Because I can't tell the difference between actually getting harassed more and our biases coloring things to look that way.

So you want to talk about harassment - but your opening move is to split people, not into harassers and victims, but by birth group according to your own biases, and insist on that being the framework for the discussion. To me that says that you care less about ending harassment than maintaining your worldview or identity as the 'guy who get it'. (When you say "admitting this doesn't make me less of a man" you're essentially bragging about how you're better than those other guys.)

So try this one:

Sure, women abuse the most vulnerable in our society more than men do, but is focusing on that the right way to make progress? Should I base part of my ego on "admitting that women are part of the problem"?

Yes. It might not have been obvious, but the post I was replying to stated "I hope my daughter does not read this.", which is why my post started with "Me neither." and went on to refer to her (my daughter's) brother.

Sure, and I'm glad people still stand up for each other. What disturbs me is that you (and much of the media) either can't see it when men are targeted by much of the same kind of abuse, or simply don't care. Dozens of men were doxed during #GamerGate, why are they being left out?

Maybe because men, as a group, are blamed for it? Maybe because people can't just talk about harassment in general without the 'boys-vs-girls' political BS?

Woops. Too early for sarcasm, it would seem. :)

I believe the point was that they're being left out of the discussion because they're straight while males. You can't keep the focus on women if you admit that men are a large fraction of the victims, and that's more important to some people than ending the bullying.

I'm very careful to be just misogynistic enough to ask for evidence.

No.

Apparently not you. As for myself, about half of the people I love are men, so...

You sound like a parody of a clueless, narcissistic feminist. Good thing I know some kindhearted, open-minded ones.

And I would suggest the same of you. But that doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.

Stabbing women doesn't make you a misogynist, but stabbing only women (or specifically targeting them) might.

Can you show me any evidence that these people would treat men they disagreed with any better?

I'm not so sure about that. But more importantly, aren't women defended for being women more than men are defended for being men?

Nope. Just because you aren't oppressed doesn't mean you don't have problems that need to be addressed.

Using words like 'oppression' to describe how women are treated in modern western countries is just a cheap political tactic - it defines the situation in terms of 'us vs them' (if someone is oppressed, someone must be oppressing), while exaggerating the issues women face and downplaying the issues that men face. That broken model is why you think that people who disagree with you must think than men are oppressed - you assume that other people are using the same framework, but are merely on the 'other team'.

There's no pigeonhole in that mindset for people who just want the world to be nicer for everyone.

I don't think they're oppressed, but I don't think "straight white females" are either.

Citation needed.

Me neither. Especially when the author absurdly implies that the primary targets of "rape threats, death threats, and the harassment of angry mobs" are women. Or when people state their position in high sounding language - "It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.", but never seem to apply that standard when her brother is insulted in those ways.

I'm quite sure there are crazed misogynists out there, but don't mix them in with people who are simply treating women online as badly as they treat men in real life.

And then the one harmful change of these huge number of all sorts of random mutations becomes predominant in 90% of the wheat out there? Yeah, I don't see that happening as easily as when the GMO company selects the gene they want and put it into 100% of the seeds.

One of the major goals of modern breeding is to get extremely homogeneous (i.e. inbred) populations. So if a dangerous trait was caused by a gene that was being selected for, or was near a gene that was being selected for, then becoming 'fixed' in the new variety would be expected, because that' s the goal. The major difference from a GMO variety being that (at least for the time being) nobody's doing a complete sequencing to find those genes, and then researching them each for potential problems. For example, Golden Delicious apple trees all descend from one plant, often grafted clones of the original - and if the yellow color happened to be toxic...

And the only reason that 90% of US corn and soy ended up having the same glyphosate resistant gene was because of a lack of competition and the fact that it was very, very useful. Now that other companies are using GMO techniques, Roundup resistance has become an issue, and future developments are likely to have smaller benefits or more targeted uses, it's less likely for something similar to happen.

On top of that, glyphosphate is one of the least toxic herbacides out there that generally breaks down relatively quickly in the environment.

Sorry, that's just not true. Higher levels of it have been found in the internal organs of chronically ill people.

1. Which is irrelevant to the point that it breaks down faster than most other herbicides.
2. It's also irrelevant to the fact that it really is less toxic as well.
2. Chronically ill people have higher concentrations of lots of things, because they excrete it more slowly. So again, irrelevant.