Gilozard: 1) You're linking me to random YouTube videos to prove your point? [Citation Still Needed]
And you're ignoring the videos that disprove your point (Trump supporters aren't being harassed in any kind of "significant scale"), much like you ignored the cited and linked statistics about abortion clinic attacks that prove you wrong.
2) 6 out of 10 law enforcement officials think you're wrong, but you do you. [Citation Still Needed]
I do I what? I already provided you with the link. And you'll have to clarify what that random statistic is about, if possible, returning the courtesy of providing a source.
I wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing, so I described the commonly recognized facets of toxic masculinity.
And I proceeded to show there's nothing inherently or exclusively masculine about those canards. You're welcome to address those rebuttals.
I have no idea why you are surprised that I was describing a stereotype, I put a warning label on it for your and everything
It's not a stereotype you're describing. It's a brogeyman borne of of androphobic gender studies.
The stereotype is that moms raise kids and dads bankroll the family, and when dads get involved in actual parenting they get either praised WAY out of proportion to their contribution or get side-eyed and made fun of as 'Mr. Mom'.
These types of assertions are myopic because they only take into account one end of the stick. Women are praised way out of proportion to their contribution when they accomplish something in STEM, for example, or deified as Olympians when achieving something in sports, while being side-eyed for looking or acting masculine. That's just the nature of the beast, and it works both ways.
This assumption that being male means being bad at or uninterested in kids, and that raising kids is weird when men do it, is toxic masculinity
It's not an assumption, as much as it is an ass-backwards interpretation of the verifiable fact that women are more nurturing and adept at doing same. The conflation of that into men being bad with or uninterested in kids is toxic femininity brainwashing.
You are coming off as someone who judges people solely by your personal experience and hasn't actually done a lot of thinking or learning about this.
Conversely, you come off as someone who
only thinks and "learns" about this stuff, as opposed to experiencing it. Go out more and date more men, instead of insulating yourself in a safe space.
A bunch of what you say is perpetuating stereotypes that harm men, for example. There's quite a few studies coming out about this if you want to look up the differences between nurturing and socialization for male and female children, for example.
And therein lies the problem. You put too much stock in "studies", when you should be experiencing these things and trying to understand why stereotypes and gender roles exist, and why women and men respond differently to different things, regardless of how much indoctrination they're subjected to. You'll have a much better understanding of these self-evident truths, and live a happier life as a result.
Also, a bunch of what you're saying is PUA crap, aka the most off-putting thing me and my female friends encounter when trying to date. 'High-value women', lol, #1 flag right there. We're not contest prizes you can assign a value to.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. There are also high-value men.
What drives women to initiate no-fault divorce is often men not keeping up their end of the relationship.
That's baloney, and the type of things mothers would smack their daughters about in olden times, if the latter tried to justify divorcing their husband over piddling motives. There's this thing called working on your marriage, but that doesn't sound as appealing in a throwaway society as a quick divorce.
Also domestic violence and emotional abuse, these can be huge factors
Funnily enough, even though it's arguably the most justifiable and understandable cause for divorce, it's also
one of the least likely to lead to divorce, so save the hyperbolic "huge factors" bit and stop trying to pull wool over people's eyes.
You need to use reliable sources, educate yourself, and perhaps not project your personal experience where it's not applicable.
You need to acknowledge said reliable sources, as opposed to sweeping them under the rug, live more, free yourself from dyscivic indoctrination and try to get some personal experiences to speak of, so you can contrast it against the dogmas you've been brainwashed with.
And, in an attempt at getting back on topic:
Gilozard: Being killed is an actual job risk for clinics in the southern states.
All sources I saw are calling right-wing extremism to be a bigger threat than Islamist extremism in Western countries.
Right-wing Christian/survivalist extremists are absolutely the most dangerous group currently in America. This is not debatable, by any statistic.
11 people have been killed in attacks on abortion clinics in the United States since 1993. Seven murders occurred in the 90s. This isn't even a fat tail. It's an absolute statistical nothing that only makes you look silly when trying to draw some sort of comparison on any level, let alone attempt to draw any sort of equivalence between "right-wing fundies" and Islamic terrorism. Shame on you. No, really,
shame on you for such utter moral bankruptcy in your priorities. I'd like to believe you're just misguided, but it's subversive and borderline evil to espouse such nonsense at a time like this.
