Which, if either, of these describes you

[ElboRuum]

33. No.

Just no. Don't know how else to say it.

1. Your contention that every group on DU is a men's group is so patently false that it seriously strains what little credibility you might have otherwise had. The demographics of DU, considered alone, without any of the obvious other evidence to suggest it considered (done some years ago, but I doubt it's changed much since) are heavily majority female. What ratio of female to male would be enough to convince you that this is not the case, that female points of view are more than well represented? 70%? 80%? Shall we go for the gold and say 100%?

2. There is no such thing as systemic oppression of the male sex, unless you count such things as shorter life spans due to a preponderance of men in hazardous work, bias by implication in family courts, over-representation of males in prison, under-representation of males in education (both as successful K-12 students, as college students, and graduates and as faculty), and a big pile of other things that I won't bother with, as the list is too extensive, has been discussed, and has typically fallen on the deaf ears of paleofeminists to which those discussions apply. It's likely you don't count them because it would imply that there is more to this equality thing than just what you consider important. Can't have that, now can we?

3. You seem to be confused as to what dogma is so here's a definition for you. Dogma is an unassailable view or framework of views prejudged to be correct by its adherents, even when evidence to the contrary is provided (and it has been, at length, and from many quarters, not just here), usually, but not explicity, as a part of a larger a philosophical or religious framework. And you are possessed of a dogmatic view. Sorry to say, but projecting your own dogmatism on to me, while rhetorically expected, doesn't change the fact that my view is not the dogmatic one.

I mean, really, a certain forum which shall remain nameless bans anyone who dares suggest even slightly that some of what they say is off-base, even in the most earnest interest of debating it, so how is that not dogmatic again?