[LeeHunter]

From Jezebel: "Camille Paglia has been trolling since before trolling was A Thing. She's the OG of barfing up archaic assertions about women, men, and feminism, justifying them with sweeping, unverified statements, and dressing them up with $2 words, and calling it new. Her latest, "It's A Man's World, And It Always Will Be" is so absurd that it doesn't merit a response; it merits an edit." Http://jezebel.com/camille-paglia-please-see-me-after-class-1484324950

[unlogic]

Jezebel: using ad hominem since before ad hominem was A Thing.

[LeeHunter]

A line-by-line dissection of a writer's pposition is not an ad hominem attack. Slamming Jezebel for some supposed disposition for ad hominem is itself, ironically, an ad hominem attack.

[unlogic]

I have no business arguing with you on the topic, but I'm just wondering: is it really so that accusing someone's argument in ad hominem is ad hominem? Or have you just used "tu quoque"?

[6d0debc071]

AH is defined by the context. When someone's character is central to their argument then a comment on that character isn't a fallacy.

That the person's who wrote the article above thinks that the author of the other piece is flawed, isn't central to the majority of their argument. Thus using that the person who wrote the article thinks that way, as a reason to dismiss the entirety of their piece, probably qualifies as AH.

[velis_vel]

This doesn't address your comment itself, but: a lot of people assume that any kind of insult to the other side in a debate is an ad hominem. This isn't true. If you tell me that 2+2=5, and I say "no, you're delusional, 2+2=4", that's not an ad hominem.

[LeeHunter]

The actual argument was not critiqued, so yes.

[LekkoscPiwa]

Why the Feminist so rarely have any arguments on their side. From my experience it is never addressing the underlying issue. And almost always personal attacks. This doesn't show your strength, it just shows weakness and lack of arguments.

Where are the feminist fighting for 50% workforce presentation in construction? Answer that! Don't call me names. Just answer. Where are the feminist fighting for 50% of all divorce cases ending in fathers staying with children? Any arguments? Or just the usual aggression, name calling?

Why you are surprised feminism is not taken seriously. If you don't address the issues, the issues address you. And you are done. Despite personal attacks.

[velis_vel]

> Where are the feminist fighting for 50% of all divorce cases ending in fathers staying with children? Any arguments? Or just the usual aggression, name calling?

Fathers who seek custody tend to get it: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/chi...

[LekkoscPiwa]

Women who are interested in IT jobs get them. So why all the fuss?

Because according to the feminist ideology not enough women are interested. You see, it's exactly what the story is about. Feminism is Marxism ideology that wants to change society where we - both sexes - understand that women can be as good as men in all the jobs. So, I'd ask you and others to do the same for men. To understand that they can be as a good parent as a mother can.

Now, you see a little bit clearer the idiocy of that movement?

It's about changing us all, our societies to ones that even women who didn't want to go to IT, will go due to the social pressure.

Women are under tremendous pressure nowadays to compete with men in all these industries. It's like men would be expected now to take 50% of all the kids in divorce cases. Feminism like all left ideologies wants good by in reality it doesn't work. And people who are affected by their social experiments are the real victims here.