This is not meant to apply to all religious people. It is simply here as a basis of reasoning. I know that not all think in this manner, but please try to follow my logic.

Long ago I stopped debating with people who are religious. Many of those I dealt with consistently postulated that science was simply a theory and could be right or wrong, that the bible was the only reliable source of information. Being a scientist and an atheist I found this incredibly frustrating. I felt that somehow it was more important for them to follow the line of religious canon than to be open to any sort of debate that disproved their thesis. Many would consistently despite being presented overwhelming evidence that contradicted their opinions (be it on a varitey of subjects most of which having nothing to do with religion) and acknowledging it concede that they were unmoved in their opinion. I can only assume that "faith" - their religious based reasoning their "map" of how the world worked allowed them to deny the evidence of virtually any variety in order to support what they felt deep down was correct, as this conception is canonized within religion as it is per definition faith.

This is exactly how I feel dealing with feminists, there are certainly some out there that are logical. But the majority of their theories require a large amount of mental gymnastics in order to be understood, while simultaniously rabidly discourage the questioning of their dogma. The majority of their theories appeal to emotion but hold little scientific rigour.This, I feel is in contrast to the straightforwardness of much of the mens rights movement; Here are our statistics, please question and check our sources. The majority of the arguments hold scientific rigour but little emotion.

Women have significantly more of their brain dedicated to emotion , I would imagine there is a reason for that and a result of that. And men are significantly more likely to believe in atheism as well 20% vs 13% for women. What I'm getting at here is that men prefer logical reasoning and women emotional. (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports)(http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2013/12/verma/).

I'm certainly not postulating that women are incapable of being logical, I'm just wondering if they are possibly more predisposed to trust feelings over logic, to follow what their friends think rather than dig into the statistics.

If this is so, is this not the fundamental problem here? That those following feminist dogma are more simply swayed by personal feeling / a humanistic approach than by statistics and scientific reasoning? That these die hard followers of the cause, no matter what evidence is laid bare will continue to believe, to have faith in the movement?

Edited for clarification 17.00 ZULU 12/10