>This is just confrontational, and seems to show resentment towards women.
It is only confrontational to those who are already biased. Now, had I said this statement in and of itself, with no prompting, and included the 'shut up', it would've been confrontational. Instead, I said it in response to a post that already had said that only one side needed to follow such advice and, while not explicitly stating such, did implicitly relay the gender basing off of social norms.
As far as resentment, seeing my statement as resentment but not the others is itself telling and, if I dare say, sounds of tone policing.
>Women are the group you want to convince people to stop feeling sorry for, but you haven't done that yet.
Or my audience would be the group already aware of the statistics. An already growing audience which is one reason that calling oneself a feminist is being avoided.
>Here you're not properly identifying your new topic, but more importantly you're treating your conclusion as if it were so obvious it's not even worth explaining.
It is pretty obvious to anyone who reads the full studies. Start with the 2010 report on intimate partner violence. Look at how they choose to define rape. Pretty obvious. Or look at numbers of which gender is more likely to be put in prison. I don't really need to point out a study that men are far more likely to end up in prison.
>This just makes you sound like someone suffering from confirmation bias.
And this sounds like rationalization of why an opinion should be dismissed.
>I had to Google this, I assume you mean 'benevolent sexism'
Yes, I did mistype that one and I'll go correct it.
>I now understand to be the assumption that (for example) women need to be protected by men.
That would be an attempt to give an example, though this could also be stated such as the assumption that a man should put a woman's safety before his own (not stated in the cost of not doing such, which is often that of not being a 'real man').
>Again, you jump straight to the conclusion without stopping to reason, which is the same symptom of confirmation bias as above.
And yet this is the behavior of many posts taking the opposite view point without their being called out on it. I find it interesting that the reactions to similar behavior differ.
Finally two points. First, if you want to get people to reconsider their position, logos and ethos will do little alone while relying only on pathos will get you much further. Evidence and logical arguments are second to emotional appeal.
Second, my original point of the post was not to actually say which group had it worse. Only to explicitly call out that there is not an agreement as to one group having it worse (no need to say which side in such a disagreement is right) so that the parent's implied response to both grand parents and great great grandparents point cannot be implied as was done. An actual discussion trying to determine which gender has it worse would get neither side anywhere unless hours were spent in a Socratic discussion of what worse actually means followed by even more time spent doing data comparisons to what ever agreed upon definition was decided upon.
It is only confrontational to those who are already biased.
Again, you're opening with a statement that will put peoples backs up before they've even heard your argument. If you want to make an accusation of bias you need to build up to it and back it up, otherwise nobody will listen.
seeing my statement as resentment but not the others is itself
telling and, if I dare say, sounds of tone policing.
No. Tone policing means to attempt to discount an argument because of the tone used to deliver it. At no point have I disagreed with the content of your comments, or attempted to devalue your opinion. In contrast, I'm trying to understand your argument and help you structure it more clearly.
And this sounds like rationalization of why an opinion should be dismissed.
That was my point, it's exactly the rationalisation a good proportion of your audience will make when you structure arguments in the way you have so far.
Confirmation bias means you start with a very slim chance of changing anyone's mind on this kind of polarising topic. Using poorly structured arguments reduces your chances to zero.
Or my audience would be the group already aware of the statistics.
Sure, if you like, but you also claim your conclusions are so obvious that anyone aware of those studies doesn't need an explanation. If your arguments are completely obvious to your target audience, why bother commenting at all?
Evidence and logical arguments are second to emotional appeal.
If the emotion you trigger is anger you'll get nowhere at all, or worse.
Second, my original point of the post was not to actually say which group had it worse.
Okay, that's not how it came across at all. You finished with "it is clear which group is actually better off."
... there is not an agreement as to one group having it worse.
There isn't agreement on whether Elvis is dead either. In order to make the existence of disagreement a credible argument you need to also demonstrate reasonableness.
A good tip there is to align yourself with moderates rather than partisans. Claiming that men have it harder than women doesn't help you there; the moderate perspective is to empathise with the problems faced by both sides rather than to compete about which has it worse. I know you've said that's not the main point you wanted to make, but you did make that point.
It is only confrontational to those who are already biased. Now, had I said this statement in and of itself, with no prompting, and included the 'shut up', it would've been confrontational. Instead, I said it in response to a post that already had said that only one side needed to follow such advice and, while not explicitly stating such, did implicitly relay the gender basing off of social norms.
As far as resentment, seeing my statement as resentment but not the others is itself telling and, if I dare say, sounds of tone policing.
>Women are the group you want to convince people to stop feeling sorry for, but you haven't done that yet.
Or my audience would be the group already aware of the statistics. An already growing audience which is one reason that calling oneself a feminist is being avoided.
>Here you're not properly identifying your new topic, but more importantly you're treating your conclusion as if it were so obvious it's not even worth explaining.
It is pretty obvious to anyone who reads the full studies. Start with the 2010 report on intimate partner violence. Look at how they choose to define rape. Pretty obvious. Or look at numbers of which gender is more likely to be put in prison. I don't really need to point out a study that men are far more likely to end up in prison.
>This just makes you sound like someone suffering from confirmation bias.
And this sounds like rationalization of why an opinion should be dismissed.
>I had to Google this, I assume you mean 'benevolent sexism'
Yes, I did mistype that one and I'll go correct it.
>I now understand to be the assumption that (for example) women need to be protected by men.
That would be an attempt to give an example, though this could also be stated such as the assumption that a man should put a woman's safety before his own (not stated in the cost of not doing such, which is often that of not being a 'real man').
>Again, you jump straight to the conclusion without stopping to reason, which is the same symptom of confirmation bias as above.
And yet this is the behavior of many posts taking the opposite view point without their being called out on it. I find it interesting that the reactions to similar behavior differ.
Finally two points. First, if you want to get people to reconsider their position, logos and ethos will do little alone while relying only on pathos will get you much further. Evidence and logical arguments are second to emotional appeal.
Second, my original point of the post was not to actually say which group had it worse. Only to explicitly call out that there is not an agreement as to one group having it worse (no need to say which side in such a disagreement is right) so that the parent's implied response to both grand parents and great great grandparents point cannot be implied as was done. An actual discussion trying to determine which gender has it worse would get neither side anywhere unless hours were spent in a Socratic discussion of what worse actually means followed by even more time spent doing data comparisons to what ever agreed upon definition was decided upon.