Arguing for Validation, Not Resolution: A Critical Look at the Cycle of Misogyny vs. Misandry and How to Have a Rock-Solid Argument (For Two People Who Want to Be Heard).

I am unbiased I am here to help.

taking time out of my day to share this, and trust me, you’ll regret not reading this. Hear me out.

Recently here, I saw a typical post where someone asks for arguments against the claim "misogyny kills, misandry just annoys." Aaaaand upon closer inspection, what stood out like a sore thumb was that intentionally or not they're asking for a counterargument against the idea that sexism (misogyny) leads to death--. This is not defensible by intemperation, fundamentally the approach to the problem is including something that shouldn't be also invalidated if one wants to be validated on MISANDRY killing lives - too!

That mindset is exactly why these arguments spiral into circular, unproductive wars with misandrists. Rather than seeking resolution it’s about repeating the same psychological dynamic the opposing side is rejecting. It’s a game of validation where invalidating the other side becomes objective to have ur own voice heard but that's not the way.

When both sides fail to recognize the need to be heard equally, the conversation shifts into a competition: "My experience is worse." "No, mine is!" Boom, both sides equalize in being guilty of derailing the other's inclination to respect them.

Seeking validation while invalidating the other side for no reason only undermines the own point of your argument. It’s a flawed approach that needs to be called out so we can trully tell who’s genuinely interested in equality and resolution and who’s just here to fight.

Does this need to be quoted, published, or something!? It’s astonishing how many people are unaware of this and then complain ! Some people don't change, others do, know when to walk away because the bigger idiot is someone who thinks they can win a point with an idiot.

I don't expect everyone to understand, be who you want others to be.