3 ms·
I read it and can confirm that the take is basically the same as my take on it. Totally sexist garbage. Or pro-restrictive gender roles. Also, charmingly unawa
by lanstin 4y ago
I read it and can confirm that the take is basically the same as my take on it. Totally sexist garbage. Or pro-restrictive gender roles.
Also, charmingly unaware of history. Moving to the cities for free love, gender flexibility, and parties is not some new 2000s thing. That was disco and cocaine in 80s. That was the hippies back when the boomers were young, and that was the 1920s. “How you going to keep them down on the farm after they’ve seen gay Paris”.
Sexism and anti-sexism have neither been newly created nor nearly defeated in the past ten or twenty years.
Now, social media on the other hand…
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mock-possum 4y agoReally? I read through and it doesn’t seem sexist to me - it’s naïve, sure, but it doesn’t sound like it’s buying into the Stacy/Chad/Petersonian stuff, it’s just acknowledging their existence, and guessing at why they might appeal to people now. It doesn’t seem like it’s pro gender roles.