Support NeoGAF

[marrec]

Sorry, maybe you could clarify it for me?

Nobody is asking me to stand in line and wait. Nor is there anyone saying that men can't fight for issues that directly affect them! It hasn't been established whether or not I'm even against MRAs (I am, btw). I believe that the new MRA movement has routes in being a counter movement to Feminism, and I'm against that idea.

Also I believe that I'm at odds with most men's rights advocates in that I believe that most men's rights issues stem from Men themselves.

Sorry again. See above.

In general, men love their kids. There's rumblings in certain communities about absent fathers but in general kids tend to make people like them. Men who want their kids fight for them and I'm not claiming that men don't want kids. That, however, is a seperate issue from the idea of traditional gender roles producing a bias and prejudice against men in these situations.

Be glad to.


http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/faq/emotional/who-initiates-divorce-men-or-women.html

Alternatively you can just look at the search results and pick one you like:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wom...338,d.aWc&fp=d2b9d06163d5960&biw=1920&bih=978

Very interesting statistics, though I don't know necessarily if they apply to this specific discussion? Also it's good to see that men are more able to bring divorce issues to the table, going by those statistics.

Sorry, again. Please clarify if you wouldn't mind.

I never once said it's okay for men to be viewed in this way.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

The fight for equality for feminists, is the fight for women specifically to be treated as equals.

Which is fine but let's not pretend that feminism is about equality for both genders.

 

[Earthstrike]

Can I applaud this without being patronising? I'll try. This needs to happen more often, people finding out they made an error of fact, admitting it, and moving on. Rather than what so many people do, doubling down on their error and falling into a world of crazy.

Hope that wasn't patronising.

It wasn't. Sometimes I make mistakes and do talk out my ass.

I have thought about the optimization of research funds before, I was wrong in this instance given what I didn't know about these diseases.

Imagine someone gave you a list of diseases, and corresponding death rates and an amount of money x to distribute amongst research efforts. How would you distribute the funds? A simple approach might be to go by proportion of people affected, but imagine scientists came up to you, and they were specialists in there field and they each said "for every x dollars we receive, we estimate we will get y% closer to a cure." All of a sudden the math of optimizing to save peoples lives becomes different as x and y vary. I think odds are a lot of society's scientific resource distribution is out of whack with what would be optimal and I may attribute this to the lack of a body that makes impactful recommendations about how we should proportion research funds. (of course such a thing occuring would strip people of their autonomy to make their own charitable decisions). I figured this could have easily been the case for breast and prostate cancer but I see that it isn't.


Edit: I know a scientist would never be able to make promises about the relations between funds and research progress, but I'm trying to illustrate how there can be a more complex model underlying research distribution than simple death proportionality.

 

[Jburton]

I'll admit I was wrong regarding this whole cancer issue. I was under the impression that manual inspection by a doctor had some significant level of efficacy but upon some research it appears it does not.

A finger in the bum can only really point out to an enlarged prostate, that can be benign or malignant.

Most men suffer with BPH (I think we all do at some point) so it is only effective in pointing out that the prostate is enlarged, not whether it is cancerous.

 

[Dead Man]

It wasn't. Sometimes I make mistakes and do talk out my ass.

I have thought about the optimization of research funds before, I was wrong in this instance given what I didn't know about these diseases.

Imagine someone gave you a list of diseases, and corresponding death rates and an amount of money x to distribute amongst research efforts. How would you distribute the funds? A simple approach might be to go by proportion of people affected, but imagine scientists came up to you, and they were specialists in there field and they each said "for every x dollars we receive, we estimate we will get y% closer to a cure." All of a sudden the math of optimizing to save peoples lives becomes different as x and y vary. I think odds are a lot of society's scientific resource distribution is out of whack with what would be optimal and I may attribute this to the lack of a body that makes impactful recommendations about how we should proportion research funds. (of course such a thing occuring would strip people of their autonomy to make their own charitable decisions). I figured this could have easily been the case for breast and prostate cancer but I see that it isn't.


Edit: I know a scientist would never be able to make promises about the relations between funds and research progress, but I'm trying to illustrate how there can be a more complex model underlying research distribution than simple death proportionality.

