They often are, but talk past each other, in what&#x27;s known as a Motte and Bailey[1][2]. A mens rights group doesn&#x27;t want to ban all women from holding positions of power, just the incapable ones. Who&#x27;s a capable woman? Well, they haven&#x27;t found one, but if they did they&#x27;d surely let her into their club. Their core argument sounds like it might meet you halfway, but they never do.<p>Variants along this argument come up all the time. It&#x27;s pretty much the entirety of political speechwriting; Even Trump&#x27;s most outlandish statements are forms of it. He&#x27;ll proclaim to ban all muslims, back up to &#x27;well, just enhanced screening&#x27;, but darned if it&#x27;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 &#x27;assault weapons&#x27; with &#x27;no sports shooting value&#x27; be banned, and then their list of assault weapons is based on whatever the most common rifle is at the time.<p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Motte-and-bailey_castle" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Motte-and-bailey_castle</a>
[2]<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;rationalwiki.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bait-and-switch#Motte_and_bailey" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;rationalwiki.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bait-and-switch#Motte_and_baile...</a>