Originally Posted by Ele
Talking out of your ass again.
Google calls it "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
Wiki says it "to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women."
So, pray tell, what's your definition of feminism that you've undoubtedly constructed to serve your argument?
"womens rights on the grounds of equality"
".... rights for women"
I already said previously actions speak louder than words, but I think the words are pretty clear here too.
I already linked the wiki article for 3rd wave feminism, but I think you can research some feminist literature if you are interested.
Originally Posted by Ele
Since feminism is just an ideology that espouses equal rights for women, it's applicable anywhere inequality is present. This includes the East.
Well, I disagree on the basis that a western movement shouldn't be tackling eastern traditionalism issues.
But I also disagree on the basis of "whenever equality is present" when even from the the definitions you yourself posted it only tackles the women's side.
Originally Posted by Ele
Yeah, and it's understandable, justifiable thinking. If there's no real threat of yourself being harmed, then of course you don't hit them back. You don't hit a child back if they hit you, because they're not any threat to you. The same applies with women hitting men. Most of the time you're not in enough danger to justify hitting the woman. Don't let me stop you from punching the next woman that slaps you, though.
So maybe you should just say "don't hit people unless you have to" rather than randomly gendering non-gendered issues...
If someone assaults you then you have the right to defend yourself mate. Women who abuse "positive sexism" in order to assault people without reciprocation are not helping gender equality...
Originally Posted by Ele
Because I'm being specific, not general. Sue me.
Ok but it's really misleading and pointless...
Originally Posted by Ele
I didn't imply that. I said women who are unarmed generally aren't a threat. You can't logically, from that, say that I was implying that men who are unarmed aren't a threat. Please explain your logic.
Because usually people assume if you quantify something then you are doing it for a reason... Sorry mate this is how language works, if you specifically exclude men from your statement, people will assume you are doing it on purpose.
Your later statement that unarmed women aren't a threat once again excludes men...
I think you should just say what you mean instead of using such a round about way of saying things. If you think you shouldn't hit people who aren't a threat, then say that. Don't say "'don't hit women', and by that I mean don't hit women, children, or men if they are unarmed and aren't a threat".
Take a leaf out of proto's book and learn to communicate.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»