Feminists typically insult men by saying, "you never get laid," which is like saying a man's only value is his value to women, which is objectification. Men objectifying women is something feminists have complained about for eons. Since it's OK for women to objectify men, but it isn't OK for men to objectify women this is another example of the matriarchy and female privilege.
I'm a feminist and I've never used this insult. In fact, I can't remember ever insulting a man (aside from donald trump who I do not consider an actual human being...let alone "man"). I have great respect for men and generally understand their positions on things quite well. My husband would never tolerate me insulting him anyway and I would never have justification to do so.
"Feminists always want everything equal...but when it comes time to pick up the check, where are they?" ~ George Castanza
and where did I say anything other .. please read what I wrote and not what you want to see. - - - Updated - - - Probably already paying it
§ 1 - Women are right always and men not! § 2 - If by exception not, then is automatically § 1 given! Any questions?
Typically, people who generalize or try to pigeonhole an entire group of people are NOT to be take seriously.
No. I was being specific about those who generalize. Specifically, they're not to be taken seriously. Next time try and use your brain to think it through.
Feminists,yikes. They take that part of women that's just out to ruin your day every now and then and make it their always goal. The women around me get mad when I call that out. I'm like:"Ha! You're not going to ruin my day,I'm going to be happy " They stew fer a bit,but they get over it.
I think we could just as easily talk about male chauvinistic pigs all day. Wait, no. That's a term coined by all those darned feminists to describe 'all' men. How dare they.
Nah. The typical Feminist insult is accusing your debate opponent for using "master suppression techniques" or if it is a woman who is not Feminist it is "internalised misogyny".
No, you said that those who generalize should not be taken seriously. Meaning that anyone who generalize doesn't know what he's talking about. What if I said "typically, Mexicans eat tacos". Would I be making a general statement?
There are exceptions to every rule. There was even a Nazi who saved Jews, Oschar Schindler. Oschar Schindler saved thousands of Jews. However, sadly, most Nazis did not save Jews. The exception is not the rule. The reason there are generalizations is because they're generally true. Most Nazis did not save Jews. 1 + 1 doesn't even always equal two. In Boolean Algebra 1 + 1 = 10. However in all other mathematical disciplines 1 + 1 = 2. Arguing that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 would be absurd just because in Boolean Algebra 1 + 1 equals 10. The exception is not the rule. Science is based on generalizations. Science is based on inductive and deductive reasoning and inductive and deductive reasoning are generalizations. For example, deductive reasoning is generalizing that a eukaryotic organism works a certain way because all the other eukaryotic organisms work that way. ...and inductive reasoning is generalizing that all eukaryotic organisms work a certain way because the eukaryotic organism you're studying works that way. The computer you're reading right now is the result of inductive and deductive generalizations made by engineers and scientists. The exceptions are not the rule. 1 + 1 doesn't equal 10, except in Boolean Algebra. Nazis did not save Jews, except Oschar Schindler. The exception is not the rule, and the reason there are generalizations is because they're almost always true.
Got to love the convoluted way you justify your generalization fallacies. - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/sweeping-generalisation/
I know. I'm just saying that he made a hypocritical statement when he was condemning generalization. Generalization is good for the flow of the conversation. It would be difficult for me to ask every single Mexican if they eat tacos but in general they do.
Generalization has its place in discussion .. however when it is being used to demean then no and demean is pretty much all the author of this topic does. Feminism and feminists covers a very, very large range of people .. to assume that just because a proportion of them (not even a majority) might say something like what is in the OP it must apply to all is just lazy and ill informed. By the logic of the OP I can claim that all Christians are the same as Westboro Baptists.
The dictionary definition of feminism might include many different people but the most vocal people are pretty much the same. Loud, obnoxious, and make a big issue out of the smallest thing.
Then any debate/discussion should focus on those and detail that those are the types being debated/discussed .. anything else is just generalisation to demean the whole based on the few.
