Ok, sure, yeah, I guess I can agree that if a false accusation actually happens, all sides' stories should be heard. Weird as it is for you to bring it up that way.
But female dominated positions aren't "diversified" because it's one of the few places where a woman actually gets a shot at a job. This is the entire purpose behind "diversification": minorities and oppressed groups don't get a fair shot at normal jobs, so they have to get lumped into jobs that society thinks is "appropriate" for them. So, while I think you are misguided in your criticism, I agree that we should root out why exactly women are relegated to being the majority in only a few select stereotypical positions.
"Toxic masculinity" is not nonsense. I'm a male and it's easy for me to see what toxic masculinity looks like. Misogyny, homophobia, violence, and other forms of oppression are all traits men overwhelmingly exhibit more than women. If women acted like this we would label it and talk about it and we wouldn't be called bigots (except by the people trying to deny that it exists).
> Ok, sure, yeah, I guess I can agree that if a false accusation actually happens, all sides' stories should be heard.
You misread what I wrote. My point was when it is proven that a false rape accusation is made, people turn the focus to how the proven false rape accusation hurt other women, not how it hurt the man who was falsely accused.
People say that false rape accusations are bad because it makes it harder for actual rape victims to be believe. What people should be saying is false rape accusations are bad because it hurts the falsely accused.
> Weird as it is for you to bring it up that way.
No. It's weird you misinterpreted a fairly straightforward point I was making.
> But female dominated positions aren't "diversified" because it's one of the few places where a woman actually gets a shot at a job.
One of the few places? This is hilarious. You are doing exactly what I said. You are spinning discrimination against men into victimization of women.
> I'm a male and it's easy for me to see what toxic masculinity looks like.
I'm sure you are.
> Misogyny, homophobia, violence, and other forms of oppression are all traits men overwhelmingly exhibit more than women.
That sounds very sexist. What's the difference between you and sexists decades ago saying women's "toxic femininity" needed to be "cured" with hysterectomies?
> If women acted like this we would label it and talk about it
There are just as many misogynous, homophobic, violent and "other forms of oppression" women out there.
It's so funny. I bet you are the first one to talk about how there are no differences between men and women right? We are pretty much the same. Right? And yet you claim that men are "toxic".
> One of the few places? This is hilarious. You are doing exactly what I said. You are spinning discrimination against men into victimization of women.
"Spinning" would imply this is propaganda, or that I'm using some disingenuous or deceptive tactic. But instead, I simply pointed out that there is probably a cause behind the "dominance of women in certain professional fields", and that it may in fact be related to women's oppression. You can disagree all you want, I don't really give a shit, because you aren't interested in finding out if this is or isn't the case - you aren't even capable of doing research to find out if this is some ridiculous "spin" or made up story, or find any backstory to it at all.
> There are just as many misogynous, homophobic, violent and "other forms of oppression" women out there.
First of all, just as many misogynous women as men? So there are just as many women who hate women as there are men who hate women? Sounds weird. Why would they hate themselves, especially in large numbers? And just as many homophobic women? So why isn't women beating up other women for being gay such a cultural trope as it is for macho male culture? Why are there so few women at nationalist, white supremacist, neo-nazi, and similar rallies? And I'll just post this Wikipedia page (I know you're not going to read it, but again, I don't care): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 7 men. And 1 in 7 women experiencing at least an attempted rape in their lifetime compared to 1 in 37 men. Women are also more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner than men. And 1 in 6 women have been stalked in their lifetime compared to 1 in 19 men. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_Unite...
You had a valid point about listening to the stories of men who are accused of rape and the subsequent aftermath thereof, and then you threw it all away by being an MRA shill and an uninformed troll. And here I am, correcting your dumb ass, because some idiots on this forum are actually upvoting you like you have a valid point.
But female dominated positions aren't "diversified" because it's one of the few places where a woman actually gets a shot at a job. This is the entire purpose behind "diversification": minorities and oppressed groups don't get a fair shot at normal jobs, so they have to get lumped into jobs that society thinks is "appropriate" for them. So, while I think you are misguided in your criticism, I agree that we should root out why exactly women are relegated to being the majority in only a few select stereotypical positions.
"Toxic masculinity" is not nonsense. I'm a male and it's easy for me to see what toxic masculinity looks like. Misogyny, homophobia, violence, and other forms of oppression are all traits men overwhelmingly exhibit more than women. If women acted like this we would label it and talk about it and we wouldn't be called bigots (except by the people trying to deny that it exists).