@Lex, nobody seems to be concerned about female-to-male transmission of bodily fluids. Which means that vaxed women could infect non-vaxxed men. Of course, feminists like this author are not concerned with the flip side of the same coin.
@Lex, nobody seems to be concerned about female-to-male transmission of bodily fluids. Which means that vaxed women could infect non-vaxxed men. Of course, feminists like this author are not concerned with the flip side of the same coin.
You're using the fallacy of relative privation. Just because this particular article was about her experience as a woman does not somehow negate or marginalize the concerns of men.
@Lex if you are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and then learn that feminists in Congress made sure that breast cancer gets many times more funding than prostate cancer, we can then discuss the fallacy of relative privation in more detail.
I fail to see the connection. Funding might be a zero-sum game, but writing is not. A woman sharing her concern about sex with vaxxed men in no way diminishes your ability to share your concern about sex with vaxxed women.
@Lex, men that articulate their concerns over women are shunned, and not published. This author only needed to say that the situation works in both directions, but she did not do that. Stating that the coin has two sides shows journalistic and personal honesty and integrity. Sadly, those attributes are often lacking in feminists.
@Lex, the connection between this writer's feminist assault on men, and the assault on male health issues by feminists in Congress, carries a common theme: women are important, and men are not.
@Cairn, excellent point. In my own (limited) experience, women take rejection VERY badly. Although many are humane about it, and say, "I don't know how you guys deal with rejection". (Those women are among the growing number of unicorns).
"Where men might take being vetoed personally, women donтАЩt see it that way. Women see it as an act of self-preservation and safety in the face of reality, given the nature of a large portion of men presently. Most will not want to keep that raincoat on for longer than absolutely necessary. With this in mind, until much, much more is uncovered about how this vaccine impacts lives, the decision тАШnot to dateтАЩ vaccinated men remains steadfast for numerous unvaccinated women. "
This statement negates so-called relative privation by generalizing negatively about male emotionalism while implying that women are just being rational. When, ostensibly, the above stated factors would apply for vaxxed/unvaxxed men/women in any analysis regarding dating, this is treated as some sort of women's issue. It is not. Just by using men as contradistinctions the above dating analysis, the relative privation argument goes into doubt. If you swapped men and women in the above paragraph minus or including the contrived contradistinctions, the exact same points would be equally or more valid.
More valid dating contradistinctions are ignored. In general, women are the more neurotic gender and more inclined to over-estimate and over-react to perceived threats, often irrationally. Even wikipedia is forced to admit this. The karen meme exists for a reason and is pretty well documented on the video sites as are male injury-risking behaviors. The percentage of vaccinated women, especially early on in the scamdemic, was far higher than the male percentage. Look at the videos of the early lines for vaccination when the vaccines were being pitched as somewhat unavailable. Perhaps they had more time to wait in line? Men became vaccinated in numbers approaching, never equalling, female numbers when it became a condition of employment. The men who refused vaccination often risked more than just themselves by remaining unvaxxed. These ignored points demonstrate the feminist nature of the article and a bias probably designed to elevate the esteem of uneducated women in the dating market. Consequently, relative privation vanishes in the contrived contradistinctions of a puff-piece written for your self-interested audience. Possibly, her motives were even darker in that this was an attempt to drive a greater wedge between the sexes. In other words, she was writing for the emotional elevation her audience and not from a personal perspective that ignores more pressing vax issues for women such as: unvaxxed men may recognize that many vaxxed women were not driven by the same necessities as men to the vax and that a possible driver for getting the vax provides a strong indicator of the neurotic nature of the prospective date.
And due to his willingness to risk himself for his family to keep his job, the vaxxed male is basically dealing with the same neuroticism that caused many vaxxed women to get vaxxed in the first place. He may find that he is dealing with a woman (excused in spades in the above article) whose neuroticism is being differently focused. He may be better off without this one... In other words, the result of male good intentions must deal with a new expression of existing female emotional frailties.
But, for the female perspective, an unvaxxed woman will definitely be dating up with an unvaxxed male.
@NotAChristian, thank you, very well put. As we get closer to the poop hitting the fan, the women will show their self-preservation by latching on to the first man that comes their way.
@SomeDude, calling relative privation a "fallacy" has resulted in many times more taxpayer funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer. Also: a feminist that presents what is obviously a two-sex issue as a woman-only issue is dishonest. Dishonesty is at the core of feminism, as is the ensuing misandry and misandric policies.
"Single, unvaccinated men are also following suit and running into the same issues as their single, unvaccinated, female counterparts. Calling themselves тАЬPurebloods,тАЭ they too are only looking for unvaccinated partners".
The author did manage to put this in, but yes, article was all about women.
My concern would be in how does one know who is and who is not clotshotted. Need a test for this.
@Lex, nobody seems to be concerned about female-to-male transmission of bodily fluids. Which means that vaxed women could infect non-vaxxed men. Of course, feminists like this author are not concerned with the flip side of the same coin.
