3 ms·
Both are oppressive, both are ostensibly done to protect the oppressed target (from rape and violence), both undercut the decisions of mature adults (women, par
by x1798DE 11y ago
Both are oppressive, both are ostensibly done to protect the oppressed target (from rape and violence), both undercut the decisions of mature adults (women, parents). Seems like it's valid on at least a few dimensions.
The major difference is that children grow up to be adults and are freed from the restrictions. If that is the most salient issue, then it's a bad analogy, but I don't think it's a "ludicrous" comparison.
- dudul 11y agoThe problem is mature women do not compare to children. It's like saying "forbidding children to vote is as stupid as forbidding women to vote". Children do not have the same legal status as grown ups. They can't drive, should they drive because mature women can drive? They can't watch porn, should they be allowed to watch porn because mature women can? Yes, kids not being allowed to walk down the street is stupid, but using the argument that mature women can do it so kids should be allowed to do it is not valid.