I'm not pandering to anybody. I actually believe what I wrote.
But I do have a bias: I have a bias towards diplomacy. We all have biases and the sooner we admit that we're fallible minds that have lived just one life, not the objective thinkers we wish to present to our audience, the sooner we can begin to respect and listen to each other.
> There's a large percentage of men who are either misogynistic,
> and /or MRA jerks? Why aren't feminists characterized as jerks?
> Why are you painting MRA as jerks, but apologizing to feminists
> if you've accidentally offended them?
Not all MRA are jerks. Not all feminists are jerks.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that a large percentage of men were misogynists. I meant to say that it was a slightly larger percentage than is normally visible and that this was mostly because in a 50/50 male/female environment they would self-censor as well as have less reason to feel the way they do while in the current 90/10 environment (or whatever it is) they do not need to.
I think the article was unusually fair and diplomatic for a tech gender piece. I wanted to repay this by commenting on my own opinions in as careful, constructive and fair way as I know how to. If I was to have posted an inflammatory rant about how angry feminists were just as bad as misogynists and then have tried to equate them using some ridiculous objective-appearing seesaw as if I was the divine judge of a gender-war then I'd be completely arguing against what I was arguing for: diplomacy and the acceptance and understanding of each other's problems as a result of there being a lack of diversity.
I want a better way of acting together, not to win a battle.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinions but you are way too confident of the truth of what you're saying to signal rationality.
If there's one thing I've learned in my 35 years on this planet, it's that telling someone they're irrational is not diplomatic.
But it wasn't men you were talking about being diplomatic to, was it? It was women.
I wonder if that diplomacy should also include men, and if so, how do you feel about the way feminists have been vilifying men? Or the way you just did, with your comment about MRA.
> If there's one thing I've learned in my 35 years on this planet,
> it's that telling someone they're irrational is not diplomatic.
Well, you did it first, I just pointed out that we'd all do better by listening to each other and having less certainty of our rationality.
> I wonder if that diplomacy should also include men, and if so,
> how do you feel about the way feminists have been vilifying men?
I feel like it's a bad 'weak men' argument as stated by my two paragraphs I wrote on it referring to the article by @slatestarcodex.
* * *
I also feel that some aspects of feminism in technology can be neatly framed as rent-seeking behaviour. But, I think anybody that gives their wealth over to another because they have been guilted into believing that they should not truly own it (privilege narrative) are fools who should be parted with their money.
Also, I think that many in the MRA community are just too whiney to attempt to defend men. I could barely mount an argument for men like that.
I'm not a feminist. I listened to the article because it wasn't shouted at me, and I responded saying that some of the behaviour annoys me, that the normal lack of diplomacy normally makes me stop reading after 5 seconds, and that diversity is a problem because of the social interactions it creates but there isn't much misogyny to see. There's enough shared belief to be tapped here, and I'm pretty good at not jumping in with my own strong opinions when I can see a benefit in solving an underlying problem with others.
You cannot quote me insulting you in any way, the closest you can get is the statement that a rational person can look at the pandering that happens from some men and conclude it isn't right either (yes, you are included in that group of 'some men').
It should also be noted that I'm not the one who is using diplomacy in their argument. My issue with you is the weak way in which you've pandered to feminists in general, while at the same time painting men and MRA as 'jerks'.
We are not jerks, nor is MRA about 'jerks'. It is unfortunate that you've chosen to buy that line, you should start being more proud of your gender.
If men and women are going to come to any sort of concensus on these sorts of issues, it's not going to happen by 1 side pandering to the other.
But I do have a bias: I have a bias towards diplomacy. We all have biases and the sooner we admit that we're fallible minds that have lived just one life, not the objective thinkers we wish to present to our audience, the sooner we can begin to respect and listen to each other.
Not all MRA are jerks. Not all feminists are jerks.I certainly didn't mean to imply that a large percentage of men were misogynists. I meant to say that it was a slightly larger percentage than is normally visible and that this was mostly because in a 50/50 male/female environment they would self-censor as well as have less reason to feel the way they do while in the current 90/10 environment (or whatever it is) they do not need to.
I think the article was unusually fair and diplomatic for a tech gender piece. I wanted to repay this by commenting on my own opinions in as careful, constructive and fair way as I know how to. If I was to have posted an inflammatory rant about how angry feminists were just as bad as misogynists and then have tried to equate them using some ridiculous objective-appearing seesaw as if I was the divine judge of a gender-war then I'd be completely arguing against what I was arguing for: diplomacy and the acceptance and understanding of each other's problems as a result of there being a lack of diversity.
I want a better way of acting together, not to win a battle.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinions but you are way too confident of the truth of what you're saying to signal rationality.