# Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108
**Category:** Elliot Temple
**Tags:** bot, curiosity-blog
**Created:** [September 25, 2025, 7:11pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108 "2025-09-25T19:11:21Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 12
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:30pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/226 "2025-10-07T17:30:35Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> Not exactly, for that post I searched for videos.
Do you think the YouTube algorithm affects search results?
Do you think what creators you’ve watched before affects which search results you click on?
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> I don’t think it being incel-friendly is a good reason not to share it or to dismiss it.
I didn’t say that. You’re dropping the context.
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> I wouldn’t call his channel a redpill channel or him a redpill influencer.
If someone has heavy redpill exposure, and then they see a mild redpill channel, might they mistake it for neutral?
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:32pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/227 "2025-10-07T17:32:33Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> So basically you had a premise that it should be gender-symmetric, and you didn’t recognize or take into account that the premise was controversial, so some of what you wrote basically begged the question (assumed the conclusion).
Hm.
I don’t think I agree. Gonna break this down in more detail to identify disagreements.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> So basically you had a premise that it should be gender-symmetric
Yes, I do have that premise.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> and you didn’t recognize or take into account that the premise was controversial
No, I think I knew it was controversial. My impression was that @anonymous45 would probably disagree with my premise. But I thought that my premise was true regardless of anon45’s opinion.
Also I was unsure if anon45 would consciously/openly disagree or not — I thought he might initially agree with it because he thinks of himself as mostly egalitarian, and then realize he should have disagreed by the time he reached my conclusion and didn’t like it.
I thought that if this happened, it would just happen inside of his head. But that might still be useful or informative for him.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> so some of what you wrote basically begged the question (assumed the conclusion).
I’m not sure about this. Maybe so? Maybe not.
I think that if you state your premise clearly, and especially as a question asking if someone agrees, then that doesn’t seem like begging the question to me. Even if you proceed from there assuming they agreed and build an argument that uses that premise. It doesn’t seem like the begging the question fallacy to me because it isn’t manipulative or sneaky the way (I think) the fallacy is.
If they disagree with the offered premise, they can just say so, and then the rest of the argument I made gets struck-through automatically. We can back up to the premise instead. It’s up to them. I put out more argument than necessary, but it’s optional.
Also sometimes it can be fun to accept a premise offered like that temporarily. Anon45 could say “I don’t agree with your premise, but even if I did, here is another flaw in your logic…” and that would be useful to me as someone who **does** agree with my premise.
I dunno. This seems meaningfully different from begging the question to me, but maybe it technically is. I’m open to that possibility.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:51pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/228 "2025-10-07T17:51:08Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> No, I think I knew it was controversial. My impression was that @anonymous45 would probably disagree with my premise. But I thought that my premise was true regardless of anon45’s opinion.
So the passage was:
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Re: number of sexual partners, if your metric is reasonable, then surely reasonable women would reject you for the same reasons, right? Which means any woman with a lower partner number than yours ought to reject you for having a higher count. If they didn’t, that would make them unreasonable, and you shouldn’t want to date them then. So the correct number of sexual partners for a woman to have isn’t less than or equal to yours, it should just be equal to yours. Any more or less would be unreasonable. Right?
When you say “right?” (twice) I read you as expecting agreement. When you continue with “Which means” I read you as moving on and building on the premise that you expected agreement for. If you expect disagreement, why continue like that?
Some of what you’re doing reads as trying to use anon45’s own premises and take them to their logical conclusions. But that doesn’t work if you’re partly using premises he disagrees with.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> I think that if you state your premise clearly, and especially as a question asking if someone agrees, then that doesn’t seem like begging the question to me.
You didn’t clearly state them as your premises. If you laid it out like _here are my 3 premises, and here is my conclusion, where do you disagree?_ that’d be fine even with disputed premises. But I didn’t read your passage that way.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:56pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/229 "2025-10-07T17:56:14Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> > [@anonymous45](#):
> >
> > Not exactly, for that post I searched for videos.
>
> Do you think the YouTube algorithm affects search results?
I don’t really know. Probably? Depending on how many results there are maybe? But also YT search is really bad, including for finding stuff I’ve already watched.
I note that search for the same thing twice brings up different results. So I am not even sure how I’d test whether search results are dependent on my view/click history.
> Do you think what creators you’ve watched before affects which search results you click on?
Sometimes, sure. Often with a search like this I will open all of the top few search results in a new tab, in which case no (putting aside any algorithm bias in the search results).
