Men do not have the innate predisposition to be violent against woman — TimeLine

I never said men are prone to violence against women, only to be more violent in general. Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking. Were you asking if men's higher biological predisposition to violence justified the rate of violence against women? If so, that wasn't how I understood it. I thought you were just asking if it was justifiable to say men have a biological tendency to be more violent than women.

There are many men that do not like violence but feel obligated as part of the social views of masculinity that either physical or monetary power and strength somehow gives you worth. — TimeLine

I can only speak for myself, but have always been a very non-violent person. I never fought back against bullies when I was young, never wanted to participate in the "play-fighting" my friends would do. I don't like pain, so why would I want to inflict that on others? Even as a child, I understood that boys were "supposed" to be violent (because of the culture) and yet I still refused to participate because I felt that violence was stupid and unpleasant and primitive. I was called every name in the book--pussy, faggot, loser, wimp, etc.--but I didn't let any of it change my mind. So, I have a hard time blaming society for any violence that men commit. We're all responsible for our own actions, and can easily choose to go against the "norms" if we want to.

Indeed, we - as in men and women - are completely different biologically, but how this effects our rationality is irrelevant whether it is monthly or seasonal. — TimeLine

It is absolutely not irrelevant how things affect our rationality, but other than that, what you say here is the exact sentiment I was trying to convey. Men and women are different biologically, and this results in various effects that each sex has to deal with more or differently than the other. To deny that the hormonal changes during a specific period of the menstrual cycle do not generally make women more irrational is a denial of science. Ironically, it is itself an irrational claim.

As I made explicit earlier, I never claimed women were more irrational than men. I never claimed men weren't irrational. I never claimed any of the things you seem to have inferred from my simple statement. But I have made my points very clear, so there's nothing more I can do. If you want to continue believing I said or meant something which I have told you I did not say or mean, I cannot stop you.

And contrarily to what JustSomeGuy claimed previously, the "assertive move" doesn't have to be make physically, blind of any verbal consent — Akanthinos

I never claimed that.

Carry on.

Would it be justifiable if I were to say that men are biologically pre-dispositioned to act violently? — TimeLine

Considering I said the exact same thing earlier...

And as I said, men have their fair share of unique problems, as well. Many of which are also due to various hormones and biological processes. Tendency towards violence is an obvious one. — JustSomeGuy

...I would have to say yes, it is justifiable.

These hormonal shifts are cyclical and irrespective of gender in as much as it is irrelevant to a person' decision-making process; being irritable can be caused by a number of other stressors including not getting a good nights sleep, or not eating the right thing, or having a bad day at work. — TimeLine

Men do not menstruate, and therefore do not experience the same hormonal cycles as women. Men may have a tendency to be more aggressive in general, and both men and women obviously have fluctuations in various physiological and psychological things that result in varying levels of rationality from moment to moment, but only women experience the monthly cycle of hormonal changes which cause higher levels of irrationality. This is not a negative thing, this is not an insult, this is a biological fact. It does not discredit the opinions of women in any way. I only ever brought it up to highlight that there are, indeed, biological differences between men and women that allow for certain generalizations to be within reason. The generalization was not that all women are irrational, it was that it can be predicted with a high level of accuracy that during these specific times, women will be less rational, completely against their own will, due biological processes.

I don't find it insulting to say that men are biologically more prone to violence, and it shouldn't be insulting when it is said that menstrual cycles generally make women less rational during specific time frames. It's science.

You are objectifying such women as necessarily shallow and stupid on account of being attracted to someone who used a pick-up line. It's a status judgment which has nothing to do with anyone you might b involved with. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, I'm not. I explained exactly what I meant by what I said, so you have no reason to continue misinterpreting it.

