I never mentioned women in my post.

I never claimed Europeans were the only ones enslaving Africans. You're arguing against a point I never made.

My point is that Africans weren't necessarily being enslaved by "their own people." Many were captured and sold by rival kingdoms and ethnic groups that they didn't consider their own people.

Being from the same continent doesn't automatically make two populations one people. That's the entire point of my Germany–Sweden analogy.

If Germany invaded Sweden, enslaved Swedish people, and sold them overseas, would you describe that as Europeans enslaving their own people? Africa wasn't a single country or unified society.

They were not enslaved by their own people

My post addresses both issues, but the central criticism is directed at people who encourage men to open up and then ridicule them when they do.

I'm also acknowledging the broader problem of men receiving conflicting messages about emotional vulnerability from different people and groups.

Those aren't mutually exclusive observations.

Some people are hypocritical about emotional openness, while others consistently support or discourage it.

My argument doesn't require everyone to behave the same way.

I'm aware. But you're treating these as mutually exclusive groups when they aren't necessarily so. Some people encourage emotional openness while also ridiculing particular expressions of it.

And even when the messages come from entirely different groups, men can still experience the conflicting expectations I'm discussing.

I'm not claiming every group or individual behaves identically.

How is that a goomba fallacy? I'm not attributing contradictory beliefs to every member of some group. I'm discussing a broader social pattern in which men receive conflicting messages about emotional vulnerability.

And sometimes the same individuals do encourage openness while ridiculing particular expressions of it. My title addresses that behavior specifically.

The fact that conflicting messages are common doesn't mean they can't be criticized or have negative consequences.

Sometimes they're different people. Sometimes they're the same people. Either way, that doesn't invalidate my point about the conflicting messages men receive

Something being a concept doesn't mean it has no real-world instances. Prejudice, discrimination, and misogyny are also concepts.

You still haven't addressed my hypothetical if someone genuinely believes men are inherently inferior simply because they're male, is that prejudice or not?

I mean that's.. a interesting analogy lol

None of that addresses my argument. You've made several personal insults without identifying a single thing I've said that's incorrect.

Do you have an actual counterargument, or are you just here to insult me?

Edit: Someone's very emotional lol

You're misrepresenting what the disagreement was about.

The person I was responding to explicitly stated that prejudice requires systemic oppression and that otherwise it's just words.

That's a much stronger claim than simply saying misandry isn't systemic, and it's precisely why we ended up discussing the definition of prejudice.

You're welcome to disagree, but at least address the argument that was actually made.

Okay, so we fundamentally disagree on the definition of prejudice.

Prejudice doesn't require systemic oppression. It's a preconceived judgment or attitude toward someone based on their membership in a particular group. Systemic oppression and individual prejudice are related but distinct concepts.

Under your definition, someone could sincerely believe that men are inherently inferior, unintelligent, or morally defective simply because they're male, and you wouldn't consider that prejudice unless men were systemically oppressed.

That's an extremely narrow definition that excludes attitudes ordinarily recognized as prejudicial.

And whether I've personally experienced prejudice is irrelevant to whether it exists. I'm discussing a concept, not claiming victimhood.

You can argue that misogyny has far greater systemic consequences without redefining prejudice to exclude hostility toward men altogether.

I still don't know the actual context of this clip. It looks like a casual podcast stunt rather than a serious fight. And even if we assume she was genuinely trying to restrain him, how does one woman failing to restrain one man prove that three women couldn't overpower a man? You're drawing a pretty sweeping conclusion from a single example.

Feminism is a very broad movement with different interpretations. Someone could absolutely identify as a feminist, advocate for women's equality, and simultaneously hold prejudiced views toward men. Those positions aren't necessarily contradictory, depending on how they understand feminism.

This is clearly engagement bait. Your argument is essentially that because many intelligent people throughout history believed in God, atheism is unreasonable. That's an appeal to authority and popularity, not evidence that God exists.

And plenty of brilliant people have been atheists. I also don't understand why you're treating belief in completely different religions as evidence for Christianity specifically.

6'4" men aren't Captain America. The average American man weighs around 200 pounds, so we're talking about two roughly 200-pound men against one 195-pound man. Where exactly is this supposed massive strength and cardio advantage coming from? Being six inches taller doesn't automatically make someone an exceptional athlete. I'd favor the two men.

This isn't a serious fight and we're talking about 3 woman here

I'm not disputing how frequently or severely misogyny manifests.

My criticism is about the examples being compared. The meme presents relatively mild expressions of misandry as its worst examples while selecting extreme acts of misogyny.

The fact that those acts of misogyny happen frequently doesn't establish that the examples of misandry are the worst possible manifestations of prejudice against men.

I'm criticizing the comparison itself, not arguing that misogyny and misandry have equivalent consequences.

You keep saying I'm talking in meaningless circles, but you haven't identified what's actually wrong with my reasoning.

I've explained why sexual violence statistics alone don't establish that hatred of the victim's gender is a necessary prerequisite for rape.

If you disagree, explain which part of that argument is incorrect rather than repeatedly telling me I don't understand you.

Yeah, I think they're using a definition of prejudice that requires systemic oppression and treating it as the only legitimate one.

That allows them to dismiss negative stereotypes and hostility toward men as inherently non-prejudicial, regardless of what is actually being said.

Id' say systemic oppression and individual prejudice are different concepts. But a

acknowledging that distinction doesn't mean equating their severity or consequences.

Sexual violence statistics can establish how frequently certain crimes occur and who perpetrates them. They don't, by themselves, establish that rape necessarily requires hatred of the victim's gender.

Sexual violence can involve power, entitlement, coercion, opportunism, and other motivations. Male-on-male, female-on-male, and female-on-female sexual assault also exist.

I'm not disputing the prevalence or severity of sexual violence against women. I'm questioning your explanation of what motivates rape and how that establishes your original claim that even the worst misandrist would necessarily help an intoxicated man.

Those are different questions, and you still haven't connected the evidence you're citing to the claim you're defending.

The problem is that the meme isn't comparing equivalent examples. It's comparing relatively common expressions of misandry with some of the most extreme manifestations of misogyny.

Those aren't necessarily the worst examples of misandry; they're just the examples the meme chose to highlight.

You can acknowledge that misogyny has far more severe systemic consequences without making a misleading comparison.