Many Ways to Be a Girl, but One Way to Be a Boy: The New Gender Rules
136 replies, posted
Acting like we don't have to determine the nuance of a situation before moving forward is how we end up with unforseen consequences and stupid arbitrary laws
Lets not be stupid, and lets think about the nuance while we have a chance to create better laws going forward
How is this so hotly debated
If that's what you've taken away from this thread, you're either bad at reading or willfully ignoring the nuance of the discussion.
My rule of thumb with this stuff is to just let people be how they want. If someone's being an asshole about it, then I'd say something. But there's really no reason to judge others when it comes to
personal preferences about how they want to live there lives.
Isn't "what about men" the entire topic of the thread/article?
I feel like I may have mis-communicated my point. My point was it felt like Talishmar was saying "yeah, majority of the people in power are men, but that doesn't convince me that there's a patriarchy," and my point was "majority of people in power being men is a sign of a patriarchy," where if you can observe one thing, then why go through "idk, I'll consider this and this happens" when an obvious sign is there?
It's the nuances of debating whether or not there is a patriarchy, rather than of a patriarchy itself/what leads to it sustaining.
This. Feminists often complain about people who bring up men's issues because they say it detracts from more important problems, but more often than not they're the ones hijacking conversations unrelated to women's rights.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.