With respect to who you might be interested or compatible with, the argument doesn't make any sense. If you were to be with anyone who liked pick-up lines, you would be around them, encountering their wonder behaviours and personality. At no point will you be in a situation of measuring whether someone is worthwhile or interesting based on whether they are fine with pick up lines. It makes no sense to use this as a measure of someone's character. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As I said, my reasoning is based on my own experience. I don't claim it is 100% accurate, only that it is one of the many observations I have made in my relationships with women. Generally the women I have gotten along best with agreed with me about the ridiculousness of such pickup lines, and generally the women I haven't gotten along as well disagreed with me. It seems silly to single it out like this, but I can assure you this is a minor factor in my reasoning when it comes to potential relationships. The only reason it is being given so much light is because it applied to the conversation, so I mentioned it. There are many more important factors I consider in regards to the personalities of women who are potential romantic partners.

In addition to this, it also acknowledges the problematic views that men have in general about women, about them being biologically irrational for instance — TimeLine

What I said was that women have a biological predisposition to more frequent irrationality. The article I shared involved a medical doctor explaining why this is, and as I said it contained many comments from women confirming their own experiences. I never meant for it to sound like women are always irrational, or that all women are more irrational than all men. As I have point out in other comments here, men have their own hormonal and biological issues that are unique to them, as well.
It is a fact that women, for approximately one week every month, are subject to hormonal changes in their body which cause many unpleasant symptoms, one of which being irrationality. And this itself varies from woman to woman in intensity, obviously. But aside from these changes during menstruation, women in general are no more or less rational than men in general. I have known many very rational women and many very irrational men, and vice versa.

No amount of prior verbal or written agreement amounts to consent. It's about whether someone wants to have sex, a question of not of a stated agreement, but rather of someone's thoughts, feelings and wishes. Consent isn't about whether a man has asked. It's about if a woman wants to. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Now that I absolutely agree with, and I'm sure you'll agree that a key aspect of this is that a woman wants to at that moment. I cannot believe the number of men I have heard complain that a woman was about to have sex with him and then changed her mind before they began, or even in the middle of it. Obviously these things can be frustrating, I have experienced it myself, but for so many men to disparage or place blame on the woman, to act as though they are "owed" sex from her for whatever reason...it's just so ignorant and ridiculous, and it's another one of these bad attitudes that need to change.

The problem here is the intent that men may have to try and solicit sexual intercourse and to do this with little or no respect to the personhood of the woman in question. The problem is the intent here in men that enables bad men to behave badly by viewing women as merely an object for sexual gratification. This then means that in the workplace, their skills, their qualifications, their history of employment is all irrelevant. Who they are, what they like, the things that they do are irrelevant. They are just a sexual object and when a man has that in mind, the person does not exist. At university, same thing. Even in the home or even entrenched in cultures. — TimeLine

I understand now, and completely agree with your point. I do still think this is being clumsily handled by the MeToo movement, and a big part of that is likely the media's fault, but I absolutely understand that these issues are real and serious and much more widespread than many people have thought, up until recently. I was thinking the other day about how this recent sort of resurgence in women's rights activism and awareness began, and from what I can tell it really took off as a result of Trump running for president. It's ironic, and somewhat sad, that it took a sexist pig running for office to make our society acknowledge all of the problems women still face with regard to sexism and sexuality in general. It can also be seen as inspiring, though, that in the face of this adversity we're experiencing with him leading our country, people have decided to use it in a very positive way to bring up these issues and have these discussions. I should probably stop before this starts to come off as virtue-signaling, though. Point just being, despite my nitpicks with how some of these things are being handled, I do think we're heading in a good direction by airing out all of this "dirty laundry".

you are using interest in pick-up lines as a measure of social standing, competence and slut-shaming-- i.e. those women who would be interested in pick-up lines are dumb and shallow. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Wow, and I thought Michael was reading too much into it. Do you not realize how huge of a leap it is to assert those things based on what I actually said? Nothing about what I said implied any of that bullshit you just attributed to me.

In my experience, if women are receptive to dumb pickup lines, it says something about their personality that I believe would likely mean we were incompatible. Again, this is based on my experience. If I find something completely stupid, and she finds it endearing, I feel like we wouldn't be off to a very good start. Say what you want about my reasoning in that regard, but you do me a huge disservice to put such strong words in my mouth which were never there.

It isn't a pickup line. — Michael

Keep telling yourself that.

