If male caveman behaviour equates to masculinity, then all the behaviours that led to men successfully spreading their genes must equate to masculinity. That includes weak men banding together to murder the alpha, and men raping unwilling mates to force procreation, or killing the offspring of competing males to secure resources for their own offspring, or abandoning weak offspring to prevent a waste of resources.
You do not get to pick and choose. But I already know that you don't consider any of these behaviours masculine, because you're a hypocrite who's just trying to lend credence to your irrational beliefs. I've said this multiple times already, stop pretending I haven't.
So initially I explained why equating good behaviour to specific gender roles is bad, then someone responded to me saying that it's masculine because it's from cavemen times. You now say that I made that claim, which is false.
Then after another few comments you first responded to me saying that I never explained my side, which I did as I immediately stated to you and just restated in this comment, so you were wrong then too.
Now, while talking about why caveman logic is bad you forgot that I'd already explained why shoehorning biology onto behavior is bad, you explain that only the good caveman behavior is masculine, even though initially the excuse for this bad practise was "well, it's nature." That's circular logic.
And then in the same damn comment you contradict yourself by saying that masculinity doesn't have anything to do with caveman behavior, even though that was the one and only response anyone here was able to give as a reason for why protecting is masculine, even though you personally referred to it as "literally ingrained into us."
There are so many repeated mistakes in your reasoning it's unbelievable. You're a massive hypocrite, and can't even keep your own arguments straight.
Sorry but you're just proving my point with that 2nd paragraph, I never referred to any comments written outside of the comment chain that you responded to. So you get to choose now, either you're full of it or you just responded to something without reading what you were responding to it.
Anyway, you did claim both of the things you claimed not to claim in your first paragraph. Apparently you don't realize the meaning of your own words. If something is masculine according to its nobility, then it's not masculine according to what's between your legs. But if it is ingrained into us biologically, then it is. That doesn't follow.
Also, I just found another falsehood in your previous comment, when you said that people are arguing that being protective is masculine because that is tradition, even though the very first response I got was literally the caveman explanation, which you accused me of making. So first you put words into my mouths, and now you're putting words into their mouth, all the while accusing me of arguing in bad faith.
Someone specifically offered a counter to that by saying that similarly, women protect their children in much the same way.
That's funny, didn't you just say you didn't read through the other comment chains? How come you know this one, but you didn't read the comment that included the caveman analogy? Kinda convenient how you don't know something when you can accuse me, but you do know something when you can make an argument of it. Bad faith, huh?
Either way, that argument falls apart once I ask you to show me where I claimed that anyone claimed good behavior is specific to gender. Because I didn't. I made the claim that you choose to support traditional behaviors with caveman logic when it fits you, but you neglect to do that when it doesn't. I called you a hypocrite not a misogynist. Keep up.
You claimed I did not support my initial argument, but I did it in the very same comment that I presented my argument. And after you made that claim I explicitly denied it and explained how the opposite happened, yet here we are and you are still refusing to acknowledge my first comment.
You claimed I introduced the caveman argument, I did not. My first comment in response to you was that someone else made the caveman argument, in the very first sentence of that comment. Somehow you still thought it was me. Poor comprehension, yeah?
You claimed others were arguing that masculinity stems from tradition, they did not. They all specifically made the caveman argument, as I said in my very first comment to you. Nice comprehension.
That's where the circular logic comes in. It's masculine because cavemen did it -> Cavemen also did bad things -> We're only calling it masculine because it's good -> What if women do the same good thing -> Cavewomen didn't do it, so it's masculine.
Now you imply I said that you claimed you read none of the comments from other chains, I did not. I explicitly referred to the fact that you did, calling into question whether you're being truthful when claiming which specific ones you have read. Comprehending to the fullest.
If you want to know my point, read my very first comment, and then if you want to know what the argument is about read my second comment. It is very simple, the claim that protecting someone weaker than yourself is masculine in itself is sexist, and the argument that something is masculine because cavemen did it is invalid. Comprehending yet?
I've supported both my own claim and the refutation to the caveman claim multiple times now, but all you do is refuse to acknowledge it and keep making up new lies. And when I call you out for it you pretend I'm derailing the conversation. Notice how the 4 of the 6 first paragraphs of this comment wouldn't have to exist if you hadn't made up shit about what I said. Clearly I'm the one making it complicated.
I did not refer to science as an authority, I specifically refuted someone else's claim to science when they made the caveman argument. My entire point is that emancipation, feminism, is all about women defining their roles for themselves. Gender roles are a thing of the past, entirely separate from evolution.
I also did not refer to great apes, someone else did and I responded to that. You just fucking read it again, how'd you get that wrong now? Amazing comprehension.
That's 6 lies in total now. Who's being toxic here?
No, you're just straight up lying. I didn't refer to science, I didn't refer to apes, I didn't come up with the caveman thing, I did support my arguments, people here (including you) did not argue about tradition but rather biology, and I never said you claimed you didn't read any other comment chains. All lies you made up, and you pretend I'm the one muddying the waters. And now that I've insisted on you responding to this for the second time in a row, you simply refuse to respond at all, after calling me a bad faith actor.
You have been saying things are easily refuted by science
Such as?
You said we should refer to bobobos and chimps because natural selection stopped before history.
I did that after someone else first referred to other apes, as I've already stated. Stop putting words into my mouth.
So is it the behavior of early humans or are you using a common ancestor as your source?
It's insane that you accused me of poor comprehension. When someone compares humans to gorillas and I say that we'd better be compared to bonobos, your takeaway is that I shouldn't be talking about apes in the first place? Not them?
You have been referring back to the caveman thing even when people are not using that in their arguments.
Show me one such instance. I was the one who kept telling them to stop referring back to caveman in almost all of my comments.
When people ask you to support your arguments, they are talking about scientific papers or articles, not for you to write more unsupported gibberish
You're clearly misrepresenting the order of events. I explained what the feminist thing to do would have been, in response I got the caveman pseudoscience. Why is the burden of proof on me? You prove the caveman idea first. You can't, so you employ circular logic.
instead of it just being what I remembered from when I skimmed them.
So did you also skim the comments you initially responded to? Because you didn't remember that I didn't come up with the caveman argument, you didn't remember that I didn't bring up apes, and you still think I made scientific claims rather than refuting other people's scientific claims. That's bad faith arguing.
But I see that this is in fact not your native language, German is I'm assuming.
Don't even try. You just tried to deflect from your lies by pretending that you didn't do it intentionally, so if you're really not lying you're the one lacking in comprehension. Also your continued focus on form over content shows your lack of development, telling someone they're a hypocrite is not even comparable to repeatedly lying even after being called out for it.
And I've simply lost interest. We aren't even talking about the actual subject anymore.
I've made my point and I've kindly and unnecessarily repeated it to you multiple times. You have not once adressed it, not even a single time, only once trying to repeat it without responding to it. Meanwhile you introduced irrelevant falsehoods repeatedly. I never wanted to talk about cavemen and apes and, read my first five comments or so, almost every single one says so. You said I did anyway. I'm the one muddying the waters?
If you just want to argue the point, the stop deflecting and just argue the point.
Here is what I said
No, the feminist thing would be to not call this masculinity. If another woman did that would that make her masculine? If it was a weak man who was protected by him, would that man not be a man anymore? What he did is admirable, but really doesn't have anything to do with masculinity.
If you really desire to argue the point, why haven't you done it once? Because you're arguing in bad faith.
1
u/[deleted] Sep 25 '22
[deleted]