This is what I mean -- you're not reading and responding. You can look back at the quote yourself and see very clearly: I didn't tell you this was what you were saying. I told you this is what it sounds like from the outside, so you might want to clarify a bit. There was nothing for me to "backpedal" over, because you then attempted to clarify. Since it was clarified, there was no reason to go back over it--or so I thought.xXxJessicaxXx said:
Still very much not the point. I was simply using it as a quick example of how easy it is for the biases of others to seep into our lives. Since most folks in England don't encounter Chinese people daily, it likely doesn't occur to most that they could find an alternate name for the game. But what does the title even mean? Are the Chinese liars? Are they bad at communicating? Again, we don't have to keep talking about this game or anything, it's just a "food for thought" kind of deal.
Then don't give him the traffic. He doesn't represent a group that is even remotely significant in size. Objects on the internet are far smaller than they appear. There's also the problem that the internet is full of people willing to shout things they don't actually believe, just to get traffic by generating controversy.
The problem isn't what he's saying. The problem is that you are citing him as an example of something that you're applying to a much larger group. No, you're not applying it to all men or anything. Not even most, by the sound of what you're saying. But you're making this sound like it's representative of some actual widespread movement, rather than just an isolated nutjob. It's the same when guys bring up the occasional whack-job feminist that wants the government to round up all the penises and burn them.
Pointing out these extremes only distracts from useful discussion, because they're either just doing it for shock value... or they're so batshit insane that you'll never reach them anyway.
Also, the "you think I'm crazy because I'm a woman" stuff -- seriously? Is this actually an avenue of discussion you're looking to pursue?
Once again you undermine your own point. You're right that they should be more specific about directing the anger to the right place. They're fuming and venting, which often doesn't lead to the best communication skills.
But then you keep pointing out the system is "put in place by male lawmakers." So what? What does that matter? Let's say we have green people and blue people. And a green person happens to pass a law that says blue people don't have to obey the speed limit. Does that mean blue people have to speed? No. So, it's understandable that green people will be mad at:
1. The green people that made the law, because it is an unfair law.
2. The blue people that take advantage of the unfair law.
3. Blue people that defend the unfair law.
And the angry green people have different reasons for being mad at each of those groups. The anger itself is understandable, too. But notice nowhere in there does it declare they must be made at ALL blue people.
I hear this cited very often as an example of how the system sometimes discriminates against men. I also hear the slighted ex-husbands who are angry at the ex-wife for using that system to their advantage. What I don't hear is anyone claiming that women decided the system should be that way.
The problem men have is that a lot of the women talking about "equal rights" never bring these things up, or ignore/dismiss them when they are brought up. That is why they're mad at those women. Not for "making the policy," which they didn't, but rather for not helping stand against it in the name of true equality. It's like a coach that complains to the ref every time one of his team members gets fouled, but then complains about the other coach doing the same.
The idea is that "Silence is Agreement." If you (the "general" You, not you) are presented with an unfair situation, and you say nothing about it so long as it either benefits or doesn't directly impact you, you're silently agreeing with that law, in a sense. You didn't make the law, sure, but you're allowing it by remaining silent.
_____
A quick re-cap:
1. You seem to think that, in the case of things like custody decisions, men are angry at women for the existence of the law. And, as you've rightly noted, these laws were enacted "by men" usually, so this anger doesn't make sense to you.
2. I'm telling you that they aren't blaming women for making the law. They're angry because there's a lack of acknowledgement that the law is unfair. They're angry because some people claiming to be looking for equality never seem to address this inequality because it doesn't directly benefit themselves to do so. They're angry because sometimes they're even told it isn't unequal -- that it's right, for instance, for the mother to get custody almost automatically. That's the stuff they're angry about.
3. An unfair law or policy is unfair regardless of who makes it and who benefits/suffers under it. If a group complains about one unfair policy, but dismisses the claims of another group citing a different case of the same kind of unfairness, it makes them seem inconsistent and disingenuous regarding the "equality" rhetoric -- and neither side is blaming the other side itself for the existence of the policy itself.