"Those" kind of girls? I think it telling that you seem to think less of women who respond well to this kind of talk. — Michael

I never said I think less of them, you're reading into my words things that aren't there. I said that girls who respond favorably to dumb pickup lines are not the kind of girls I am interested in. Is it wrong for me to have preferences in my romantic partners?

I think that at least many women in the world are socialized to be less rational, more irrational, or something similar. — Bitter Crank

I would definitely agree with that.

Me: Are you fun?
Her: Yes
Me: Adventurous?
Her: Yes
Me: Show me
Her: How?
Me: Kiss me — Michael

Absolutely cringe-worthy.
If it has worked for you, more power to you, but this is like one of those horrible pickup lines you'd hear in some YouTube video on how to attract women, hosted by some greasy douche.

Maybe where I differ most is that I have never had any desire to engage with women who would fall for dumb pickup lines like that. I've always just been genuine, actually gotten to know her, had a conversation; treated her like a person first and foremost. I know there are many girls who respond to and even enjoy when guys use pickup lines such as that, but as I said, those generally aren't the kind of girls I would want to get to know anyway.

I am unsure whether you are aware of this, but all women are different and the only problem here is you both - as men - trying to rationale hasty generalisations of approaching and eventually soliciting sexual intercourse or intimacy. — TimeLine

You make a very good point. I'll admit, looking over my previous posts, I've been unfair with the way I've been speaking about these things. I should have made it more clear that I'm only speaking of my own personal experience, I didn't mean for any of this to sound as though I'm claiming all women are the same or want the same things. My intention has actually been to show that women are not all the same by sharing these experiences and things that women I've known personally have told me. But it's nobody's fault but mine for not making my point more explicit and choosing my words more carefully.

That being said, your point seems to apply to the MeToo movement itself, or at the very least many of it's "members". The articles I've read on it have also been claiming that all women want the same thing, which is for men to ask consent before making any sexual advances.

Perhaps you should change your attitude and have a discussion about how to solicit friendship. That may alleviate your problem. — TimeLine

For the record, every woman I've had a romantic relationship with began as friendship, and the vast majority of my closest friends throughout my life have been women.

Would you like it if you were approached only because of the value you have as an object to the person approaching you? That my history, my thoughts and opinions, my skills in the workplace and talent are all irrelevant as long as I have a vagina? — TimeLine

So you're saying that this is what MeToo is truly about? Because I was under the impression it was about unwanted sexual advances from men in general, not sexist discrimination in the workplace. I don't use Twitter, though. Everything I know about this is from third party sources.

You don't ask a woman if you can kiss her. You ask her if she wants to kiss you. Or tell her that she can, if she wants. — Michael

That doesn't sound any less un-romantic. Maybe the culture is just different where I grew up, but I have it on good authority from multiple women I've had relationships with that women do not want you to ask, they want you to act.

I have a French accent. I could ask someone to pluck a chicken and it would still be more naturally romantic than all the artifice you can summon. — Akanthinos

Despite this joke being at my expense, it still made me laugh. And you're not wrong.

Well, that's how you are perceiving our interaction. — Akanthinos

No, that's what you have been clearly implying by the things you've said.

You say women expect men to do the first move, and that they also expect this first move to be physical, and that these incompatible expectations are at the source of the negative dynamics between the sexes. — Akanthinos

That's not at all what I claimed. What I said was that women cannot want men to make the first move spontaneously,while simultaneously wanting them to ask consent first.

You then lay an icing of "women are emotional and not rational" with the cherry of "women don't have more problems than man" — Akanthinos

I did not say "women are emotional and not rational," I said that women are biologically predisposed to more frequent irrationality. This is a scientific fact; political correctness doesn't negate science.

I did say that women don't have more problems than men, they have different problems, though obviously with some overlap.

I'm curious, do you live in the U.S.? And if so, for hour long have you resided here? If not, then much of or disagreement is likely due to cultural differences. France has a very different culture than the U.S., and especially when it comes to sexuality they seem to be much more advanced than we are here.

you'll have a hard time passing as anything else than a frustrated MRA-type with this type of setup. — Akanthinos

I don't know what MRA stands for, and Google returns results for medical scans.

