By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
o_O.Q on 14 February 2018
Edit Thread
TallSilhouette said:
o_O.Q said:

"In what way does an ideological group talking about an issue relevant to their group declare that it's only a serious issue when it's related to male sexuality?"

there is no declaration but i think that its pretty obvious

they took away the rights of these women to work.... why? 

because they were perceived to be sexually gratifying to men... i mean you yourself alluded to it with your "shallow" and "vapid" comments

Whooole lot of assumptions happening here. They didn't take away anything; the organizations did. A company removing one of its gender exclusive occupations does not take away the gender's fundamental right to work. Not enjoying racing models in your racing doesn't mean it's because the opposite sex enjoys them.

o_O.Q said:

"Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to earn fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to receive education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave"

which of those rights do women of the present day lack?

Which fundamental rights do they lack after these specific ~layoffs? If anything, things are more egalitarian now that neither sex is getting paid to flaunt their goodies (opening it up to men would have had a similar effect, but as I've discussed that would still add nothing to the sport).

 

"They didn't take away anything; the organizations did. "

true but the feminists put pressure on the organisations leading to them taking these positions away

 

"A company removing one of its gender exclusive occupations does not take away the gender's fundamental right to work."

it does within that field does it not?

suppose we took away the rights of women to work in STEM fields, is that now justified according to you?

 

"Not enjoying racing models in your racing doesn't mean it's because the opposite sex enjoys them."

i have no further comment... if you truly want to just play your part in pushing this dishonest nonsense then so be it

what i'll say though is that to see a group of people attacking a fundamental aspect of what you are as a human being (out of feelings of resentment and not a drive to better society) and support them as they do so cannot ever lead to a positive outcome

again you can call that a reach and i suppose it is, but i think again that its pretty obvious

 

"Which fundamental rights do they lack after these specific ~layoffs?"

so you disregarded the question i was asking to reframe it as if women are not being adversely affected by this while you claim to be supporting a movement that is all about emancipating women