I pointed out the rhetorical trick you used to presume to speak for all men. Your response was to make the exact same appeal to authority that I see as part of the very problem Emma’s article examines.
I will, once again, point out how you presume to speak for others in your most recent comment and ignore the parts where you misrepresent my points or attempt to change the subject.
“most men have this particular insecurity from my personal life experiences”
You do not know most men and, even if you did, you do not have accurate insight into something as personal as their insecurities or desires. You do not have the authority to speak for them, which you did throughout the comment to which I replied.
“One can state how things are”
This connotes that you have incisive, overarching persepctive into how things are when, in this context, you don’t. You have incisive, subjective perspective into how you perceive things to be. What I take issue with is the rhetorical stunts you employ to mask the subjectivity of your statements and to distance yourself from the points.
Look at this part of your initial comment:
“Sexually dominant women are incredibly intimidating for a man. They cant be hunted, they are the hunter. Thats like part of the thrill for a man to hunt and pursue.”
Here, you state your perception of how things are, yet state it from an omniscient perspective which presumes to paint your perception as the definitive experience of maleness.
This is disingenuous.
The worst part about it is that it is avoidably disingenuous. By accepting this perspective as your own, dropping the florid hunting metaphor, and directly stating what you mean, you can offer genuine insight into your personal response to the article without any of the depersonalizing rhetorical tricks that posit you as an authority on anyone else’s inner workings.
“I find sexually dominant women intimidating. Pursuing women thrills me.”
is infinitely less presumptive and more poignant than any statement you could make in which you presume to speak for half of the human population.
The male identified half of the population is not a monolithic entity and to treat it so repeatedly, specifically in this context without any semblance of analysis or insight, reinforces harmful — and demonstrably untrue — stereotypes and perpetuates damaging socialization against which Emma’s work is pushing.
This is what I mean when I say that these comments contribute to the underlying societal problems under scrutiny here.
This is my last response in this thread. I have no desire to talk in circles with anyone. If you feel the need to respond, please read my previous comment again and try to understand it.