My point (which wasn't to you, really) was that similar logic on the men's rights side of things is just as tendentious and pointless. The debate is about what is fair. You'll notice that in prior posts I've specifically argued against the OP, and instead I'm trying to point out what a lot of people appear to be really debating underneath the hyperbole. I'm not saying I'm not biased. I definitely have some opinions on the matter, but my opinions are outside the context of the hyperbole. I've no dog in the MRA/feminism debate. My (biased) position is, "look over here, this is what I think people are really complaining about, but it's not getting addressed because each side is ignoring the other."
Not really. It's high-order navel gazing.Wow. If you hadn't pointed that out, no one would have noticed that was going on in the article. Good work. Very astute.
It's kind of the explicit frame of the thing. It still had points that I thought were worth reading. It actually had points even you or Jarlaxle could work with unironically.
Um, yes? What else would be the point of such a portrait? The point is clearly not to learn about the person, but to judge him.So for you to read it that way almost suggests that as long as I present an MRA being as flawed as a mediocre human being, I'm skewing their image in a negative light...
I'm explicitly not doing that....In a thread were it's fair to represent all of feminism with the most radical minority.
Actually, I don't think our concern should be radical feminists, per se. While they provide a rhetorical foil, it mostly results in straw man arguments. About the only thing in that sphere that should be confronted are the attempts to normalize ideas such as "rape culture": there's another thread where quite normal feminists insist that there is indeed a rape culture (labeling even minor examples of bad behavior as "part of the rape culture"), and perfectly fine with characterizing all men as potential rapists.So in summary, our concern should be radical feminists who, in spite of being so common and so central to feminist ideology, can't be bothered to show up, not a one of them, in a lengthy thread that ought to just be egging them into participating. This is an honest objective! Unlike focusing on the kind of imaginary opponents to moderate feminism who are straw men that never really existed. And by never existed, I mean populate this thread.
I believe the concern should be about what is fair for men under the current legal climate and how we might preserve marriage and family in this same climate. Why preserve it? For reasons I stated earlier: marriage and family is a huge source of social and material capital that helps keep people out of poverty.
No MRA is in favor of paying women 77% of what men are paid for the same work, but wow that doesn't stop posturing politicians from pulling it out every few years.