But if men say that they are sexist

Simply to prove the point that these generalizations were first done to men regarding oversized women and showing that women do the exact same. It's about making the point reach across so women can stop pointing fingers and blaming all men for such actions

Who cares who did what first if we agree that thing is not something we should do? One can't assume that thes same plus sized women not attracted to plus sized men have ever held the opinion men are sexist for not liking plus sized women. The two groups don't overlap by default. Even if/where they do, how is that a co structure way to handle the situation? If you cheat on your partner, and your partner cheats on you- are you hypocrites for being mad at each other? No. They did a bad thing. You did too. That doesn't make you a hypocrite it makes you both shit sacks. This whole argument craps its own bed. It's logical nonsense. Unless one is attempting to justify their moral position by pointing out the flaws of others (hint: if to be right someone else has to be more wrong you've already lost) this is nonsense.

Its not about being right, its about showing that its not only 'sexist men' that find overweight women unattractive, but also women find overweight men unattractive. The point to make is that attractiveness is a personal choice and opinion and men shouldn't be shat in for having a different one.

We don't disagree. Everyone can have preferences and disagreements, and everyone can be sexist. But why point specifically at women, let alone get so specific as to single out plus sized women to say: "Men and women can be sexist"? Or "Discrimination comes in all shapes and sizes"? Or "Everyone's idea of beauty is different." These are all ways to say that same thing, without singling anyone out. Is what plus sized women find attractive such a pressing question on society it needed answered? If so, how does an uncited source of some unknown sample of opinions answer that when any "group" has by the point of this- different standards of beauty? How is it not contradictory to say "everyone's preference is different and ok, look at this very specific group of possibly one person as proof!" It steps all over its toes and betrays its true heart.

Whenever we could say it another way and we don't? Whenever we can apply it to the general and we instead pick a minute and superfluous detail? There's a bias at work. You are either being led or the message maker is letting their bias be known. Why say "<Race/Ethnicity/etc> criminal" in a story when it isn't needed to understand the story? When we have a limited space or limited attention span to deal with we only leave what we feel is most important.

I feel like your opinions are too idealistic. At the end of the day, I as a male would put more effort in defending my gender as i would kd be included in any generalizations involved with it. Doesn't mean i wouldn't want women to have it fair, nor does it mean that i wouldn't defend women. But my own interests would be of higher priority. And as popular belief and media currently believes, men are the sexists. So this would be me attempting to upset that 'balance' and make things better for men/me.

Look, i don't really disagree with your opinions. They're great. But i feel like my actions are justifiable in this twisted world we need to live in.

Case in point though- ones self interest is not limited to sex. Most any healthy minded organism has its self interest at heart regardless of its gender. The need to reference the specific in the case of the general demonstrates a certain way of thinking. I've been through enough in life to know idealism rarely goes far without some footing in practicality, but ideals can change the world if they are. How we think effects how we use words and vice versa. Many want the works to transform in a day, I'm aware most major changes rarely happen in a lifetime and may not ever be accepted by everyone, but small gradual changes help ease the transition. Society exists in part as an extension of our nature, but evolves through transcending our nature. The modern world wouldn't function if we couldn't control our basal instincts at all. One of those instincts we need to work past is a tribal mentality of grouping "us vs them." You'll likely always be happier you won the lottery than someone else.

But this isn't that basal of an instinct. Protecting oneself from gender generalization is logically also linked to protecting ones gender from negetive reputation, or alternatively by dropping the 'competing gender' to the same level. Its not honorable, nor is it commendable. But as things are now, it's one of the easier ways out.

As I said at the start- a contradictory mess. One wants to defend the reputation of their selves by defending a group they associate with- so they resort to disreputable actions? Its our casual tolerance and acceptance of things that allows them to propagate. We just consume what's being shoveled without question and write it off on the justification we are all guilty. There's far less personal gain in being a decent person than to be had by applying a rule of "that which gives me the greatest benefit is fair game" unless we hold a basic standard by which society will accept or aknowlege something. Wrong doesn't seek conversions like fictional demons. That's hard work. It just requires apathy. The advantage to those who do wrong is greater when they have tacit support than active participation.

"...a group they associate with- so they resort to disreputable actions?" I don't get where this is coming from. What part of what I said incited that? Or are you just philosophizing?

It's based in your reply. Why does a man want to protect the reputation of men? As you say- it is in his self interest. The alternative of reducing the competing gender to less is agreed upon as not "honorable or commendable. "Resorting to sabotaging the competition isn't an upstanding thing to do. If anything it proves you lack the ability to compete on your own merits. True in cases of survival etc. we do as we must. It's instinctual.But if we know that the weak must sabotage the strong, when we resort to such tactics we only prove our weakness to anyone intelligent. Our character is shown through these actions. This doesn't just apply to gender. Every day in small ways we have the ability to influence the way society works. We can put out good and try to make it better for all, or we can put out bad and try to make it better for us at the expense of others. It's the instinct we must choose to overcome little by little over generations.

Well i see this as a short term solution that can help even the odds and open peoples eyes to the true discrimination around them. Q

If Jim is being discriminated against, and Jack is not- one can refuse to participate, one can extol the virtues of Jim, or one can resort to things like slandering Jack. There's more than one way to bring discrimination to light. It's up to us wether we want to tear people down or build people up. If we make it a world where people are built up, we can count on being built up when in need. If we tear people down, then we each get to wait and wonder when it will be our turn to be the one who gets brought down so another can feel big. It's up to us how we want to live. Short term solutions are short sighted, and change is a long process. When the short term is over we are left living in a world with the people we tore down to make our point. This is how so many grudges and tensions arise. No one wants to be torn down, but someone has to be the one to stop doing it. Hard feelings tend to endure through the long term. America still has tensions of a civil war fought almost 200 years ago.