For sure it is more complicated than x deaths results in x amount of money, what is tricky is finding out what exactly is the cause of a given distribution, figuring out if something needs to be done to try and rectify something, and then trying to do something about it.

As you said, a lot of men don't get screened, but I think that means funding needs to go to awareness campaigns so people know how prevalent prostate cancer is. Doesn't men are at fault for not getting screened so they should suck it up, and more than cervical cancer screening rates are the fault of women so they should just deal with that.

 

[APF]

Pardon?

Oh, pardon me!

My replies are in response to posters stating that its not a big deal, a non issue (read Earthstrike) that it is almost cured etc.

Also it's a discussion board, I believe that's what we are doing here.

Seems to me like you're barking at anyone who speaks.

My post was in response to people appearing to be angry at women & blaming some straw-feminist reprisal for a lack of lobbying for prostate cancer research and treatment, then you come ranting at me because I find that idea perplexing. If you're just "discussing" then maybe ratchet down the foaming-at-the-mouth a tad.

What do you know about what I do in regards to the issue? ....... Nothing.

Then what do you do? If you're doing a lot of meaningful work then stop being a smartass and just say what it is; why not publicize it if you're concerned about a lack of interest? Instead you're making me feel like people who care about this issue are irrational hotheads.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Nobody is asking me to stand in line and wait. Nor is there anyone saying that men can't fight for issues that directly affect them! It hasn't been established whether or not I'm even against MRAs (I am, btw). I believe that the new MRA movement has routes in being a counter movement to Feminism, and I'm against that idea.

Well, there have been people who claim a MRM is not needed as feminism covers equal rights.

Also I believe that I'm at odds with most men's rights advocates in that I believe that most men's rights issues stem from Men themselves.

Issues are issues, does it matter where they stem from?

In general, men love their kids. There's rumblings in certain communities about absent fathers but in general kids tend to make people like them. Men who want their kids fight for them and I'm not claiming that men don't want kids. That, however, is a seperate issue from the idea of traditional gender roles producing a bias and prejudice against men in these situations.

Men who are too broke to hire a lawyer to fight for custody still love their kids. 2/3 of the time, divorce is thrust upon them against their will.

Very interesting statistics, though I don't know necessarily if they apply to this specific discussion? Also it's good to see that men are more able to bring divorce issues to the table, going by those statistics.

I think divorce stats apply to a conversation about child custody and family courts.

I never once said it's okay for men to be viewed in this way.

Ok, my apologies for misreading you.

 

[JJDinomite]

I think it's a damn shame that the topic of MRA is laughed at and scolded by society, when there are real issues facing men these days. More men die in the workforce, by a large margin. Less men are attending college. In court, men are commonly discriminated against when it comes to who gets the child. The idea that a man can be raped is laughed at. Almost as many men are effected by prostate cancer as women are by breast cancer, but where is our awareness month?

To simply throw these issues under the rug is complete bullshit. If feminists really want equality, why won't they support these issues?

 

[marrec]

Well, there have been people who claim a MRM is not needed as feminism covers equal rights.

I would make the claim that the current MRM movement is unneeded because it's been made in response to feminism and not in response to men's rights, but that's only because of the MRA's I've been subjected to in real life and on the internet.

Issues are issues, does it matter where they stem from?

Because the route of the issue is essential if we want to talk about solutions.

Men who are too broke to hire a lawyer to fight for custody still love their kids. 2/3 of the time, divorce is thrust upon them against their will.

Women who are too broke to hire a lawyer to fight for custody are stuck in the same situation. Just because you're asking for a divorce does not mean you have the money to fight for custody.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I think it's a damn shame that the topic of MRA is laughed at and scolded by society, when there are real issues facing men these days. More men die in the workforce, by a large margin. Less men are attending college. In court, men are commonly discriminated against when it comes to who gets the child. The idea that a man can be raped is laughed at. Almost as many men are effected by prostate cancer as women are by breast cancer, but where is our awareness month?

To simply throw these issues under the rug is complete bullshit. If feminists really want equality, why won't they support these issues?

It's getting better, a few years ago a discussion like this would have more people laughing at the MRM and more people who had never even heard of it.

 

[APF]

To simply throw these issues under the rug is complete bullshit. If feminists really want equality, why won't they support these issues?

