> If someone says "Kill all men", I will believe that what they mean is "kill all men".

What do you think someone means when they say "I'm gonna kill the person who wrote this"? Do you call the cops?

> You seem to infer immunity on the part of those you deem oppressed from having their statement being taken at face value but don't extend this same courtesy to those you deem oppressors.

There's a long history of men oppressing women. There is no history of women oppressing men. So when someone says "kill all men" they can't be referencing a history of oppression. On the other hand when someone says "biologically, women are worse engineers than men", they're referencing a school of thought that has denied women basic human rights and still has modern adherents.

My point is we're not on the verge of a male genocide (it feels ridiculous to even type this). We are always on the verge of taking away freedoms from women and people of color. So I think we need a more nuanced rule than "face value", or whatever.

> Would you be happy to initiate a calm thoughtful conversation with someone who tweets out that "Women are ruining this great nation" or would you call for their firing and censorship?

Censorship? Nah. Firing? If they have an important position then certainly. The same way I would advocate that if they said "Slavery was a good idea" or "Nazism has a lot going for it". We know slavery is wrong. We know Nazism and fascism are wrong. We know misogyny and sexism are wrong. Protesting the patriarchy or being angry about it isn't the same thing.

I'd also be willing to have a conversation with them though, so "both" is the answer to your question I think.

> Individuals have different ideas on life and that's ok but the workplace is not the right place to discuss controversial topics unless the freedom of expression is extended to all view points, and there has to be an understanding that feelings may be hurt on both sides.

Global warming is "controversial" despite being obviously the truth, but we can't move forward on addressing it because we continue to pay lip service to people who just don't believe in it. The same is true of feminism, economics, the criminal justice system, gay rights, immigration, and so many other things. I do care what people think and I want to treat them with respect and consideration, but that doesn't trump our right to things like equal pay, clean air and water, due process, etc.

Or to put it another way, at some point I don't care what bigots think and I don't think they should dictate policy. I don't have to agree to listen to the KKK at work if I want to be able to say that women deserve equal pay. That's nonsense.

>We are always on the verge of taking away freedoms from women and people of color.

Do you honestly believe this? Do you think that tomorrow, most people will wake up and decide women shouldn't be allowed to vote? Is that an active thing that you fear?

I think there are a lot of ways to make it harder for specific groups of people to vote. There are active voter intimidation and misinformation campaigns in every federal election. I don't think we'll repeal the 19th Amendment. I do think it's possible we change how people vote so that it's a lot easier for men to vote than women. Many women work retail and service jobs. It's possible to move voting from public precincts to private workplaces (Indiana's Vote Centers are like this in some ways), with some safeguards about traffic, exposure, etc. You could argue, like the proponents of Vote Centers did, that this is far more convenient and that in order to protect voters and votes, we'll only put Vote Centers in secure offices. Afterwards, fewer people will need precincts so we'll save money by shutting many of them down.

Would a policy like that ever pass? Again, Indiana's doesn't have the "office" stuff but it's pretty close. Would it prevent all women from voting? No. But you don't need to do that really, you just need to pull their turnout down. Same thing with gerrymandering, voter intimidation, etc. You just need to give yourself an solid advantage. And putting Vote Centers in secure offices where the majority of people are male, and then cutting precincts where the makeup is balanced, increases voting access for men and decreases it for everyone else (well OK, middle class and higher men, but you get my point).

Or if limiting voting access is too abstract, look at equal pay. Look at women's health clinics being forced to shut down because they provide abortion services (a crucial component of women's health). Look at women not being allowed in active combat until very, very recently (military promotions are hard to get w/o active combat -- wonder why only 7% of the US' generals are women...).

So no, I don't think we'll repeal the 19th Amendment tomorrow. I think people who are racists, anti-feminists, homophobes, etc. have other tools they use that are actually pretty effective.

> I think there are a lot of ways to make it harder for specific groups of people to vote.

Like requiring them to register on some list making them volunteer for war before they can vote?

I don't think that has an effect on male voter turnout because far worse things happen to you if you don't sign up for selective service.

But you're right, gender roles harm everyone. You can look at the effects of our idea of "masculinity" on male health, they're pretty devastating. One of the main goals of feminism is to eradicate gender roles so people are free to live how they like without laboring under some ancient, outdated ideas on how they should act based on their sex -- which they had no part in choosing.