This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.
I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?
Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.
Some part of everybody’s ego is hurt when your arguments are beaten down. A part of the masculine ego is hurt when it is challenged.
Didn’t realize you were a psychologist. But that’s not the part I was talking about, I meant the “why are you doing this?” part.
That was more of a rhetorical question.
Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.
Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.
If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.
Firatly, what I posted was a purely theoretical thought experiment with nothing to do with the the world we live in now.
Secondly, men are disadvantaged in some areas, but all in all, they’re less disadvantaged than other people.
Some areas? Those seem like pretty big areas to me.
a few of the whole = some
And yes, those are bigger areas, but they are not universally specific to all genders. Fixing core problems with our economy will help homeless people, not just homeless men.
I’m not sure what the point here is. Gender issues are only an problem if they can’t be solved by wide-sweeping gender-neutral reforms?
What I’m saying is that these aren’t men-specific problems, like the ones we’ve been talking about with women.
Such as? Sexual harassment? That isn’t woman specific, though, so it’s not a woman problem, right?
It’s by far a woman problem. You don’t get headlines every day for sexual harassment of men.
Women being underrepresented in some professions? It seems to me like you’re picking and choosing when to care about representation. Do you care that men are graduating college less and less
I do care about that, and yes, I will agree with you, that is a men-specific problem.
(a problem that particularly affects black and Hispanic men, btw)?
Black and Hispanic men are less privileged than white men, but they’re still more privileged than black or Hispanic women. That’s intersectionality.
How is men being over-represented in the homeless and workplace injuries not a man problem, but women being underrepresented in some professions a woman problem?
Because those are problems that do not exist solely in our conception of gender roles.
Wouldn’t the ideal be a nice clean 50/50 ratio, with 0 deaths for either gender?
Yes. Where did I argue something other than that?
The issues women have are much more engrained in society and are much harder to solve.
Much like prison rape and circumcision, yes?
I’m not sure what your issue is with circumcision.
Its existence.
Ok. Care to share some more?