Well look at your post for example--you can't even frame your point without it being an attack on straw-feminism. That immediately makes me feel you don't care about any of these issues other than as a vector to complain about women's rights.

 

[marrec]

Well look at your post for example--you can't even frame your point without it being an attack on straw-feminism.

This is my continuing issue with MRAs.

'Men's rights are important!!!!!!!

...youstupidfeminists...! *angry face*'

Of course, this is just my anecdotal experience.

 

[MDSVeritas]

This is why I have argued in the past for those who consider feminism to be fight for all genders to rename their position, and leave traditional feminism and MRM to duke it out on the sidelines.

That suggestion tends to get laughed at though

I've often wondered why this point seems so rarely brought up in these debates. I understand that most feminists are quite level-headed and only seek equality, and I get the idea behind the "Feminism is equality" statements, but regardless of the strong past of feminism, in the modern day it's gained notoriety along with the MRM for corresponding with extreme gender rights acts and the excessive vitriol being exchanged between members of both movements.

Both Men's Rights and Feminism seem, in name, to be in favor of rights for only a certain demographic, and parts of both movements are indeed. A movement focusing on equality has the potential to be rid of the potential to be perceived as having one-sided intentions, as both other movements certainly have.

 

[Dead Man]

Well look at your post for example--you can't even frame your point without it being an attack on straw-feminism. That immediately makes me feel you don't care about any of these issues other than as a vector to complain about women's rights.

Of course, he is in a thread where feminism is being held up as fighting for all genders...

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I would make the claim that the current MRM movement is unneeded because it's been made in response to feminism and not in response to men's rights, but that's only because of the MRA's I've been subjected to in real life and on the internet.

Ok, fair enough. I would say that the MRM being a response to feminism makes perfect sense. We were all under the impression for many years that feminism was about equality for both genders. Now that we know that isn't the case and never was, it makes sense that men shouldn't wait around for feminism to address mens issues.

Because the route of the issue is essential if we want to talk about solutions.

Well, sure I haven't argued otherwise. As long as mens issues aren't dismissed because they stem from other men.

Women who are too broke to hire a lawyer to fight for custody are stuck in the same situation. Just because you're asking for a divorce does not mean you have the money to fight for custody.

The one filing generally has more warning and time to prepare as well as setting the initial terms. Plus the bias does exist where a father would have to prove the mother unfit but the mother has no such burden.

 

[faceless007]

If you see funding for medical research as zero-sum and want someone to blame for the relative lack of funding for prostate cancer research, may I suggest directing your attention to the billions of dollars and R&D over the last two decades that have gone into combating the horrible epidemic of erectile dysfunction? That's money that could have gone to cancer research too, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't feminists pushing for it.

 

[Dead Man]

If you see funding for medical research as zero-sum and want someone to blame for the relative lack of funding for prostate cancer research, may I suggest directing your attention to the billions of dollars and R&D over the last two decades that have gone into combating the horrible epidemic of erectile dysfunction? That's money that could have gone to cancer research too, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't feminists pushing for it.

I don't think anyone has suggested funding is zero sum, or that there should be less funding for anything.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

This topic is too broad, but...


Women do get more degrees in humanities the thing is these degrees tend to offer less jobs and money. Men still get the degrees that pay more more often. Boys need more focus regarding education than girls now partly because girls comply and boys do not leading more girls to excel in education when given opportunity. Too big a subject for one thread.

I read a study on how more women get less high paying degrees while men are more likely to try and get degrees like engineering, computer science, physics, etc... So if that is true it is sorta understandable that less men graduate because those are some hard subjects. In one of my required classes people were saying what they were going to major. It pretty much ended as women wanted to teach in schools or some artsy thing while the guys wen't for computer science or just something involving computers..

I think it's a damn shame that the topic of MRA is laughed at and scolded by society, when there are real issues facing men these days. More men die in the workforce, by a large margin. Less men are attending college. In court, men are commonly discriminated against when it comes to who gets the child. The idea that a man can be raped is laughed at. Almost as many men are effected by prostate cancer as women are by breast cancer, but where is our awareness month?

To simply throw these issues under the rug is complete bullshit. If feminists really want equality, why won't they support these issues?

Hey, if men are so tough then we can handle it.

