3 ms·

There is a difference between attacking people because of their sex or by insulting them based on their sex. First is definitively sexist, the latter is arguabl

by tnmrnis 10y ago

There is a difference between attacking people because of their sex or by insulting them based on their sex. First is definitively sexist, the latter is arguable.

foldr 10y ago
He was suggesting that Megan Kelley was asking him tough questions because she was on her period.
- tnmrnis 10y ago
  He was suggesting that Megyn Kelly was asking him though questions and that the reason for this was that she is on her period. There is a very subtle but important difference. He attacked her for asking supposedly though questions, not for being on her period. First was the reason of his attack. Latter was the means of his attack.
  - sjwright 10y ago
    Let's assume you're right. How is that any better?
    - tnmrnis 10y ago
      Her sex wasn't the reason he attacked her, therefor it wasn't sexist.
      - PavleMiha 10y ago
        He's implying that women on their periods have their judgement impaired, which, considering that only women have periods, is sexist and false.
  - foldr 10y ago
    As with the other reply, I don't see how this is any better. It's still openly sexist. (Megan Kelley isn't able to do her job properly because she has a uterus.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]