We are on the same page regarding the women (and men) who have hatred for anyone white or male.
What you haven't answered, and what I still do not understand, is how your claim that 45% of women are bad, if true, would justify hating the 55% who, it follows, are not bad.
Most discourse on social media is between the 45% and us. I don't see the reason to self-censor based on offending a group that plainly just isn't present.
It's not about offending anyone. I don't care about offending people. It's specifically about saying that it is justified to hate every single woman, simply because 45% are bad (if true). That is wrong.
The "misogynistic" discourse is either on containment platforms like here, where offence is expected, or on Twitter and Facebook, where it is absolutely dwarfed by hatred from women.
That's like justifying calling blacks 'niggers' is justified because there is a far greater amount of hatred coming from (some) blacks, or that hating black people is justified because some black people did some bad things.
How do they not realize that all men means all men?
When you say Women, people think you mean all Women.
Am I right in saying that what you actually mean is some Women, but that you are happy enough to offend that you don't care if people think you mean all women, given that you expect the people to be reading to fall within whatever percentage it is that you are arguing are bad?
The problem I see here, is that you are effectively misrepresenting what you actually believe. That both means that you will be frequently misunderstood and dismissed without people actually taking you seriously at all, but also that you can fall into a lot of mental traps.
Inaccurately defining things both hinders your ability to convey your ideas and risks hindering your ability to accurately form ideas.
The reason I don't use qualifiers is because they are just misleading. If I said 55% of women are our allies, it projects an overly optimistic view, when in reality our backs are up against the wall and the guns are already being loaded.
In terms of communication, if you mean young women it's better to say young women. It lets people more easily understand what you're even saying, and it makes it easier for you to keep track of what you're actually trying to say.
For example, you talk in terms of us and our allies, with the "them" being those who are against us, but you frequently slip into suggesting that the "us" is "all men" and the "them" is "all women", as if there is any uniformity in either of those groups.
If you actually mean by us, "men who believe in men's rights" and the them is *young women who oppose men's rights (possibly for political reasons or because of some kind of urge to preserve social advantages" then you have a much more specific and understandable situation described. There's significantly more room to interestingly examine the issues in the latter than the former, given how easy it is to find examples in anyone reading's personal life that would seem to easily debunk the central tenets.
We are on the same page regarding the women (and men) who have hatred for anyone white or male.
What you haven't answered, and what I still do not understand, is how your claim that 45% of women are bad, if true, would justify hating the 55% who, it follows, are not bad.
It's not about offending anyone. I don't care about offending people. It's specifically about saying that it is justified to hate every single woman, simply because 45% are bad (if true). That is wrong.
That's like justifying calling blacks 'niggers' is justified because there is a far greater amount of hatred coming from (some) blacks, or that hating black people is justified because some black people did some bad things.
When you say Women, people think you mean all Women.
Am I right in saying that what you actually mean is some Women, but that you are happy enough to offend that you don't care if people think you mean all women, given that you expect the people to be reading to fall within whatever percentage it is that you are arguing are bad?
The problem I see here, is that you are effectively misrepresenting what you actually believe. That both means that you will be frequently misunderstood and dismissed without people actually taking you seriously at all, but also that you can fall into a lot of mental traps.
Inaccurately defining things both hinders your ability to convey your ideas and risks hindering your ability to accurately form ideas.
In terms of communication, if you mean young women it's better to say young women. It lets people more easily understand what you're even saying, and it makes it easier for you to keep track of what you're actually trying to say.
For example, you talk in terms of us and our allies, with the "them" being those who are against us, but you frequently slip into suggesting that the "us" is "all men" and the "them" is "all women", as if there is any uniformity in either of those groups.
If you actually mean by us, "men who believe in men's rights" and the them is *young women who oppose men's rights (possibly for political reasons or because of some kind of urge to preserve social advantages" then you have a much more specific and understandable situation described. There's significantly more room to interestingly examine the issues in the latter than the former, given how easy it is to find examples in anyone reading's personal life that would seem to easily debunk the central tenets.