"Men oppressed by who? By women?"
By nature. It's an oppressive world. Men didn't force women into their biological form. In a majority of cases, we tried to be moral. We did our best to survive. Feminists act like for men, everything came to us easy, wheras for women, everything was hard work... when we tried our hardest to make sure the opposite was true. If you go back into the '40s, some of the examples are insane. Throwing your jacket onto a puddle so women can stomp on it. All the men standing up from their dinner when a woman goes to take a shit. Opening doors, pulling out chairs, giving up their seats. Not really the image that comes to mind when I think, "oppression". If you wanna go to Islamic extremist areas or something for examples, ok. That's different.
"How many women are in a position to oppress and marginalize men?"
All the women responsible for my development in early childhood were oppressive cunts, so quite a few. My mom used to scream in my ear on the drive to school. My teachers singled me out to make an example. They pick winners and losers. Popular girls jerked me around for an ego boost. And that was just elementary school. I was already neurotic as hell. Men didn't do that to me. I'm sure you can repeat the same with any incel or mgtow loser.
"Yes, I don't think you'd react the same to another man calling you 'honey' or 'sweetie' either."
I would probably assume he was gay and had female mentors, otherwise I would take it as the passive aggressive whining of a woman. It would come across awkward, but it comes across awkward to me when women do it. I'll be thinking, "Do I really come across as 'sweet'?" or, "Does she mean 'baby' like we're intimate already?" or, "I'm glad we had syrup for this waffle, I didn't want honey." It's especially weird when they're a complete stranger pouring on combinations of them. But that's just how some people are. I just assume it means I'm in good standing, and continue about my day. I don't automatically assume the meaning of my first gut reaction.
"I just want you to see the double standard and that gender roles shouldn't be defined by whatever it is we think a gender is 'best at'."
I thought I was defining it by what a gender is factually best at, with certain exceptions. Everyone is impressed by those exceptions. At least, when it's a woman doing manly stuff. When it's a man doing nurturing stuff, no one is that impressed. By the way, I posted a video of a female bodybuilder earlier, I'm sure there is more you disagreed with in that post, if you didn't see it.
I'm attracted to the extreme feminine, so those types are the most relevant to my dating situation. I'm not gonna be accepting any responsibility whatsoever for a typical skydiver chick, like I see in my preferred work environment. I wouldn't even try. I consider them unruly. xD I just treat them as men with vaginas, that's appropriate for them. They even have the sex drive of a man, which I can work with. They AREN'T MOST WOMEN.
I agree the most competent should lead, and I don't believe I have contradicted that. We are doing a lot of back and forth based on interpretations. I tried to be clear with what I meant, but you did a lot of reading into what was never said. When I "strawman" you, I'm just following your own logic to its absurd conclusion. At what point did you extrapolate "men generally have a higher capacity for authority" into "no woman should ever have freedom"? That was never the argument. I'm a big fan of self-determination. If a woman isn't satisfied with my standards, she can be free as a bird elsewhere.
"Giving people freedom is important in leadership."
Giving people limits is important in leadership. I'm not sure what freedom has to do with it. Freedom is just what you already start with. You don't need leadership to enforce chaos. I get what you're saying about dependency, but it shouldn't apply to your principles. I would be very corruptible, unable to sacrifice anything, if not for being dependent on principles.
"Executing someone is ALL bad"
Your principles are so wishy washy, and inapplicable to any situation where Babylon isn't omnipresent and omnibenevolent. It's quite delusional. Yes, sometimes there is no choice but to execute an adversary. That's normal 3rd world shit. They will fertilize the soil and grow something better than the shit they created when they were alive. It's a net positive.
Is this even your own thoughts? Maybe you are just playing "devil's advocate" and talking out of both sides of your mouth, like a black lesbian version of Sam Harris. I came into this thinking I was debating a man. I don't even know whose views I'm debating. I'm not like Socrates, just debating to debate. I gotta keep my shit 100. Any time I get a sense of dishonesty in a normal discussion, I go full attack mode.
Like how you keep doing "not all women", when no one ever implied "all women". It's such a fake argument. In order to actually disprove me, you would need to demonstrate equality across the board, so instead of trying that, you strawman. That's not what I did at all. When you pull that accusation, you are just saying you shouldn't be held accountable for your vague statements. I'm not responsible for reading your mind, you are responsible for being clear.
"In other words, why feel the need to go out of your way to lead other people who have their own leader who is responsible for them?"
Because most people are incompetent idiots who have no clue what direction they're going. People don't always like what I have to say about their beliefs, but no harm trying, and I would rather speak up and be corrected than not try to identify the issues at all. I would hope if I'm being an asshole, people will put me in my place too.
"So there is a space between good and evil."
I guess to me, "good" is pretty neutral. If something works, it's good enough to be good. People don't have to be laughing 100% of the time for things to be good, that would actually be creepy. If I were to say you need to be altruistic towards your adversaries, that would mean you need to hurt yourself on their behalf. It would take a self-mutilation supporter like Jesus to say something like that.
"But I sacrificed her feelings for the sake of being a good neighbor."
When I think "drug addict", the first thing that comes into my mind isn't "harmless". That's a red flag right there, but ok.
A bum(like me) has to take accountability for their situation, not be expecting handouts and giving nothing in return. That's putting accountability where it belongs. If he kept coming to me, he better come offering to do some chores, errands, teaching yoga, SOMETHING. Not just have me being a servant. I bet if he washed the wife's car, she wouldn't say shit. I hope he at least offered.
But yeah, if she was plagued by anxiety from it, that is obviously not good. I don't see any question there. And giving handouts to someone destroying themselves is essentially rewarding dysfunctional behavior. I think I would handle it differently, but I don't know your relationship to him. The wife sounds unstable, this I've already determined.