> When, as a reaction to the simple statement that there are less women on this map than there could be, someone says "[women] aren't being ignored, poor people are being ignored", I don't need to assume good faith in that individual. The goal of downplaying doesn't have to be stated to be obvious.
Fair enough, I'm not going to argue too hard on that matter since I do agree with your original statement that there could be more women on the map.
> Your apologetics are frankly worrying. If you really think lines of reasoning that downplay the importance of taking note of women and shoehorn male victimhood into those discussions, I don't think we can have a productive conversation.
You're assuming a position I don't have. I was pointing out that your discussion style is counter-productive, that doesn't mean I side with the other commenter, or yourself. But since your point wasn't to engage in discussion, I guess it doesn't matter.
Fair enough, I'm not going to argue too hard on that matter since I do agree with your original statement that there could be more women on the map.
> Your apologetics are frankly worrying. If you really think lines of reasoning that downplay the importance of taking note of women and shoehorn male victimhood into those discussions, I don't think we can have a productive conversation.
You're assuming a position I don't have. I was pointing out that your discussion style is counter-productive, that doesn't mean I side with the other commenter, or yourself. But since your point wasn't to engage in discussion, I guess it doesn't matter.