I'd also like to point out that you are displaying another negative characteristic that is generally more prominent in men. I'll call it "macho-ness", for lack of a better term. You are implying, with everything you have said to me so far, that you are "more of a man" than I am; that I am "inadequate" in comparison to you. And you're doing this to a complete stranger. Talk about chuckle-worthy.

You only display your own inadequacies. — Akanthinos

More attack on my character. Not surprising, at this point.

Engaging women you are interested in verbally and leading to your attraction for them as a subject shows confidence and extroversion. — Akanthinos

So you're saying you tell women "I am attracted to you" and then ask women if you can touch their leg or their hand? You ask women if you can kiss them?

How romantic.

Alright, you clearly aren't understanding the things I'm saying. Is English your first language, or no? I feel like there's a language barrier, but I could be wrong.

I'll also share some evidence for my claim that women are, in general, more irrational than men due to certain biological processes and hormones.

Here

I suggest reading the article, as well as the comments below. You will see a number of women attest to this by sharing their personal experiences.

I understand that the modern social environment disparages anybody who says anything that could be interpreted as being the least bit negative about women (and other groups), but the social environment does not change the facts, biology, or science.

And as I said, men have their fair share of unique problems, as well. Many of which are also due to various hormones and biological processes. Tendency towards violence is an obvious one.

You accept illogic is possible, 1+1=3? — bahman

I'll say it one more time:

If God is omnipotent, then he is not constrained by logic.

We are not omnipotent. Asking if something is "possible" needs qualifiers. Possible in what situation? If you're asking me if 1+1=3 is possible in the world we live in currently, the answer is no. But God does not live in the world we live in, and so God is not bound by the laws of nature. God makes the laws of nature. So, if God is omnipotent, he could change the laws of nature to make 1+1=3, if he wanted to. It would be within his power.

I'm sorry but you just aren't making any sense to me.

What does 1+God mean?
I didn't say anything about us "striving on illogic". I said an omnipotent being is not bound by logic. That's just true by definition. Something that is all-powerful cannot be constrained by anything.

If you aren't a creep out to justify his creepiness, that is. — Akanthinos

Also, I'd like to add that this statement seems to ignore everything I actually said. I explained that I have always waited far longer than necessary to attempt to initiate sexual/romantic encounters in order to be absolutely certain that this is what the women wanted. How exactly is that "creepy"? It seems exactly the opposite, to me.
You really seem to have read into my statements only what you wanted to read, having decided prematurely that I am a "creep" simply because you disagree with me on certain points.

What is the point of defining religious concepts when there is no logic behind it? 1+G=whatever. — bahman

Either you're misunderstanding me, or I'm misunderstanding you, or both. What you asked has nothing to do with what I said, as far as I can tell.

You don't have to read minds. You can always talk to your prospective sexual partner. If you aren't a creep out to justify his creepiness, that is. — Akanthinos

Are you a woman? I cannot see a man saying something like this because it's just plain inaccurate. It shows a complete lack of experience in regards to interacting with potential romantic or sexual female partners. In other words: that's just not how things work.

*Doubt about creepiness intensifies* — Akanthinos

So the paragraph you quoted made you doubt my creepiness? I have a feeling that's not what you meant to say.

*Doubt about creepiness settles into sad, resignated certainty* — Akanthinos

A few things:
1. I don't think you know what "creepy" means. It does not mean "people who disagree with me."
2. Personal attacks against one's character are not a substitute for an argument. In fact, you are committing one of the most basic logical fallacies.
3. If you have any actual counterpoints to anything I said, feel free to share them, though I can't guarantee anything you say from now on will be taken seriously after your initial response.

I am in favour of gun rights, and do not own a gun.
I am in favour of gay marriage, and I am not gay.
I am in favour of marijuana legalization, and do not use marijuana.

I could be wrong, but it seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. Owning guns likely means you're in favour of gun rights, but being in favour of gun rights does not likely mean you own guns.

But to the question at hand: nobody can be completely objective in their reasoning, it's not humanly possible, but some people try much harder than others to be as objective as possible. It all comes down to the attitude you choose to approach philosophy (or any discussion) with. Some people go into it with the intention to convince others their position is correct; to "win". Others go into it with the intention to learn. I choose the latter, and it helps me to be much more objective than those who choose the former.

