You're right, I'm sure glad there are a number of progressive Republican politicians who don't want to control women's bodies for them and want to actually find ways to support women becoming more equal in our society. Like....

This I find interesting, because the above poster (and I) were talking about the tendency of TwoX to be a circlejerk, and your response amounts to "but the circlejerk is right." That's fine, but it's still a circle filled with jerking.

Your entire post is kind of my point.

"Newsflash: Women tend to support feminism and feminist ideals. Next, racial minorities tend to support the NAACP."

Odd, because last time I checked 44% of women voted for the Republican candidate in 2012. Odder still that no part of TwoX claims to be about promoting feminism, just to foster discussion among women on reddit. Which means two things are likely.

(1). Reddit does not represent any demographic writ large.

(2). Views from the 44% of women who do not agree with liberalism (up to and including feminism) are not encouraged on TwoX.

See again: it's a circlejerk.

And what makes your argument here interesting is that it boils down to "it's not a circlejerk, it's just a consensus among this self-selected group about a particular set of issues." Which would also mean subreddits like /r/libertarian is not a circlejerk, or even TRP is not a circlejerk.

"Women support feminism and won't listen to arguments to the contrary" does not make TwoX not a circlejerk, it just explains why that particular circle jerks in that particular way.

You're right, every subreddit should be like TwoX, where men can talk about women's issues for them. The idea of discussion spaces about women's issues being driven by women is clearly a ridiculous concept.

The above poster claimed the subreddit fosters discussion and is less hive-mindy than most subreddits. I was responding to that claim in particular, not to the relative value (or lack thereof) of relegating men to the sidelines of major societal issues.

But I'm sure you're right. It's not like women have ever taken a stance about issues affecting men in the public sphere as they related to gender equality. They leave those discussions to the men who know best about issues affecting men.

I'm going to spend more time arguing with women about their own experiences and discrediting them with my asinine pseudo-rational commentary and whining about feminism.

Nifty false dichotomy there!

Because the only choices are silence or discrediting people's experiences.

Incidentally, and I'm honestly curious, why does anecdotal experience trump statistical analysis in this area? Are women (and women's issues) so incredibly special and different from society writ large that we should take an individual's story over other evidence when discussing major issues of policy?

But there I go again discrediting people. Damn me and my testicles, they make me so gosh darned rude.

If women's spaces are not open to hijacking and derailing by male posters, I will implicitly insult them for not adhering to my rigorous standards of debate.

I do like the idea that being able to say "huh, maybe it's actually that pro-lifers think that a fetus is equivalent to a child and oppose abortion (not out of ignorance or animus) for the same reason I oppose allowing parents to kill their children" is somehow hijacking and derailing.

Or how a discussion about the methodology of gathering rape (and false rape) statistics and how they influence the numbers gathered derails discussions about rape law.

But I'm most curious why it's hijacking and derailing if and only if it comes from a man.

Are you saying a woman making those points is fine, but they're bad if they come from a man?

If they're bad either way, it's a circlejerk. If they're bad if and only if said by a man, that's messed up.

All ideas are equally worth debating over and over,

I like this idea of efficiency. As though everyone involved is so busy that responding to (or even ignoring) arguments we have seen and seen disputed somehow takes away our precious "screwing around on the computer" time.

If I were so busy, I wouldn't have commented in the first place, and wouldn't be responding now.

open debate is inherently a good thing

Yes.

Because the alternative is completely insular communities which simply reinforce their own preexisting beliefs and circlejerk their own rightness and the stupidity and malice of those who disagree with them.

Oh... Well, I guess since your entire post is why that's a good thing we may just have to disagree about this.

Incidentally, what we're doing right now would be considered "open debate."

Thanks for playing.