Spoiler

Joking

 

[Bleepey]

You are talking out your ass, there is not even a reliable way to ascertain if a tumour in / on the prostate is malignant or not, nor is their any movement on a cure.

Prostate cancer kills as many men as breast cancer kills women, there in lies the only equality in this issue.


Prostate cancer funding is around half at best, usually worse.

I always thought men can die with breast cancer but not off it, with breast cancer women die of it and not just with it.

 

[faceless007]

I don't think anyone has suggested funding is zero sum, or that there should be less funding for anything.

Then I don't know what the point is of comparing funding between two different conditions.

 

[Dead Man]

Then I don't know what the point is of comparing funding between two different conditions.

I have no response to this. If you can't see why people might compare things that are not part of a zero sum system I do not know what to say.

 

[Murder. She Wrote]

In this thread: People who don't know anything about feminism discussing feminism.

 

[stufte]

In this thread: People who don't know anything about feminism discussing feminism.

Then please, enlighten the masses about which they do not know.

 

[AbsolutBro]

I always thought men can die with breast cancer but not off it, with breast cancer women die of it and not just with it.

Not at all. About 25% of male breast cancer cases end up being fatal, as breast cancer spreads more easily in men then it does in women. Most men don't even realize they can get breast cancer, and there is certainly no recommended screening or anything, so by the time msot men realize they have it, they are stage 3 or stage 4; nearly always fatal.

My dad is actually a breast cancer survivor. Despite the genetic propensity prior to my maternal grandmother, none of my maternal family has had it.

 

[jorma]

In this thread: People who don't know anything about feminism discussing feminism.

oh lord

ITT: Feminism - all inclusive or dismissive and patronising?

 

[Bleepey]

If you see funding for medical research as zero-sum and want someone to blame for the relative lack of funding for prostate cancer research, may I suggest directing your attention to the billions of dollars and R&D over the last two decades that have gone into combating the horrible epidemic of erectile dysfunction? That's money that could have gone to cancer research too, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't feminists pushing for it.

Shit like Viagra came about by accident. Boners were a side effect from men undergoing clinical trials for heart problems.

 

[RoH]

Then please, enlighten the masses about which they do not know.

Seconded

 

[Bleepey]

Not at all. About 25% of male breast cancer cases end up being fatal, as breast cancer spreads more easily in men then it does in women. Most men don't even realize they can get breast cancer, and there is certainly no recommended screening or anything, so by the time msot men realize they have it, they are stage 3 or stage 4; nearly always fatal.

My dad is actually a breast cancer survivor. Despite the genetic propensity prior to my maternal grandmother, none of my maternal family has had it.

Shit, I was actually meant to type men die with prostate cancer and not of it. Typing breast was an accident.

 

[AbsolutBro]

Shit, I was actually meant to type men die with prostate cancer and not of it. Typing breast was an accident.

No worries! Yeah, that's generally true. I've heard that most prostate cancer is so slow to grow that patients usually die of completely unrelated causes before the prostate cancer is dangerous.

I just try to comment on male breast cancer whenever I see it mentioned, it's sort of an issue close to me now.

 

[poppabk]

If you see funding for medical research as zero-sum and want someone to blame for the relative lack of funding for prostate cancer research, may I suggest directing your attention to the billions of dollars and R&D over the last two decades that have gone into combating the horrible epidemic of erectile dysfunction? That's money that could have gone to cancer research too, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't feminists pushing for it.

How much of that was from federal tax dollars? NCI gives roughly twice as much money to breast cancer research as to prostate cancer research.

 

[Jburton]

Shit, I was actually meant to type men die with prostate cancer and not of it. Typing breast was an accident.

Over 10,000 a year in the UK is too many for men to be just dying while having prostate cancer, the number dont add up.

 

[rocketknight]

I think it's a damn shame that the topic of MRA is laughed at and scolded by society, when there are real issues facing men these days. More men die in the workforce, by a large margin. Less men are attending college. In court, men are commonly discriminated against when it comes to who gets the child. The idea that a man can be raped is laughed at. Almost as many men are effected by prostate cancer as women are by breast cancer, but where is our awareness month?

To simply throw these issues under the rug is complete bullshit. If feminists really want equality, why won't they support these issues?