Is it not the case that men are usually expected by women to be the initiator of romantic activity, of sexual activity, and so on? Women can and do also initiate amorous, romantic sexual activity, but it seems like men are expected to prosecute the case, so to speak. Clearly, the beginning of an assault could be similar to the beginning of an exceedingly pleasant interlude. — Bitter Crank

This is exactly correct. I've never been an assertive person, and I've never been great at reading body language. Because of this, every sexual encounter I've had with a woman was initiated much later than it could have been, because I always had a hard time gauging if she was actually receptive to it. I know this because they would always tell me that they had been waiting so long for me "make a move" or say something to the effect of "it's about damn time!" My response to this, both internal and sometimes verbal, was "why didn't you just make the first move, then?" The ones I did actually say this to responded with "it's sexier when a man makes the first move" or something to that effect. Personally I find that to be irritating as hell and a complete load of shit, even more so now that this MeToo movement has taken off. It seems this is just another case of women wanting to have things both ways, without actually thinking about the implications or the reality of the things they want.

I love women, I absolutely respect women, and I consider myself a true feminist in the sense I that I believe in equality between genders. Sexism is stupid and ignorant, but that doesn't mean there aren't general differences between sexes. One difference I have personally observed to be true is that women are more irrational, and there is a biological basis for this involving hormones. This isn't to put women down or anything like that, men have their fair share of problems, as well. But you cannot expect to have men make the first move to initiate sexual encounters, with the requirement that it's only the men you want to have sexual encounters with. People don't know what you want until you make it explicit. Men cannot read minds, and body language is not even close to sufficient since it can be so easily misinterpreted.

Personally, I'm all for changing the dynamic so that women are expected to initiate or make the first move. They would soon see how stressful and uncertain a game that truly is, how difficult it is to read people, and how often you can get shot down or downright humiliated. But that's not what women seem to want. They want to, as they say, "have their cake and eat it too."

You seem to be an irrational and unreasonable person, at least with regard to this topic, so I see no point on wasting my time trying to have a real discussion with you.

This is typical theist nonsense. — Harry Hindu

I'm not a theist, I've just moved beyond the anti-theism which resulted from my initial rebellion against my former beliefs. As I said, it's clear you have not, and it's still clouding your judgement.

I have to second what T Clark said, you're being disingenuous. I explained what your statements imply and why, and you essentially just responded with "No, they don't." It seems we can't take this discussion any further.

1 through 4 I'm with you, but my issues begin here:

5. It is possible to ban all religious activity in public (no-one mentioned anything about private beliefs or private religious worship). It is possible to make religious activity mandatory. — Pseudonym

You have been speaking (and continue to here) as though banning all religious activity is a reasonable option. Banning all religious activity is no more reasonable than making it mandatory. Your comment about "private" belief is meaningless, as it is clearly not possible for the government to allow or prevent anything you do in private anyway.

The decision we each make has no bearing whatsoever on the degree of hubris or humility with which we have made that decision. — Pseudonym

This isn't accurate. It takes some level of hubris to even believe at all--with any amount of conviction--that you know what is best for all mankind.

No-one is withholding judgement, everyone has made a decision (at least for the time being) to either act to push society in a different direction, or not act and so leave society as it is, in this regard. — Pseudonym

This also isn't accurate. There are plenty of us who believe that society is going to do what it does regardless of anything we, as an individual, choose to do or not do. This is another belief that requires some amount of hubris--that you, as an individual, can singularly affect society in any significant way based on your own personal convictions and actions.
What I'm saying is, failure to act is not necessarily due to an endorsement of the current state of affairs, as you imply. It can also be due to a belief that one's action wouldn't affect the current state of affairs anyway.

So can the US government not intervene in the murder of infidels because it is the expression of their religious belief? — Pseudonym

Murder is, by definition, illegal. Things that are legal do not cancel out things that are illegal. That's like asking of somebody can get away with vehicular manslaughter because they were driving under the speed limit.

