> Yes. Again, power is not about how you feel and what you want, but what you have.

Knowing the source is critical to solve a problem. If cultural pressure is the source, shouldn't it be solved? Seems a bit to me like blaming black people for being in prison, demanding that they should fix the issue of being jailed more than white people.

A key feature of science is to figure out and understand how a system works and what affects it. How successful has efforts in the past been in trying to get people that are forced into a situation to also fix the problem of being forced?

> If some decisions affect me negatively and some affect me positively

This was part of what I was wondering about. Could you define in what way 80% of decisions have been positive for say, men in general in the last 30 years? In order for things to be positive for the group as a whole, the decision can't be significant contradicting within the group. I can't think of any interest that is that exclusively an interests to men but the opposite for women, and carries a significant majority.

> If the majority doesn't treat the minority equally, that's discrimination.

Should 8% get equal 50% influence? With winner take all decision, majority will always dominate the minority. In an election, the winning 51% get 100% representation, while the loosing 49% get 0%. That is not equal, and many nation solve this in a imperfect way by having more than 2 party system, through practically all retain some limits.

A problem with the word discrimination in this context is that intent is lost. 92% voting what they want and 8% voting for something else is generally not considered discrimination since the 92% don't intentionally try to miss treat the 8%. You need intent for discrimination, which is by its nature create before the end result.

> Advocacy groups are supposed to focus on one problem, or one kind of problems.

A common reply I get, but there is three major issues with it. First, feminism proclaims to be about gender equality, and over half its existence the movement stood for that. Its only in the last 30 years that the movement changed course.

Second, having an alternative movement that focus on Mens Right is bad for everyone. Equality don't need to have competition between two polar movements. If your house on fire, the fix is not to use fans and try to cool it down. Having two polar movements with the same goal is only causing less understanding, more fighting, and less empathy, and shouldn't a movement about equality stand for more than that?

Third, it should be said that sex segregation has only gotten worse in the last 30 years, a trend that many people are surprisingly surprised about. Difference feminism is sometimes, rather hushed, accused of this, and I don't disagree.

> we were fine letting you have what you asked for yesterday

Except when that what people asked yesterday, and what people are asking tomorrow, is polar opposites. One side want people to be treated equally regardless of gender and race. The other side want people to be treated different based on gender and race, but demand that the outcome to be equal. You can only fulfill the later demand by taking back the earlier and reversing progress.

> "Black lives matter"

I always found that adding the word "too" transforms the message. I also think it is way too early to evaluate the movement, as it could go as black panther movement and be about guns and violence, or it could be about reducing murder caused by racial tensions. The later has general support in society.

As a side note: Thanks for the link to Jonathan Haidt talk. Very interesting, through I have heard some exception to the left politics being pro-science and pro-lenience with crime. In particular, feminist (assuming left) groups successfully lobbied to prevent medical research on causes for rape, with statements that such research could result in lower jail sentences and people avoiding justice with insanity pleas.