[tptacek]

I did think about it. I thought about it briefly. Then I decided that the idea that men are somehow oppressed by feminism (or, really, by any other kind of force directed solely at men) is fucking ridiculous and unworthy of point-by-point debate.

You show me the startup that carefully considers whether or not to hire 20-something men for fear that they might have children and need to take time off or work less than 60 hours a week. That happens, and I'll carefully consider the notion that men are oppressed in our workforce.

Good luck.

[Ygg2]

Why is it impossible? Nothing about women oppressing men, doesn't sound as ludicrous than vice-versa? Human capacity for evil is evenly distributed between genders.

Don't forget that there was a thing like matriarchy. I'm pretty sure that oppression on some level occurred even then, but since there was little written evidence, its just hard to prove.

As for hiring someone that might have children, and need to take time off, that part should be handled by the state. If someone leaves, the state pays employer and/or women caring for her 1year child. You are effectively down a one person but they are not to blame for things running their course.

That thing shouldn't come into equation at any point.

[tptacek]

Not helping.

[Ygg2]

Not the point. Your position is flawed.

It's like homosexual supporter saying that because penguins can be gay that homosexuality is natural. It being socially acceptable has no connection to naturallity, and attempting to pretend so is a disservice to your position.

I think women in a company do have a rather special quality, to smooth some of the misunderstandings and lessen certain conflicts. That plus a unique woman perspective is invaluable when it comes to generating ideas.

[dragonwriter]

> It's like homosexual supporter saying that because penguins can be gay that homosexuality is natural. It being socially acceptable has no connection to naturallity, and attempting to pretend so is a disservice to your position.

That's a bad analogy for you to use, since people who defend that it should be socially unacceptable use the claim that it is "unnatural" to support their position. It therefore is quite appropriate for people who disagree with that position to (among other arguments) point out evidence that contradicts the "unnatural" claim.

[Ygg2]

Saying:

"Don't use A to prove B"

Doesn't say:

"Don't use A to disprove B"

I do not understand your dilemma. I never said, don't use penguins as examples to counter people calling homosexuality unnatural. I said don't use penguins as examples to prove it "natural".

My response was to noticed trend that few homosexuals and their supporters use statements like the above to justify their rights and even worse, their right to exist. I was truly shocked! I do understand what it is to live in a conservative environment, and get hammered in that certain group X is bad, and that it shouldn't exist, but at no point should you justify your existence (wtf?! you have every right to exist if you don't invade other people's liberties) with bad examples that are easily countered. It's like watching someone self straw-man themselves.