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 6:17pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/230 "2025-10-07T18:17:22Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> I note that search for the same thing twice brings up different results. So I am not even sure how I’d test whether search results are dependent on my view/click history.
Doesn’t your test answer the question? You searched twice and got different results. The algorithm is customizing/personalizing the results for you, e.g. taking into account things like what thumbnails you’ve passed over before.
In general, the information you find on the internet is biased by default. Algorithms and echo chambers are the default. Neutrality and diverse ideas require active effort and good strategies.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 6:22pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/231 "2025-10-07T18:22:38Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Doesn’t your test answer the question? You searched twice and got different results. The algorithm is customizing/personalizing the results for you, e.g. taking into account things like what thumbnails you’ve passed over before.
It was in an incognito window. I forgot to mention that. I had it in an earlier draft which I thought might be defensive and so rewrote it. That still doesn’t address some customization, though. I tried again in a different browser just now, new incognito window, and got different results again. Based on all that, I think it’s inconclusive. There could just be randomness built into the results. Or there could be different search algorithms on the back end that YT is A/B testing.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 6:39pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/232 "2025-10-07T18:39:07Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> When you say “right?” (twice) I read you as expecting agreement. When you continue with “Which means” I read you as moving on and building on the premise that you expected agreement for. If you expect disagreement, why continue like that?
Yeah I see what you mean. I think I will return to this comment in my last post:
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> I thought he might initially agree with it because he thinks of himself as mostly egalitarian, and then realize he should have disagreed by the time he reached my conclusion and didn’t like it.
I think the first “right?” here:
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Re: number of sexual partners, if your metric is reasonable, then surely reasonable women would reject you for the same reasons, right?
I thought there was a high chance he might initially accept that.
I didn’t think he truly believed it, but I thought he would accept it anyway. I’m pretty sure I did not think at the time that he would openly/explicitly admit to being a misogynist who thinks men and women are so different they should use totally different standards and metrics. His guideline being that she ought to have the same or less “body count” than his felt like an example of him trying to present a roughly egalitarian front (without really thinking through details too much). That is a notably more lenient view than typical misogynist redpillers who would specifically demand a much lower body count and apply an openly asymmetrical guideline.
So I think I had decent reasons for my guess, it wasn’t just assuming my premise would never be controversial. So I still disagree with:
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> you didn’t recognize or take into account that the premise was controversial
I did recognize it could be controversial in some contexts but I thought I had roughly judged where anon45 was at.
But if I was wrong there then that was a misstep and might be what makes this begging the question?
One more clarification:
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Any more or less would be unreasonable. Right?
I did not really expect agreement with this “right?” at all.
If anything maybe a good criticism of me here is that I was being a bit of a smartass and not as direct as I could have been. I figured he would get to that part and even if he had previously accepted my premise and agreed w/ first “right?” he would not like this conclusion and maybe want to backpedal.
It was less expecting agreement and more like a rhetorical flourish after I finished my argument. Something like that.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Some of what you’re doing reads as trying to use anon45’s own premises and take them to their logical conclusions. But that doesn’t work if you’re partly using premises he disagrees with.
Yeah I think this is fair. I think most of my comments above agree with this take.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> You didn’t clearly state them as your premises. If you laid it out like _here are my 3 premises, and here is my conclusion, where do you disagree?_ that’d be fine even with disputed premises. But I didn’t read your passage that way.
Yeah, true.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 6:47pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/233 "2025-10-07T18:47:35Z")
YouTube tries really hard to improve clickthrough rates, watchtime, etc., using algorithms that influence what sort of experiences different people have on the site.
You come off as biased: arguing any point for your side, even bad points, which makes conversations slow to accomplish much.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 7:12pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/234 "2025-10-07T19:12:30Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> I’m pretty sure I did not think at the time that he would openly/explicitly admit to being a misogynist who thinks men and women are so different they should use totally different standards and metrics.
You have a (potentially controversial) premise here that the statement
> men and women are so different they should use totally different standards and metrics
is misogynist.
You also may be exaggerating: he didn’t say “totally different” standards and might believe that men and women should be judged using the same standards for the majority of issues.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> But if I was wrong there then that was a misstep and might be what makes this begging the question?
It could be some other error. I usually have a much stronger opinion that something _is_ an error than _which_ error it is or what caused it.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> If anything maybe a good criticism of me here is that I was being a bit of a smartass and not as direct as I could have been.
