A Rebuttal to Krantzstone:
Krantzstone Item 30:
Heh, and here you had us convinced you actually cared about wanting women in combat (not really). 😛
Effectively, women are not barred from trying out for the NHL, yet to date, the only significant instance of a female making it to that level was a token exhibition of a female net-minder. Even then, it was really more of a politically correct stunt than anything else. If women can’t even get in where there’s huge incentive (as in a multi-million dollar contract) then how do you think they could ever be part of Seal Team 6? Seriously, one can argue the academics of it, but the reality is political correctness shouldn’t overrule common sense. Show us an MMA female fighter that can last one round against a low-ranking man. Come on. Show us. You’re not in Kansas anymore.
Krantzstone Item 31:
No one is telling you to crush your testicles while sitting on public transit, and the arguments against ‘manspreading’ have nothing to do with that at all: it’s about taking up _more space than you need_. The operative words I just highlighted. If you feel you need to sit with a certain amount of space between your legs, that’s fine:
Gorf brings up an important aspect of this. Namely, he is drawing attention to how “manspreading” is tied to the physiological structure of men, including the different pelvic shape. Women may exhibit space-hogging behavior, but likely not with the same methodology. However, neo-feminists are all about highlighting things that “men” do, and surreptitiously suggesting that the underlying attitude effectively only exists in men (and is targeted largely against women). Both notions are unfounded (and I have already explained why, so don’t pretend that it has no foundation) and meant to promote prejudice and man-bashing. “All about taking up more space” is an obfuscation. Man and women can and will be similarly inconsiderate in this regard. They just apply different techniques.
Krantzstone Item 32:
…just don’t take up an entire row of seats just because you’re too homophobic and insecure in your masculinity to want to have to share public space with another man, or you feel too ensconced in male entitlement to want to have to share public space with women.
Taking up extra room isn’t not necessarily from homophobia, insecurity of one’s masculinity, or entitlement (male or otherwise). You are basically building all of this on top of the false premise that, if aware of their space overage, that they even care what the sex or sexual preference of the potentially put-off are. If someone is hogging space, it’s not only founded in the false dichotomy of “homophobe” or “misogynist”. If they feel entitled, it’s not because they think it is because they are male. They feel entitled. That is all. This is more of the usual dishonest tactics that we all see Neo-feminists using.
Krantzstone Item 33:
People of any sex and gender leaving their bags on seats so as to ‘reserve’ their personal space around them is similarly rude, but doesn’t necessarily have the same sense of male entitlement to public space that ‘manspreading’ represents, as a kind of territorial pissing to mark territory rather than a genuine need for said space. Obviously larger people take up more space, and no one is suggesting that people need to put themselves in supreme discomfort to the point of pain, but rather this is simply asking others, and in particular men, to be mindful of the amount of space they take up in public, because they may be entirely unaware of what they are doing. But once informed, be courteous and respectful of others’ rights to public space and sit up straight, close your legs and make room for other people.
Neo-feminists and their sycophants (it’s a horse race to decide which group is more pathetic) can’t even be respectful of concepts that don’t agree with their narrative, and, you feel that people should be proactively more aware of how they may encroach on other people’s space, “especially” men? That is about as big a double standard as it gets.
Neo-feminists go out of their way to troll sites that are focused for men. They rally and assault men who quietly gather to discuss men’s issues. A recent case in Mizzou involved a well-known advocate of Neo-feminism feeling it was her “right” to bar people from a public space. Sorry, Krantz. But society cannot turn a blind eye to the entitlement that Neo-feminists regularly exercise while they demand that men, specifically men, be ever so wary of their behavior since it may hurt some woman’s “feelings” (or in this case, have her have to “ask” for a little more space on the bus.
You, yourself have trouble separating the discussion of a topic from attacking people with childish insults, so it is hardly your place to be lecturing people on common courtesy. So, you are now informed. Please get clean up your act and have some consideration for others. Yes, it is you that applies specious arguments and hypocritical tactics to relieve Rachel. I’ve shown it in detail. So don’t try to say “Gorf, attacked you first”.
Krantzstone Item 33:
And really, you’re the one who brought this issue up as a diversionary tactic because you already lost the argument about women in combat roles. 😛 I’m just explaining things for you because you don’t seem to have a good grasp on the issues involved.
Gorf brought up “manspreading” because it demonstrated that Neo-feminists are very much about exaggerating minor problems to the point of being ludicrous. He framed it well. Neo-feminists call practically everything “misogyny” regardless of what or how effectively minor the alleged transgression is. They excel at creating nebulous and dynamic definitions so that they have a broad brush to paint with. That is a deliberately deceitful practice, and that is what Gorf was talking about. It is not “diversionary” by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as losing an argument on women in combat roles… where did he lose? He brought up how Rachel thinking that women “fighting for rights” is disrespectful of how the relatively safe environment (aka the First World today) was created and remains defended by men offering up life and limb. This is the entitlement of Neo-feminism. They do not fathom that it is “Patriarchy” that gives keeps the jungle and rivals at bay. It isn’t a civilized rival that women would be fighting if they were running the First World. It is still a brutal one that will wrestle it from you any way they can. Neo-feminism didn’t (and really can’t) be effective in that fight. (Hint: It won’t be women you will be fighting, it will be men. History should show you who will win that).
It was YOU that tried to turn his CONTEXT into that of a history accounting of why women were not usually found in front line combat. He wasn’t talking about that because he didn’t have to. Even so, I have taken the task to show why your reasoning is wrong. So, he didn’t start that war, and you still lost it. I took the time to explain it to you, because Gorf, like most people, do not feel you are worth educating.
Now, do you have anything on this topic, or do you still think you have any credibility left as a some sort of an intellectual champion?