Classic strawman argument. (Straw woman, dare I say?) You simplistically assume your opponent is attacking men, when the issue is much deeper.
Both women and men have the same root for their poor choices: irrational hangups fed by systemic sexism. Both men and women disparage male cosmetologists, and praise females. Both men and women praise male programmers, and disparage females.
All I did was re-iterate the parent comment in blunt terms, which is supposed to have the effect that it is that comment that is the strawman.
I'm making no argument directly, strawman or not.
Both women and men have the same root for their poor choices: irrational hangups fed by systemic sexism. Both men and women disparage male cosmetologists, and praise females. Both men and women praise male programmers, and disparage females.
These statements are presented as fact but are simply not. What is this "systemic sexism" we're agreeing on being present? I see little to support it within the context of this discussion.
All I see is an argument that is essentially:
1) There are few female programmers,
2) The cause is sexism,
3) We must address this.
I take issue with point 3 because point 2 has insufficient evidence to support it.
All I did was re-iterate the parent comment in blunt terms
No you did not. What you did was restate my comment in broader terms, and then attacked your restated version of my comment.
I think I get it now:
1) Men's poor choices == men's irrational hangups.
2) Women's poor choices == men's systemic sexism.
Don't put words in my mouth and then attack me for what you said. It's intellectually dishonest, the definition of a strawman argument, and I want no part of it.
Both women and men have the same root for their poor choices: irrational hangups fed by systemic sexism. Both men and women disparage male cosmetologists, and praise females. Both men and women praise male programmers, and disparage females.