[Lagged2Death]

Patriarchy is a model whose name alone...

Hearing the name doesn't make you an expert. The world isn't so systematic; history and context matter. There's quite a lot of study and learning to absorb if you're inclined, but this is a stunning demonstration of arrogance from ignorance, and I can't understand why anyone would want to demonstrate that. "Boi."

[throwanem]

You're right! History and context do matter. In this case, there's a lot of history and context around the form of argument from patriarchy in spaces where men are discussing the issues that affect us. Very little of that history or context suggests that entertaining such arguments, in such spaces, is at all helpful in finding effective ways to improve men's lives or ameliorate men's suffering.

What you're doing is, though, very effective as a derailing tactic, although I have to say you're really going above and beyond with the contempt you add to it. What are you trying to accomplish, this way? What do you imagine that you're helping? What you've said here, and the way in which you've said it, does nothing to convince anyone that the conceptual schema you advocate has any genuine value - indeed, quite the opposite. Yet this nonetheless is what you chose to say, and how you chose to say it. Why?

[Lagged2Death]

...there's a lot of history and context around the form of argument from patriarchy in spaces where men are discussing the issues that affect us.

There is not. This is a shortcoming born of inexperience and youth. Your context is too small, you're not perceiving things at any scale much beyond your own few personal experiences.

I have to say you're really going above and beyond with the contempt you add to it. What are you trying to accomplish, this way?

You pretend to be so reasonable, but this is tone policing, a logical fallacy, a thought-terminating cliche.

Your position is contemptible and no one owes you good manners over it. Do better. Step up your game. Make an actual argument to persuade me - to persuade anyone - that you actually have a clue what you're talking about.

[throwanem]

...said someone who resorted to ad hominem and then complained about "tone policing", because just chucking random insults at one's interlocutors qualifies as good-faith discussion, but calling out those insults as such is unreasonable. Okay.

[Lagged2Death]

"Patriarchy is a model whose name alone..." is ad hominem. Tone policing ("...you're really going above and beyond with the contempt...") is ad hominem. In the sense that both shift focus to the speaker rather than the subject.

Pointing out that neither of those things are valid arguments is not ad hominem.

I haven't insulted you; pointing out that you're ignorant and inexperienced is giving you the benefit of the doubt. Those things are curable.

[dang]

Personal attacks, name-calling, and flamewars will get your account banned here. Please don't post like this again.

[Lagged2Death]

I'll try, I guess.

Respectfully suggest you consider the root comment here with these guidelines ("name-calling") in mind.

[throwanem]

Four days and you're still on this? Four days and this is the best you can bring?

[dang]

Would you please not engage in petty spats, flamewars, or incivility on Hacker News?