You're using the fallacy of relative privation. Just because this particular article was about her experience as a woman does not somehow negate or marginalize the concerns of men.
Reference: https://academy4sc.org/video/fallacy-of-relative-privation-all-problems-are-relative/
"Voicing a complaint is not the same as ignoring the suffering of others or insisting such suffering does not exist."
@Lex if you are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and then learn that feminists in Congress made sure that breast cancer gets many times more funding than prostate cancer, we can then discuss the fallacy of relative privation in more detail.
Amen Frank Amen
I fail to see the connection. Funding might be a zero-sum game, but writing is not. A woman sharing her concern about sex with vaxxed men in no way diminishes your ability to share your concern about sex with vaxxed women.
@Lex, men that articulate their concerns over women are shunned, and not published. This author only needed to say that the situation works in both directions, but she did not do that. Stating that the coin has two sides shows journalistic and personal honesty and integrity. Sadly, those attributes are often lacking in feminists.
@Lex, the connection between this writer's feminist assault on men, and the assault on male health issues by feminists in Congress, carries a common theme: women are important, and men are not.
And the author says that the men take rejection badly. As if women do not. Yeah, sure.
@Cairn, excellent point. In my own (limited) experience, women take rejection VERY badly. Although many are humane about it, and say, "I don't know how you guys deal with rejection". (Those women are among the growing number of unicorns).
"Where men might take being vetoed personally, women donтАЩt see it that way. Women see it as an act of self-preservation and safety in the face of reality, given the nature of a large portion of men presently. Most will not want to keep that raincoat on for longer than absolutely necessary. With this in mind, until much, much more is uncovered about how this vaccine impacts lives, the decision тАШnot to dateтАЩ vaccinated men remains steadfast for numerous unvaccinated women. "
This statement negates so-called relative privation by generalizing negatively about male emotionalism while implying that women are just being rational. When, ostensibly, the above stated factors would apply for vaxxed/unvaxxed men/women in any analysis regarding dating, this is treated as some sort of women's issue. It is not. Just by using men as contradistinctions the above dating analysis, the relative privation argument goes into doubt. If you swapped men and women in the above paragraph minus or including the contrived contradistinctions, the exact same points would be equally or more valid.
More valid dating contradistinctions are ignored. In general, women are the more neurotic gender and more inclined to over-estimate and over-react to perceived threats, often irrationally. Even wikipedia is forced to admit this. The karen meme exists for a reason and is pretty well documented on the video sites as are male injury-risking behaviors. The percentage of vaccinated women, especially early on in the scamdemic, was far higher than the male percentage. Look at the videos of the early lines for vaccination when the vaccines were being pitched as somewhat unavailable. Perhaps they had more time to wait in line? Men became vaccinated in numbers approaching, never equalling, female numbers when it became a condition of employment. The men who refused vaccination often risked more than just themselves by remaining unvaxxed. These ignored points demonstrate the feminist nature of the article and a bias probably designed to elevate the esteem of uneducated women in the dating market. Consequently, relative privation vanishes in the contrived contradistinctions of a puff-piece written for your self-interested audience. Possibly, her motives were even darker in that this was an attempt to drive a greater wedge between the sexes. In other words, she was writing for the emotional elevation her audience and not from a personal perspective that ignores more pressing vax issues for women such as: unvaxxed men may recognize that many vaxxed women were not driven by the same necessities as men to the vax and that a possible driver for getting the vax provides a strong indicator of the neurotic nature of the prospective date.
And due to his willingness to risk himself for his family to keep his job, the vaxxed male is basically dealing with the same neuroticism that caused many vaxxed women to get vaxxed in the first place. He may find that he is dealing with a woman (excused in spades in the above article) whose neuroticism is being differently focused. He may be better off without this one... In other words, the result of male good intentions must deal with a new expression of existing female emotional frailties.
But, for the female perspective, an unvaxxed woman will definitely be dating up with an unvaxxed male.
@NotAChristian, thank you, very well put. As we get closer to the poop hitting the fan, the women will show their self-preservation by latching on to the first man that comes their way.
Yes Frank, it is a worry for young unclotshotted men, that they will be 'latched on to'.
But, hey, same for young unclotshotted women.
Such a small pool.
@Cairn, Exactly!
relative privation reminds me of the Facebook folks going ballistic over a post.
"I don't like oranges"
"OMG he hates citrus fruit, obviously isn't aware of the plight of the lonely grapefruit"
@SomeDude, calling relative privation a "fallacy" has resulted in many times more taxpayer funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer. Also: a feminist that presents what is obviously a two-sex issue as a woman-only issue is dishonest. Dishonesty is at the core of feminism, as is the ensuing misandry and misandric policies.
"Single, unvaccinated men are also following suit and running into the same issues as their single, unvaccinated, female counterparts. Calling themselves тАЬPurebloods,тАЭ they too are only looking for unvaccinated partners".
The author did manage to put this in, but yes, article was all about women.
My concern would be in how does one know who is and who is not clotshotted. Need a test for this.