Are you trying to steer me towards a fallacy like this? -- Both men and women are paid for work, therefore they are equal. Powerful men and not-powerful men receive very different treatment when they are subject to ideological questioning. Powerful men tend to be believed when they claim ideas and emotional states. Not-powerful men tend to be not-believed, or accused of lying. Sometimes, even surface signals can be sufficient "proof" that certain emotional states or ideas apply to them.
In fact, as far as I can tell, you've agreed that the powerful do come under criticism, just that they handle it better?
I'm saying that the system is generally rigged for the powerful, even if "the system" is a social/subcultural context strongly influenced by progressive women.
> Powerful men tend to be believed when they claim ideas and emotional states. Not-powerful men tend to be not-believed, or accused of lying.
Interesting - I tend to see people in power believed far less than people without in the communities I'm in. I wonder if either I'm not seeing something, or I'm in a bubble and my communities are actually better than most.
Do you have any specific examples as they apply to feminist communities? I'd really like to find out whether I'm missing something.
Interesting - I tend to see people in power believed far less than people without in the communities I'm in.
I bet you're talking about people on screens and in media, when you say "people in power." (Perhaps administrators in school, or people in charge of organizations?) I'm talking about the more powerful people in your community that you actually talk to and interact with regularly. Basically the people who are actually relevant in the context of your ape dominance hierarchy ladder. Talking crap about distant figureheads of power doesn't count.
EDIT: For example, when was the last time a poor white cis-hetero man tried to join in your group as a feminist, and how did it go for him?
I'm not. I'm talking about the same people you are, I think? I'd really like some explanation of who precisely we're supposedly letting down, as this level of abstraction is getting to a level where either of us could say anything without evidence.
EDIT: There's a handful of poor cis white hetero men in my specific feminist/SJ group. Their thing is mostly being pro-unionisation in a way that falls in nicely with the more socialist tendencies of modern feminism, or they're unemployable due to mental or physical disability and struggling with the abysmal benefits system and have come to disbelieve that society as it stands is ever going to fix that, or in one case he's blind, and we support them in their efforts and fold them into our own as best as we can. I can't vouch for the makeup of other groups.
In fact, as far as I can tell, you've agreed that the powerful do come under criticism, just that they handle it better?
I'm saying that the system is generally rigged for the powerful, even if "the system" is a social/subcultural context strongly influenced by progressive women.