Sure.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 7:56pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/235 "2025-10-07T19:56:07Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> It could be some other error. I usually have a much stronger opinion that something _is_ an error than _which_ error it is or what caused it.
Gotcha.
I think it’s clear I was at minimum mistaken in how I thought anon45 would react to what I said. So that’s an error, whether or not it’s technically begging the question or some other error.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> You also may be exaggerating: he didn’t say “totally different” standards and might believe that men and women should be judged using the same standards for the majority of issues.
Yeah, I think I was exaggerating there.
I agree that whether or not doing so would be misogynist is potentially controversial.
I’m not sure that being controversial in that way is necessarily bad. May need to think about it more. Intuitively I think it is okay to say stuff that may be controversial as long as you’re
A) Prepared to defend it if challenged.
and/or
B) Okay with offending the kinds of people who may be offended by its controversy.
My instinct is that not all controversies are equivalent, and not all people need to be handled delicately around possible controversy. Something like that.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 8:01pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/236 "2025-10-07T20:01:08Z")
If you assume something is misogynist, that’s problematic and offensive when talking with someone who you know may believe it but deny being a misogynist.
> I did not think at the time that he would openly/explicitly admit to being a misogynist who thinks men and women are so different they should use totally different standards and metrics.
You were talking about what he would admit to then blurring together the claim (the genders differ) and an evaluation of the claim (misogyny) like he would admit to that bundle (claim plus that evaluation).
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 8:27pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/237 "2025-10-07T20:27:15Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> I think it’s fantastical to think you’ll get “none of the bad bits” if you make your girlfriend so miserable that she hates you and breaks up with you. Lots of people would have a ton of resentment for a partner in that situation.
>
> I also think this is a good example of how some masculine traits — such as liking stoicism and wanting to invest a lot of time and energy in avoiding any chance that you might have to deal with emotions — can result in terrible dating strategies. This might be a better example for stoicism than the one I put on my list above.
I see it differently. If someone was actually stoic, then they could have a breakup conversation. They wouldn’t be afraid of it. If they’re too insecure and anxious, or otherwise unable to deal with emotionally charged discussions, so they avoid them, that sounds to me like they’re bad at stoicism (viewing it as a skill) or have a low amount of stoicism (viewing it as a trait).
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 8:41pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/238 "2025-10-07T20:41:31Z")
Your premises include that empathy, loyalty, listening and cooperation are masculine traits.
Did you recognize these claims as controversial and deal with them appropriately? Mostly, no. After giving controversial claims, you moved on to the conclusion that “plenty of … masculine traits … are good for relationships” along with the contradictory claim that the traits are neither good nor bad: “It’s not so much the traits that are the problem but how we use them.”
You did recognize one potential point of controversy and try to address it instead of assuming agreement:
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> Listening might not seem masculine, but it synergizes with quieter, calmer, rational traits.
Your way of arguing for a controversial claim here (men are better listeners) was to beg a different question by bringing up and assuming the truth of a different controversial idea: that men are more calm and rational than women.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 8:45pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/239 "2025-10-07T20:45:59Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Not sure how to proceed.
My suggestion would be a debate tree.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 8:47pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/240 "2025-10-07T20:47:56Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> If you assume something is misogynist, that’s problematic and offensive when talking with someone who you know may believe it but deny being a misogynist.
Hm. I think I see what you mean, but I’m not sure I see it as problematic.
I think at this point I have made it clear that I see him as a misogynist. I know he disagrees. I think that’s okay, we can disagree about that.
But it’s unclear to me exactly how much I should respect his feelings in this regard. Particularly when I’m describing a specific belief that I see as misogynist. Should I actively avoid saying that I think he is a misogynist?
I see how it could be nicer to not be characterized in that way. I guess I’m just not sure what level of niceness is appropriate.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> You were talking about what he would admit to then blurring together the claim (the genders differ) and an evaluation of the claim (misogyny) like he would admit to that bundle (claim plus that evaluation).
Okay, yeah, this specific point makes a lot of sense.
I can see that calling him misogynist in that specific way is more unfair. It’s like putting words in his mouth in a way, implying that by admitting to one thing he would also be admitting to being a misogynist. I think this is worse than just bluntly saying I think he’s a misogynist.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 8:48pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/241 "2025-10-07T20:48:26Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> My use of the past tense wasn’t intentionally a way to concede unclearly.
Is that supposed to be better or to be an argument against defensiveness, argumentativeness or bias?
