1) “entire culture of men” again, the only people who do this are feminazis and misandrists. No one else is defining the very notion of being male to be sexist. Saying “men are trash” for instance isn’t literal (made clear many times) and just isn’t oppressive especially in comparison to the grand scheme of things, like, say, the disproportionate likelihood for women in the U.S. to be raped than men (1 in 5 to 1 in 71 respectively (!!!)) [https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics
]. Even knowing this, no one needs this repetitive “not all men” rhetoric because it merely states the obvious without presenting a unique motive that people haven’t heard or understood. It kind of sounds like gaslighting to me but I’m not sure
2) Is/ought fallacy. Just because a pay difference is normal or the status quo doesn’t mean that disparity ought to exist. Granted, that disparity has narrowed [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/09/gender-pay-gap-facts/
] but it still persists, and it’s insufficient to justify keeping that inequality just because it’s normal or the difference is small.
By the way, I personally haven’t heard of companies that discriminate against men by pay (I could be ill-informed) so could you provide examples? (Note you would have to provide enough to show such a trend is significant enough for your statement to hold that much substance)
3) So what are you trying to achieve here with this statement? If you’re discussing anti-discriminatory laws, we could cross-apply your argument to every single existing law and derive the premises:
1) Laws exist,
2) But so does crime, or acts against laws
C) Therefore, laws are useless and should be repealed???
If you’re talking about giving them rights in general - even completely disregarding the 2015 legalization of same-sex marriage across the U.S. which is an immense milestone by itself, the implementation of pro-LGBT+ laws have been effective in assisting in normalizing them and integrating them into society as equal human beings. The point is, there is more that can be done in terms of social treatment and perception of these people, and it is simply naive to assert that such movements are useless when they are clearly not lol. Even then, no one is saying that people against the community will becompletely eradicated or something. No one actually thinks that’s gonna happen. Social improvement/activism isn’t mutually exclusive with people against LGBT+ people.
4) Impeached, sorry. My argument still stands.
5) Again, you’re trying to baselessly attribute an extremist belief or statement to a non-extremist group. Feminism is not synonymous with misandry.
6) Are you just blame-shiftingnow? Do you realize how nonsensical it is to blame feminists for YOUR OWN bias about them lmao. You’re the one with the skewed perception of them, after all.