This really gets to the heart of what you're implying with all of this, though, and where I (and it seems T Clark) take issue with your position. You are implying that our current laws are not satisfactory with regard to religion. It follows from this that you think we need to pass new laws, placing more restrictions on religious belief and expression. Seeing as how murder is already illegal, it doesn't make sense to assume that you're referring to religious extremists/terrorists. These extreme forms of religious expression are already illegal, so what forms of religious expression could you be referring to? Preaching? Praying? Worshipping? Teaching religion? Discussing religious beliefs?
It seems to me that you either didn't think through the implications of what you've been saying, or T Clark and I have been correct in our assessments of your position all along.

I don't know how old you are, but your post is riddled with immature remarks that are clearly in reference to me, and you're trying way too hard to victimize yourself. I would strongly advise you to grow up and get used to people disagreeing with you. Seriously, this is a forum for arguing. You need to have much thicker skin if you're going to participate.

No I'm not advocating intolerance, just the ability to express our opinions and try, no matter how futile, to persuade others of things we think are important without being accused of being irrational. — Pseudonym

Clearly I hurt your feelings, which was not my intention, but when someone is saying something irrational I am going to point it out. I tend to assume that the person will be able to handle it, but apparently I was wrong in this case. For the record, though, there is quite a bit of irony in this statement considering it's coming from someone who believes he has the right to decide what other people are allowed to believe.

My use of the word 'allow' was poorly ambiguous but would require significant prejudice not to interpret charitably, for anyone to suggest I've said anything in my posts to justify a presumption that I probably want to forcibly ban religion is completely unjustified and I appreciate your effort to provide a more balanced interpretation of my clumsy phrasing. — Pseudonym

Do you not see the inconsistency here? You begin by admitting that your use of the word "allow" was poorly ambiguous, and then go on to insult me for misinterpreting the meaning you intended by it. Really?

What I actually meant by it was 'allow' within the moral limits of our actions, which I think is not far from what you suggested. The normal use of the word in fact, as in the way "we don't allow smoking in pubs" doesn't mean we're going to shoot anyone found doing it because that would be immoral. — Pseudonym

We don't allow smoking in pubs because it's illegal. So you're confirming that you are, in fact, suggesting we make beliefs you disagree with illegal? If not, then your example doesn't apply and you need to be more explicit in what you mean by "allow", because nothing you have said yet has given me reason to believe you mean anything other than a use of force. You claim I am misinterpreting your meaning, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you need to make clear what your meaning actually is.

Most of the time people don't have to specify that they're going to stick within accepted moral boundaries when enforcing their use of the word 'allow' but apparently I'm an exception. — Pseudonym

Again playing victim. Unbelievable.

I try to avoid speaking to people in a disparaging way like this, especially when having intellectual discussions, but your attitude here has been so ridiculous that I felt justified in ridiculing it.

Now if you actually want to discuss the topic, feel free to respond. If you're just going to whine more, then I wouldn't even bother.

I stopped going to bars, which was where most of it took place, and just generally have become less social. Things happened a few times when I was a younger teenager, and a couple other times in my 20s with girls or women I knew through other people and we were hanging out somewhere in a group. But for the most part it was in college, at bars, and the women were strangers. Sometimes they were my age, sometimes older. Obviously most of them were likely drinking, but that shouldn't matter because it doesn't matter when it comes to men doing inappropriate things.

None of the assaults were pleasant, but I honestly feel strange even calling them assaults. It's too strong a word, I think, but that's how interactions of this nature have come to be described. Most of them just irritated me, though a few shook me up worse and took a while to fully get over. I understand what it feels like for women to experience this, and I absolutely understand that it generally happens more often to women than men. It's not a pleasant thing, sometimes it can be a bit traumatizing, and depending on your mental health it could potentially have a more serious effect psychologically. But all that being said, people who are victims of such interactions should not be put into the same group as rape victims. That's really the point I've been trying to make with all this.

like say ISIS for example. It is our duty to not allow that. — SonJnana

I agree with that, of course. But Pseudonym has so far only referenced Christianity, and he has specifically referenced it.

As you say, though, we're all just going by our interpretations, and any one of us could be wrong.