Most if not all of the problems you list are caused by the bullshit gender norms enforced (on everyone) by the patriarchy (which again is not some menacing cabal of men but simply The Way Things Are). Breaking down those norms fixes the root of problems for both genders.

 

[Rayis]

Feminism does touch on men issues, it might not fight for all of them (I assume they'd be willing to fight for them if they didn't infringe on women rights) MRA's as far as I know do not touch on women issues, they mostly fight for straight males. That makes feminism more of an equality movement than the MRA movement.

 

[darkpower]

How much control over debates like this do you think the extreme fringes of all the sides of an argument have, and how much do you think that they take shelter behind the civil people to make it seem as though calling out of the extremists in the debate is saying that the civil people don't have a right to say their opinion?

Trying to find a word for people that seem to want to do that.

It might be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism

 

[Azih]

Focusing on the crazies of the 'other side' while defending or refusing to acknowledge the crazies on your own is the best way to scupper constructive dialogue.

Everybody needs to stop getting defensive and tribal about this stuff and accept good arguments no matter where they come from.

 

[maharg]

Actually, this is a discussion about men that's turned into "BUT WHAT ABOUT FEMINISM".

I'd just like to point out that that's not the case at all. The article in the OP is explicitly about the MRM's opposition to feminism (and vice versa), not about men's rights themselves.

 

[radios shipping overview]

oh lord

ITT: Feminism - all inclusive or dismissive and patronising?

ITT: Feminism! A completely monolithic and unified ideology that advances women's interests to the total zero-sum exclusion of all other social groups. Especially straight, white men.

 

[Cronox]

At issue: father role models (try to think of one smart sitcom dad), rights to children in divorces, societal ignorance of men being raped/not thinking it's a big deal, cultural ideas of what "being a man" is, and probably a couple other things I'm forgetting.

The us vs them thing has happened likely because the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and feminists are far more numerous and vocal than men's rights. Certain feminists have trivialized real concerns from the MRA, from what I've read it seems there has been an effort to minimize talk about rape that doesn't concern women, the idea being that including men in the rape discussion would weaken the argument. Seems wrong-headed to me, and it's easy to see where some tensions would develop because of people's tunnel vision when it comes to the issues they're fighting for.

 

[mullet2000]

Feminism does touch on men issues, it might not fight for all of them (I assume they'd be willing to fight for them if they didn't infringe on women rights) MRA's as far as I know do not touch on women issues, they mostly fight for straight males. That makes feminism more of an equality movement than the MRA movement.

I think anyone would agree with you that feminism is more inclusive than MRAs are right now. I do as well.

However I think the issue stems from people claiming feminism fights for men's rights to the degree that men do not need any other movement other than feminism. This, I'm not so sure I agree with, as has been questiond in this topic with questions like "why have no feminist groups lobbied against the unfair child custody system?"

It's a good discussion to have, I think. People have claimed that feminism is an equal blanket for both genders but in reality it doesn't seem to be the case. You seem to agree with me on this topic, from the beginning part of your post.

Also: Side note: I've just read through the past 6~ pages that i missed while sleeping, and though there's been some headbutting it's been a very encouraging discussion with little personal insults (outside of a few drive-by posts like #722 above) It's been nice to see a topic involving feminism not blow up into a yelling contest on here.

 

[rocketknight]

At issue: father role models (try to think of one smart sitcom dad), rights to children in divorces, societal ignorance of men being raped/not thinking it's a big deal, cultural ideas of what "being a man" is, and probably a couple other things I'm forgetting.

The us vs them thing has happened likely because the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and feminists are far more numerous and vocal than men's rights. Certain feminists have trivialized real concerns from the MRA, from what I've read it seems there has been an effort to minimize talk about rape that doesn't concern women, the idea being that including men in the rape discussion would weaken the argument. Seems wrong-headed to me, and it's easy to see where some tensions would develop because of people's tunnel vision when it comes to the issues they're fighting for.

Six posts up :/

Most if not all of the problems you list are caused by the bullshit gender norms enforced (on everyone) by the patriarchy (which again is not some menacing cabal of men but simply The Way Things Are). Breaking down those norms fixes the root of problems for both genders.

As I said earlier in the thread, people cheering on and implicitly supporting prison rape tend not to be feminists. Feminists actively work to combat rape culture, of which acceptance of prison rape is a large part.

