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.
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.
But it isn't that simple.
Not all of our opponents are young. Some of the worst opponents of our side are middle-aged or older.
Them is more like this : The known feminists, the young (possibly brainwashed) psychopaths, the "allies" (traitor male feminists) and the feminists we have no clue about because they're hiding their feelings long enough to acquire power <- These are the people that confuse matters so greatly, the ones who blend in with normal people up until they get their hands on power, maybe even a little afterwards.
Them is more like this : The known feminists, the young (possibly brainwashed) psychopaths, the "allies" (traitor male feminists) and the feminists we have no clue about because they're hiding their feelings long enough to acquire power
So you're actually an eminently reasonable fellow (except for that 'traitor' stuff) posing as a crazy? Honestly, unless you're trying to troll people, this isn't da wae.
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.
But it isn't that simple.
Not all of our opponents are young. Some of the worst opponents of our side are middle-aged or older.
Them is more like this : The known feminists, the young (possibly brainwashed) psychopaths, the "allies" (traitor male feminists) and the feminists we have no clue about because they're hiding their feelings long enough to acquire power <- These are the people that confuse matters so greatly, the ones who blend in with normal people up until they get their hands on power, maybe even a little afterwards.
So you're actually an eminently reasonable fellow (except for that 'traitor' stuff) posing as a crazy? Honestly, unless you're trying to troll people, this isn't da wae.
Are these people all women?
EDIT - Or is the problem anyone who fits that definition?
They're not even all feminists. Look at the likes of the Never-Trumpers for the same sort of strategy.
However, women who acquire power seem to disproportionately be that type.
Seems safe to say then, the central problem here is one of accurate communication of ideas.
Anyway, that'll have to do me for now. Fun as this has been, I've got to get some kind of rest. :)