They often are, but talk past each other, in what's known as a Motte and Bailey[1][2]. A mens rights group doesn't want to ban all women from holding positions

They often are, but talk past each other, in what's known as a Motte and Bailey[1][2]. A mens rights group doesn't want to ban all women from holding positions of power, just the incapable ones. Who's a capable woman? Well, they haven't found one, but if they did they'd surely let her into their club. Their core argument sounds like it might meet you halfway, but they never do. Variants along this argument come up all the time. It's pretty much the entirety of political speechwriting; Even Trump's most outlandish statements are forms of it. He'll proclaim to ban all muslims, back up to 'well, just enhanced screening', but darned if it's not going to be racist anyway. But on the opposite side, nearly every gun control argument ends up this way, with someone asking that just 'assault weapons' with 'no sports shooting value' be banned, and then their list of assault weapons is based on whatever the most common rifle is at the time. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle [2]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch#Motte_and_bailey http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch#Motte_and_baile...