I think anyone would agree with you that feminism is more inclusive than MRAs are right now. I do as well.

However I think the issue stems from people claiming feminism fights for men's rights to the degree that men do not need any other movement other than feminism. This, I'm not so sure I agree with, as has been questiond in this topic with questions like "why have no feminist groups lobbied against the unfair child custody system?"

It's a good discussion to have, I think. People have claimed that feminism is an equal blanket for both genders but in reality it doesn't seem to be the case. You seem to agree with me on this topic, from the beginning part of your post.

Also: Side note: I've just read through the past 6~ pages that i missed while sleeping, and though there's been some headbutting it's been a very encouraging discussion with little personal insults (outside of a few drive-by posts like #722 above) It's been nice to see a topic involving feminism not blow up into a yelling contest on here.

Feminism typically tries to address the root of the problems, not the symptoms. If you agree that the unfair child custody system is caused by bullshit gender norms, you should be able to recognize that a movement that works to break down bullshit gender norms is going to improve it.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Feminism typically tries to address the root of the problems, not the symptoms. If you agree that the unfair child custody system is caused by bullshit gender norms, you should be able to recognize that a movement that works to break down bullshit gender norms is going to improve it.

Are feminists really interested in fathers getting custody more often? Really?

 

[radios shipping overview]

Are feminists really interested in fathers getting custody more often? Really?

Ask yourself this: Are all feminists really interested in favoring the mother in all custody disputes, in all circumstances?

 

[APF]

Certain feminists have trivialized real concerns from the MRA

Who, and which concerns?

from what I've read it seems there has been an effort to minimize talk about rape that doesn't concern women, the idea being that including men in the rape discussion would weaken the argument.

That sounds like a strawman to me; cite?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Ask yourself this: Are all feminists really interested in favoring the mother in all custody disputes, in all circumstances?

Well first I would like my question answered.

 

[APF]

jiji's question is more germane than your red herring

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

jiji's question is more germane than your red herring

It's like there is a defense force that pops up to try and discredit certain questions.

 

[WanderingWind]

Feminism typically tries to address the root of the problems, not the symptoms. If you agree that the unfair child custody system is caused by bullshit gender norms, you should be able to recognize that a movement that works to break down bullshit gender norms is going to improve it.

If both are fighting against it, then there isn't a problem. Whether you call yourself a "feminist" or a "men's right activist" if you're fighting for equality, then who cares what your preferred nomenclature is (teehee). If you're more interested in fighting the "other side" then you're an idiot an not helping your professed cause one iota.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Nobody is asking me to stand in line and wait. Nor is there anyone saying that men can't fight for issues that directly affect them! It hasn't been established whether or not I'm even against MRAs (I am, btw). I believe that the new MRA movement has routes in being a counter movement to Feminism, and I'm against that idea.

Also I believe that I'm at odds with most men's rights advocates in that I believe that most men's rights issues stem from Men themselves.



In general, men love their kids. There's rumblings in certain communities about absent fathers but in general kids tend to make people like them. Men who want their kids fight for them and I'm not claiming that men don't want kids. That, however, is a seperate issue from the idea of traditional gender roles producing a bias and prejudice against men in these situations.



Very interesting statistics, though I don't know necessarily if they apply to this specific discussion? Also it's good to see that men are more able to bring divorce issues to the table, going by those statistics.



I never once said it's okay for men to be viewed in this way.

What does it matter if mens issues stem largely from men? Men and women aren't on teams that are responsible for thev well being of their side.

 

[darkpower]

It's like there is a defense force that pops up to try and discredit certain questions.

It's mainly because they have no answer to it, so they try to discredit the person that asked the question and say it's a red herring when it really isn't.

Then again, you're correct they seem to come out every single time we have any kind of thread that has anything to do about feminism right now, so it's not like we should be surprised it's happening again.

I don't really have an answer to any of those questions. I think feminists should want for fathers to be able to have due justice for or against them if the merits of the case makes them more deserving to have custody rather than the mother, but that works both ways, too. In other words, individual qualifications and faults play a crucial role and gender cannot play any part of that kind of dispute.

 

[IHaveCandy]

jiji's question is more germane than your red herring

How? Jiji's question is an absurd one trying to have a question based on absolutes answered.