A Rebuttal to Krantzstone:
Krantzstone Item 25:
Sitting on the subway while taking up more public space than is necessary is obnoxious and rude, and is part and parcel of patriarchal notions of male entitlement to public space, often at the expense of women who are expected to defer to men. So yes, that is sexist and misogynistic in that sense, particularly if men react in a hostile and violent manner when asked by women to be more considerate of others when in public spaces. Sadly, all too many insecure men who have swallowed whole the patriarchal stereotypes of masculinity react badly when even politely asked.
As you mention later on, some women can also take up far more space than they should. While men may do it more with splayed legs, women just have another way of doing so. Hence “manspreading” is no more an act of inconsideration (deliberate or negligent) as “woman-taking-up-space” is. The whole “sexist” part about terms like “manspreading” is that it is meant to focus on the way men can be negligent, and effectively precludes women since women, be it due to physical structure or just plain modesty, don’t splay their legs while seated.
It is specious to state that “manspreading” is often at the expense of women. It is because it implies that it is done with a premeditated focus on denying women the space (and if not, then not specifically to deny any person). In reality, if someone is being so self-centred, they are agnostic to the sex of the offended. To suggest that it targets women, or is “sexist” or “misogynist” is unfounded and really just more of the typical “only women are victims” mentality.
If the person taking up too much space is negligent, simply asking him for some space should suffice. In many cases, the guy really has no idea (so he is not picking on the women… get it?) If he’s doing it because he thinks he owns the space, then the perception that he is being misogynist is still unlikely. He’s just being inconsiderate (and not specifically to women), and will only concede to a perceived greater adversary. You may pretend that it is “sexist”, but, in reality, it is just anti-weaker-human.
Men are “insecure” if they react badly? No. It depends on what they are reacting to. We’ll cover this off in the next section.
Krantzstone Item 26:
A man secure in his masculinity would not be hurt or offended when asked to be mindful of the space they take up in public, and would be more than happy to share public spaces with other people of any sex and gender.
Most people can see the subterfuge you are trying there, Krantz. You assume that the reaction is to an innocuous “request to be mindful of the space the take up in public”. What you ignore is that often this request is couched as an attempt to shame someone in front of their peers. You should be familiar with that tactic since you take many opportunities to denigrate Gorf beyond merely addressing an argument. A condescending approach is rarely “just asking someone to be mindful”. Many women feel it is their “right” to use this kind of passive aggression to retaliate when they “feel” slighted. It has little to do with whether the man is “secure in his masculinity”. You can delude yourself with that connection, but you’re hardly fooling anyone else.
Few people are accommodating to being publically browbeat. As much as you Neo-feminists think women are “perfect beings” (and, really, you all act as if that is true), they are not. What we see a lot of is women, hiding behind the social rule that “men don’t act aggressively towards women” to be as confrontational as possible. When I guy doesn’t acquiesce, Neo-feminists try to suggest it is the man’s fault for being unsure of his masculinity. Nice try. But there’s a classic case where SJW’s think that women are not responsible for their actions.
Krantzstone Item 27:
Feel free to make failed attempts at impugning my masculinity all you like, but you see, such insults only works on people who buy into patriarchal and stereotypical notions of what masculinity is, namely people like you. But then, ad hominems are the last refuge of a logically fallacious misogynist troll.
What can only be seen as the remnants of masculinity isn’t even remotely as resilient as you pretend it is. Considering how you attempt to harm Gorf with insults coupled with the selective cognition you use to support your views, your demeanor is very like that of a hurt woman. You can attempt to say that is an attack on your “masculinity” but it is a reasonable assessment based on your behavior. It is you that constantly resorts to ad hominem, Krantz. Most avoid it save for when it is a consequence of impressing a point. You go out of you way to introduce it.
To recap, your position is based on the deliberate ignorance of how sexual dimorphism makes it practically impossible that any leading edge of the sword will have a female representative. Females have been traditionally employed in military roles where the advantage of the physical factor (be it strength, stamina or resilience) is not critical to the mission. Even so, women have been found in roles when the pool of more capable candidates has diminished beyond an adequate supply. You basically, steer the conversation away from that, and purposely towards denigrating your opponent whenever possible. It’s not about seeking truth, it is about harming the “feelings” of anyone that stands in your way. That is not masculine. That is the passive aggression that is the domain of angry females. If anyone is a troll here, it is you.