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 8:59pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/243 "2025-10-07T20:59:13Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> > [@anonymous105](#):
> >
> > I also think this is a good example of how some masculine traits — such as liking stoicism and wanting to invest a lot of time and energy in avoiding any chance that you might have to deal with emotions — can result in terrible dating strategies. This might be a better example for stoicism than the one I put on my list above.
>
> I see it differently. If someone was actually stoic, then they could have a breakup conversation. They wouldn’t be afraid of it. If they’re too insecure and anxious, or otherwise unable to deal with emotionally charged discussions, so they avoid them, that sounds to me like they’re bad at stoicism (viewing it as a skill) or have a low amount of stoicism (viewing it as a trait).
I think you’re right about what the factual presence of a stoic skill/trait looks like. That’s a good point. (Edit: and I think @anonymous45 made a similar point earlier, criticizing my characterization)
Although I did say “liking stoicism” rather than “being stoic” — “liking stoicism” could involve the stuff I described. But it would be a case of a man liking stoicism, being bad at stoicism, and then pretending.
So yeah, I think I wasn’t really describing a stoic man. I was describing what I view as a fairly common masculine archetype, which is the man who **thinks** he is stoic and purports to like stoicism…. but is actually fragile and insecure. So he takes some steps to try to be performatively stoic, like avoiding emotional discussions so it is easier to pretend to be unemotional.
I think that kind of man exists and is quite common, but it is a distinct thing from actually being stoic. I conflated them.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 8:59pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/244 "2025-10-07T20:59:14Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> As in there might be a queer heterosexual couple who can have children “the old fashioned way” but have an atypical queer relationship dynamic. I don’t really understand what’s confusing about that. The specifics of the dynamic are irrelevant.
I’m guessing what’s confusing is that he doesn’t know what sort of queer relationship dynamics exist. Although the specific type of queerness isn’t relevant, this would be confusing for someone who wasn’t familiar with any types of queerness that would work as examples.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 10:04pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/245 "2025-10-07T22:04:22Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> Here’s a recent video – [Chronic disease in children after vaccines](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrQuPPMOp4U) – that covers a study which shows increased risk of chronic illness based on childhood vaccination. Vaccinated kids were ~2.5x more likely.
>
> Okay, say I’m an anti-vaxxer
Why are you spreading anti-vax stuff here? Have you researched it and think that study is good?
And do you see the problem with bringing up a different topic, which is highly controversial, and how that can be distracting and derailing? Did you think the anti-vax example was especially good and important? Are you unaware of how most people perceive it? Did you think this was really necessary?
Do you see how actually debating this would be a huge, separate topic, so bringing it up in passing won’t be effective?
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> More generally, I think this criticism also applies to TRAs and that they have a lot of bad-faith arguments and anti-science ideas. They don’t mind suppressing research that could damage their cause.
Aren’t you over-generalizing? If not, that’s quite a claim and you ought to lead with your proof instead of just asserting it. Are you failing to recognize how controversial your claims are and expecting people to just accept unsourced assertions of research misconduct leveled at an opposing political faction as a whole?
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> (But doing that goes against postmodernism, and intersectionality, and a whole bunch of pet epistemologies about ‘my truth’ and all that nonsense.)
More bold claims about big topics, brought up in passing despite controversy.
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> if the left actually valued stuff like objective truth
Are you tilted?
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2025, 6:44pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/246 "2025-10-09T18:44:30Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Why are you spreading anti-vax stuff here? Have you researched it and think that study is good?
>
> And do you see the problem with bringing up a different topic, which is highly controversial, and how that can be distracting and derailing?
I think it’s interesting enough to merit discussion and worked for the analogy.
Not independently, but the study itself is simple so I think it’s good enough.
That said, yeah I see the problem with bringing up another topic that is probably controversial. Well, the multiple problems.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Aren’t you over-generalizing? If not, that’s quite a claim and you ought to lead with your proof instead of just asserting it. Are you failing to recognize how controversial your claims are and expecting people to just accept unsourced assertions of research misconduct leveled at an opposing political faction as a whole?
I don’t think I’m overgeneralizing there. I think lots of actual scientists had bad-faith arguments and anti-science ideas, and I think TRAs are individually comparable to worse than most scientists on such matters.
I can see how it’d be controversial, though. Well, outside of CF at least, since there’s some acknowledgement of the sorry state of science here.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Are you tilted?
Yeah. I was.
[Previous page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108.md?page=11)
[Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108.md?page=13)