[dragonwriter]

> You're likely correct, but isn't is a bit sad that this is the case?

Are you suggesting:

(1) That it is sad that people assess the likely motivations of actors based on their assessment of the facts of the context of those actor's actions in general, or

(2) That it is sad in specific that people don't see men as factually being an oppressed group such that lobbying for greater rights for them than they currently is something other than attempt to establish dominance at the expense of not-men.

In either case, I'd have to say that, no, I don't think it's particularly sad.

[mistermann]

It's certainly not one because almost no one I know, even the highly educated, form opinions mostly on "assessing facts".

#2 is closer to it, but it's not completely clear what you mean so I can't say whether I agree or not.

Take for instance:

"Men are an oppressed group: True or False"

To me, that seems to be the question you are asking (pardon me if I'm wrong or putting words in your mouth). To me, that question is worse than useless.