists. Suddenly this opponent had no idea who these people were, like I'm just imagining it, making stuff up, or using questionable sources. Borderline gaslighting. I went back and checked my sources. Yep, they're real alright. So it's defo not me. It was the feminist purposefully and dishonestly trying to deflect.

===

In closing, I frequently point out my dabbling in Christian apologetics over in PPR for my first few active years. At first, I was frequently frustrated with how I could completely dismantle one argument and have 10 more arguments pop up in its place. Those discussions should have been open and shut once I arrived on the scene. And yet my killer points never made very far. So I would step back, reread the long posts and quote trees, and I slowly started to see where I'd gone wrong. My approach was to meet atheists and agnostics on THEIR level, beginning with the assumption that there is no God and only then building a case in favor of God. Well, of COURSE for every favorable argument, there's always some logical flaw, some criticism, some counter argument, some goalpost that's been moved, some scripture taken wildly out of context, and, if nothing else, ad hominem attacks and red herrings. I've never "lost" an argument when I could get an opponent onto my own turf, when I could expose the ad homs and the red herrings, and hold them accountable for their errors and their delusions.

Stepping back from my religious beliefs, I began to notice a similar pattern with other ideologies including feminism. The argumentation strategies are old, familiar, tired, and a FEW of them are ones I've even used myself. Save yourself the time and effort and don't bother "maaaaaaaansplaining" to feminists about how they're wrong. Praise the good ones for the good work that they do. Ignore the loudmouths right out of existence.

For starters, I said abuse, and you decided to define that as intimate partner violence. From the moment you brought it up, I asked about what connection you were making, so I think I made it clear that our definitions didn't match. I didn't realize until now that you meant to offer that as the limit of abuse, which should be clear if you re-read my comments.

Holding up your hand in class and getting called on less frequently than the boys, perpetually, with no reason given, comes across to a child as abuse. They probably won't realize it, but the effects of inexplicable negative feedback from an authority figure add up. Most of us know the feeling, I'd imagine, of having a teacher act dismissive of our intellect. If it happens a few times, it stings, but imagine it happening consistently throughout public education. That's just one measurable and well-researched way that society (male and female teachers) discriminates against females. And POC, but that's another thread. The research is widely cited, and should be super easy to find.

If you've studied bullying at all, you'll see that boys and girls bully in somewhat different ways. That social exclusion forms a core part of female bullying, and no wonder. It really hurts, as again, I'd imagine most of us know.

Stereotype threat. Well researched, and important. Bigots like to claim that their words don't hurt anyone. They never seem to consider stereotype threat, never reply when I post about it, and forget that I mentioned it next time they want to claim that words don't hurt anyone.

I hope we can get back on track with our respectful discussion. Watching you crow about how you had played me just about ticked me off. I'm half expecting to be called a liar at this point, as some people favor, but maybe you'll read back and reconsider.

Crazy people are gonna do crazy things. That record demonstrates their craziness. It's a tautology. Ignoring them just means you may encounter less of it, not that they will stop. Obviously, they derive some benefit which I cannot discern.

The biggest man-haters I've seen have been MRA types. They insult other men at a far higher rate than I see women insulting men, feminist or otherwise. I've felt pretty offended at the gender stereotyping that bigoted women (explicitly not feminists) throw around when they want to insult a man. In Texas, accusing someone of slightly less than perfectly traditional masculinity usually works to shame a man.

Last edited by jrjones9933 on 21 Sep 2017, 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This fight is so boring...

I think both my older brother and my older cousin are arguing like they usually do.

It's the predictability of it. That's why I never pursue them very far. It's almost like they're reading from a script. Note my very own prediction:



And in the VERY NEXT POST, here it is:

Here's the problem with definitions. First off, words actually DO have meanings. And second, broad definitions are meaningless when it comes to making coherent arguments. We don't have time to pick apart every single angle of every single woman on the planet at every age and location on the planet. So we have to be specific, use a part to represent the whole for the sake of the argument. There is no need to complicate the issue. We are all aware of the complexity of abuse of ALL human beings, especially children, and especially in the midst of diverse cultures and societies and the laws thereof.

However, by moving the goalpost and presenting a recondite argument that he should know I have no time for, I could probably be blitzed and overwhelmed into taking on too many issues at once.

Once again, HIGHLY predictable. Distract your opponent with too many topics while copy/pasting the tired, old sawhorses in and wait for your opponent to drift off into something he is NOT as familiar with. Losing the argument is unacceptable, so just keep moving the goalpost until you reach just enough unreasonable a level to wear your opponent down, and finish him off by exposing him as some kind of idiot.

Or in my case, some mean, devious BULLY.

I've seen these tricks before. *yawn* I'm gonna go running for a while. I'll check in later to see if anything actually interesting happens.

I'll leave it to third parties to go back and note my obvious confusion about his sudden change of topic.

And yet you do the same about "bigots". You also keep being passive aggressive about calling me one but fail to produce any evidence of me being one. I've never stated I hated women or anything like that. Until you can prove (which you won't) that I am a "bigot" or admit you can't, I will not stop replying.

So you intend to harass me into changing my opinion?

I accused you of bigotry. That doesn't mean I think you're a bigot all the time. Do you imagine that people have only one aspect? I don't. As your notable traits go, a tendency to make bigoted comments wouldn't even break the top ten. If you imagine that I only think of you as a bigot, or primarily think of you as a bigot, or even regularly think of you as a bigot, it could not be further from the truth.

Your single-minded persistence does impress me. Have you ever considered using your powers for good?

Was I oppressed because I was homeschooled? No one even had the opportunity to raise their hands then. Where are my welfare checks?

Everyone has a case against their mom.

Or teachers who happen to pick some students and not others. I really feel for these terribly neglected children. Kids like Anne Frank would probably be glad to know they didn't have to deal with this kind of treatment.