I think the motivation for the second comment in the screenshot is what is really in contention here. Personally, I read the second comment as an assertion that, similar to tumors, women are not supposed to have body hair even if it grows on them.
Now that doesn’t mean I think you’re incorrect. Just the other commenter was picking up on something else in the post.
You’re perceived intention should be irrelevant during an argument. Either expose the belief directly so it can be engaged with honestly, or focus on the logic of the argument being made. It is entirely possible to be both correct in your argument and incorrect in the foundational belief. But engaging with a factually correct argument with the assumption that it was borne from a place of ignorance just makes YOU less capable of being reasonable.
The first poster made a claim, and assigned faulty logic as justification.
The second poster pointed out the flaw in this logic.
The third poster ignored the logic argument entirely and resorted to an appeal to outrage rather than the structure of the argument itself.
Personal experience, beliefs, gender, identity. All of these points are entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The title of this post was about logic. The second commenter pointed out a legitimate logical error, and the third commenter exposed themselves at appealing to indignation and dressing it up as an argument. You (royal you) shouldn’t support bad reasoning just because it agrees with you.
It’s not impossible that they are, but given there’s a perfectly logical and highly plausible explanation that they’re making an entirely cogent point (because the argument is severely flawed, and they point out the flaw accurately), I choose to not just assume that they’re a shitty person who thinks women are icky and need to shave their legs or they’re gross – like the third comment from “geekandmisandry” (really self-reporting the bias there) does instead of just… asking them to clarify.
The majority of men do expect and prefer that women are shaved, thus the assumption.
You know, I wasn’t going to call it out in my original comment because it was beside the overall point, but “geeksandmisandry” and now you are interestingly assuming the gender of an anonymous user with a default pfp and the gender-neutral username “dinogatrr”.
I don’t think even if they were a man that this would be a good reason to assume they’re a shitty person (especially because the sample of “men on Tumblr” is going to be vastly different than “men overall” or even “men on social media overall”). But it is an interesting assumption on top of an assumption: they’re a man, and they’re a shitty person who thinks women’s legs are naturally icky.
It’s from experience. Having moved through this world as a woman, these types of views primarily come from men. I’ve had women call out my body hair before because women work to uphold the patriarchy as well.
The phrasing and casual belief that even though women grow body hair it should be seen like cancer and taken off of the body sounds like a man to me.
I’m happy to stand corrected, but I’m also not dumb enough to ignore the teachings I’ve gleaned from living as a woman.
Which is easy to say when your hypothesis is functionally unfalsifiable (used heuristically in support of another functionally unfalsifiable hypothesis).
I can’t stop you from believing it; I can push back and say it’s vibes on top of vibes to legitimize your assumption about a random person you’ve never spoken to who said something that’s totally benign and entirely correct unless you actively ascribe malice to it.
Against my better judgment regarding double standards, I’m going to treat this legitimately unexpected level of misandry with kid gloves compared to how I’d treat even garden-variety misogyny and say that I hope you find peace with any trauma that may have led you to this point. Sincerely, no smarm, no “bless your heart” condescension – I understand what it is to be burdened with a lifetime of systemic distrust through no fault of your own.
Still, there’s nothing more I can say to a closed loop of “men are assumed malicious and a man probably made this statement because this statement is misogynistic and the statement is assumed misogynistic because a man made it and if a man made it then surely it’s misogynistic […]”. Even though we irreconcilably disagree on the OP, and I don’t think your assumptions about men are overall accurate or healthy, I appreciate your polite candor about why you feel the way you do.
I think the motivation for the second comment in the screenshot is what is really in contention here. Personally, I read the second comment as an assertion that, similar to tumors, women are not supposed to have body hair even if it grows on them.
Now that doesn’t mean I think you’re incorrect. Just the other commenter was picking up on something else in the post.
You’re perceived intention should be irrelevant during an argument. Either expose the belief directly so it can be engaged with honestly, or focus on the logic of the argument being made. It is entirely possible to be both correct in your argument and incorrect in the foundational belief. But engaging with a factually correct argument with the assumption that it was borne from a place of ignorance just makes YOU less capable of being reasonable.
The first poster made a claim, and assigned faulty logic as justification.
The second poster pointed out the flaw in this logic.
The third poster ignored the logic argument entirely and resorted to an appeal to outrage rather than the structure of the argument itself.
Personal experience, beliefs, gender, identity. All of these points are entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The title of this post was about logic. The second commenter pointed out a legitimate logical error, and the third commenter exposed themselves at appealing to indignation and dressing it up as an argument. You (royal you) shouldn’t support bad reasoning just because it agrees with you.
It’s not impossible that they are, but given there’s a perfectly logical and highly plausible explanation that they’re making an entirely cogent point (because the argument is severely flawed, and they point out the flaw accurately), I choose to not just assume that they’re a shitty person who thinks women are icky and need to shave their legs or they’re gross – like the third comment from “geekandmisandry” (really self-reporting the bias there) does instead of just… asking them to clarify.
The majority of men do expect and prefer that women are shaved, thus the assumption.
You know, I wasn’t going to call it out in my original comment because it was beside the overall point, but “geeksandmisandry” and now you are interestingly assuming the gender of an anonymous user with a default pfp and the gender-neutral username “dinogatrr”.
I don’t think even if they were a man that this would be a good reason to assume they’re a shitty person (especially because the sample of “men on Tumblr” is going to be vastly different than “men overall” or even “men on social media overall”). But it is an interesting assumption on top of an assumption: they’re a man, and they’re a shitty person who thinks women’s legs are naturally icky.
It’s from experience. Having moved through this world as a woman, these types of views primarily come from men. I’ve had women call out my body hair before because women work to uphold the patriarchy as well.
The phrasing and casual belief that even though women grow body hair it should be seen like cancer and taken off of the body sounds like a man to me.
I’m happy to stand corrected, but I’m also not dumb enough to ignore the teachings I’ve gleaned from living as a woman.
Which is easy to say when your hypothesis is functionally unfalsifiable (used heuristically in support of another functionally unfalsifiable hypothesis).
I can’t stop you from believing it; I can push back and say it’s vibes on top of vibes to legitimize your assumption about a random person you’ve never spoken to who said something that’s totally benign and entirely correct unless you actively ascribe malice to it.
I do tend to assume that men I don’t know are malicious as a baseline because they are a danger to women.
Against my better judgment regarding double standards, I’m going to treat this legitimately unexpected level of misandry with kid gloves compared to how I’d treat even garden-variety misogyny and say that I hope you find peace with any trauma that may have led you to this point. Sincerely, no smarm, no “bless your heart” condescension – I understand what it is to be burdened with a lifetime of systemic distrust through no fault of your own.
Still, there’s nothing more I can say to a closed loop of “men are assumed malicious and a man probably made this statement because this statement is misogynistic and the statement is assumed misogynistic because a man made it and if a man made it then surely it’s misogynistic […]”. Even though we irreconcilably disagree on the OP, and I don’t think your assumptions about men are overall accurate or healthy, I appreciate your polite candor about why you feel the way you do.
Prejudice is bad and should be avoided.
And men I don’t know also pose the greatest risk to me as a woman. It is what it is.