If Pseudonym is saying we should be intolerant, then I don't agree with that. But I'll let Pseudonym defend that rather than possibly misrepresent Pseudonym's position. — SonJnana

Based on this...

To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? — Pseudonym

...as well as many other things Pseudonym has said, the attitude of intolerance seems to be very blatant, to me.

When you're talking about whether or not to allow people to hold personal beliefs that you disagree with, I don't see how else that could be interpreted.

Of course, we're sort of getting into the "should we tolerate intolerance?" paradox now.

You really seem to have issues with misunderstanding what people say.

This is a discussion on theism. Theism does not imply any of the examples you give.

But even beyond that, you have misrepresented what both you and I have been saying this whole time, so if you want to end the discussion I won't object. You seem to be an irrational fundamentalist, and there's no use arguing with fundamentalists.

education, networks, purported 'manners', wider knowledge of the world. — mcdoodle

These are all part of the tangible system, though. These things help you gain wealth, but in order to utilize these things you need to already have wealth.

This isn't comparable to the issue at hand.

when incomes remain unequal, and labour remains unequal, and there is still a backlog of problems to be remedied: the incidence of domestic violence, for example. — mcdoodle

The "gender wage gap" is one of the most intellectually dishonest concepts today, and yet people continue to perpetuate the lie. There are laws that prohibit pay discrimination based on gender. The true reasons for the average difference between male and female income have been analyzed by many, and are readily available online. You cannot have looked into the issue in any significant way if you believe there is gender discrimination in salary.

As for the other "inequality" problems you cite, males have their fair share of problems they deal with in society, as well. That's not to say we cannot talk about only one or the other at a time, but it has very clearly become the common sentiment that women are worse off than men, and it is men's fault.

I've lived 69 years now, and many women I've known have told me how deeply things like this have affected them. For others, it's been a pinprick they've brushed off. I'd be amazed if anyone doesn't know instances of male misbehaviour towards women that the men got away with. — mcdoodle

I, myself, before I was 25 years old, had been a victim of female misbehavior at least a couple dozen times. On multiple occasions I had my genitals rubbed or grabbed through my pants, my butt slapped or squeezed, my chest and legs rubbed inappropriately, and had been forcefully kissed on the mouth while trying to resist. I understand what it feels like to experience unwanted and forceful sexual assault. I do not blame females as a class for allowing this to happen, I blame the individual females who committed the acts. Much more importantly, I do not equate these experiences with actual rape.

The biggest issue I have with this movement is that it lumps together men who touched a female's leg or back, or men who allegedly masturbated while on the phone with a woman, with actual rapists. This is absolutely insane, and a terrible insult to true rape victims.

So, to summarize:
Females are not worse off than men in society, and this movement completely ignores all of the things men deal with.
Women do not have more problems; they have different problems, but there is still plenty of overlap.
Men experience sexual assault all the time, as well.
Equating sexual assault with actual rape is detrimental to this entire discussion.

Science has begun to get at these questions and even questions about consciousness. But these explanations aren't good enough for the theist — Harry Hindu

You need to be very careful not to trade one God (God) for another (science). Many former theists do just that, and fail to see the irony and hypocrisy.

Accepting science without question is just as irrational as accepting the Bible without question.

I gather that, but humanity cannot simply stagnate, paralysed with uncertainty so we have to act. — Pseudonym

I never said anything about stagnation. Humanity has always acted, and always will act. Nothing that you or I believe or do will affect that.

But each of our actions affects others, so each person's beliefs will affect you in some way, and your beliefs will affect others, because we act on our beliefs — Pseudonym

So you agree that this "action" you speak about is a collaborative action between all of mankind? Which means you, as one individual, have virtually zero effect on anything.

I would also argue that inaction is no different to action in the extent to which it affects others — Pseudonym

I'm arguing that inaction is no different to action (in the case of you as an individual) in the extent to which it affects the religious beliefs of all of mankind.

Whatever effect religion has on your society you are deciding with conviction that you are happy to allow that effect to continue, by your failure to act against it. — Pseudonym

No, I am deciding that I cannot say one way or the other that my society would be better off without religion, and that nothing I personally do will have any effect on it anyway.

