Minor nit-pick: When you edit my text to cut out things I said - as you cut out me saying " I don't view the world that way; I tend to see sexism as a two-sided coin, in which both women and men are harmed and unfairly limited by sexist gender expectations. My views are very influenced by Sandra Bem, in this regard." - it's considered ordinary practice to mark the place you've altered my quote with ellipses, rather than not marking your editing at all.
Then nothing is as simple as "men oppress women."
Exactly! The world isn't that simple, and I'm not claiming it is. The weird thing is, you're acting like you've said something that I'd disagree with.
Look, either gender is a significant factor for widespread disenfranchisement or it isn't.
Since it's clear you're going to be using the word "disenfranchisement" a lot, perhaps you could tell me exactly what you mean by it?
First you wrote this:
Let's put the challenge on hold and discuss the "totality of oppression."
But then you wrote this:
It's like this... my challenge is a net with really large holes, it only filters out the most obvious and persistent examples of socially condoned disenfranchisment. Using it you guys can't find anything supporting your assertions about the oppression of women, so, instead, you use a finer net that catches more ambigious examples of socially condoned disenfranchisment and then attempt to use that to "prove" women are more disenfranchised.
You can't have it both ways. Is the challenge on hold, or isn't it?
I already explained why your challenge - in which only one side is allowed to set the terms of the debate - is not the way that debate is actually done, typically. I explained why different, fairer rules have evolved, and argued that we shouldn't throw away these well-developed and time-tested procedures without good reason. You didn't respond to this argument at all.
If you want to put your challenge on hold, as you claimed, then I'll forget about it. If you insist on using your "I've designed the rules so I can't possibly lose, and I'm not willing to debate in a fair set-up" challenge as a club to beat me with, however, then the challenge hasn't been put "on hold"; on the contrary, you're bringing it up, and we should continue discussing why it is you insist on rules in which you are allowed to arbitrarily set definitions and I'm not, and why you're unwilling to use the long-existing standards of fair debate, in which definitions are set by both parties.
Oh, and by the way...
....more ambigious examples of socially condoned disenfranchisment...
It would be hard to imagine a more ambiguous example of disadvantage than having to register for the draft, in a time when there is virtually no chance of a draft taking place. If that's what you're talking about when you suggest men are disadvantaged, then I think you're ignoring real problems in favor of somethng that, although clear-cut, actually doesn't matter much.
Although I - live virtually every feminist I've ever discussed the question with - agree that the male-only draft registration is sexist and unfair, it seems to me that there are much more important things for men to complain about. Like the way that men are raised to be "tough" and not complain, leading to worse health outcomes for unmarried men, because they tend to ignore things like regular doctors' visits. Like the way that occupational segregation leads some men (especially poor men of color) to take jobs in which they are more likely to be injured or killed. Like the epidemic of schoolyard bullying aimed at boys who are perceived as not being "masculine" enough by our society's standards. Like the way general, sexist social expectations push many men into a "breadwinner" role and many women into a "homemaker" role, to the disadvantage of both.
There are so many more serious problems men face than a nonexistent draft, in my opinion.
* * *
Regarding a debate, if you want to put the idea aside and just have a discussion, that's fine with me.
If you refuse to put the idea aside, however, then here's my suggestion for a format: You put forward a proposition, and then it's up to me to attack it and you to defend it. Or, alternatively, I'll put forward a proposition, and it's up to you to attack it and I'll defend it. Definitions can be suggested by either party, and if we disagree on definitions, then that's just part of the debate.
Note that this is different from "Typhonblue sets all definitions, and the other party isn't allowed to contest it. Tyhponblue decides what proposition the other party will defend, rather than letting the other party choose for himself." In other words, rather than being Typhonblue's party, it's a fair debate format, with both of us on equal footing. Why are you so opposed to that?
(Personally, if it's up to me, I'll probably suggest a very narrow proposition, such as "a significant part of the wage gap is caused by sexism" or "Mary Koss' work on rape prevalence is excellent and should be taken seriously." In my experience, narrow debates tend to have more meat to them than much broader debates. But that's just me, you might disagree.)