To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? — Pseudonym

You're not understanding what I'm saying. This is exactly the kind of hubris I'm talking about. You think you have the power to allow/encourage religion in your society. You don't. Clearly you've been trying to, based on what you're saying right now. But considering that around 85% of humanity has some kind of religious faith, it seems you aren't doing a very good job. Apparently you need to try harder.

I'm not sure you're understood the meaning of the word 'net'. It means taking all the good things and weighing them against the bad. — Pseudonym

No, I understand the meaning. You just didn't understand the point I was making.

Are you suggesting that you've already carried out that weighing excersice and anyone reaching a different conclusion to you must automatically be wrong regardless of what arguments or evidence they bring? Doesn't that sound a bit like the great hubris you've been vigorously decrying? — Pseudonym

My point was that without religion, we would not be living in the world we are living in today. It has shaped nearly every aspect of our various societies. But at an even more foundational level, religion is the origin of our morality, and I don't think it needs to be argued how integral morality has been in developing our societies.

My point was that a rational person, looking at all of the evidence and the history, could only conclude that religion has been a net benefit thus far. This is something that is widely agreed upon by historians and philosophers. So concluding otherwise shows either an ignoring of some of the evidence and history, or a lack of rationality. It seems to me that you are one of many people who allow your personal experience with religion to cloud your judgement.

How did my hands get ahold of yours without asking you first?

Gosh, I wish I could say that I have encountered that but I haven't. I have always been the one sliding the hands of males back to neutral zones such as the shoulder, the cheek, the hips, the waist or the knee. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You avoided the actual question. Your initial statement implied that men need consent to touch you, but you do not need consent to touch them. That inconsistency is at the heart of this whole issue. Had the hypocrisy of that sentiment even occurred to you before it was pointed out? It seems obvious to me that there aren't clear guidelines being proposed by anybody in this MeToo group. All that is being said is that unwanted physical contact from a man to a woman is wrong. Not only is this hypocritical, as has just been made clear, but "unwanted physical contact" hasn't even been clearly defined, and every woman I have heard speak about this seems to have a different idea about what constitutes it.

If the only claim being made is "rape is wrong", then it seems to me you aren't actually saying anything at all. We all know rape is wrong, and those who don't aren't going to suddenly see the light now. It really appears as if the MeToo movement is simply saying:
"There's a problem. Now somebody else fix it."

I don't know enough about the science of it to comment on that. I assume there are specific criteria necessary in order to diagnose a mental illness, otherwise it wouldn't be a science. But I don't know what those criteria are.

Basically, what I'm saying is how are you reaching your conclusions that, in the face of uncertainty, the best course of action is to not act with very much conviction on any of your particular beliefs. — Pseudonym

On the contrary, I believe with great conviction that none of us knows what is best for humanity, or whether or not a religion is true. It takes great hubris to think you know what would be best for all mankind. We cannot say what the world would be like without religion, but to view it as having a net negative effect so far is ignoring so much of what religion has done for the development of our societies and cultures.

I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. What is egotistical is to claim someone doesn't know what they are talking about when you don't know where they've come from and what knowledge they've acquired through life by asking the necessary questions, as I explained in the above post. — Harry Hindu

It's egotistical to claim that your singular life experience hasn't shown you an objective representation of billions of people?
I'm sorry, but claiming you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of billions of people because you think you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of a handful you've talked to is ridiculous. I'm surprised you don't see how irrational that is. In fact it's much more irrational than the belief in a deity.

You seem to be one of many people who have a bias against religion because you were raised religious and as a youth rebelled against it. It's very common for people who go through that experience to stay in that "rebellious" mindset for years, and indeed some never get past it.

That is my point - that when we consult our feelings rather than the empirical evidence and logic, we become irrational, and irrationality doesn't get at the truth. It only makes you feel better. — Harry Hindu

You made the claim that belief in a deity is mental illness. Now you are implying that what you've been saying is that belief in a deity is irrational. By using these term interchangeably, you imply that they mean the same thing. Are you really saying that "irrational" is the same as "mental illness"? If so, we are all mentally ill.