3 ms·
That's what I thought. And then a huge flamewar emerged in IRC about how equality is wrong. It should be comparability not equality. Because eqaulity would mean
by lawl 13y ago
That's what I thought. And then a huge flamewar emerged in IRC about how equality is wrong. It should be comparability not equality. Because eqaulity would mean men == women.
So the rights shouldn't be equal but comparable, because mixed soccer leagues would be unfair.
It went then on in a discussion if the idea of comparability isn't maybe patriarchic because in studying performance between gender there has been no significant statistical difference etc. etc.
So no. You're wrong.
- mherkender 13y agoHow can I be wrong about the dictionary definition of a word?
- lawl 13y agoTouché. But you understand what I'm getting at. Even if you take the dictionary definition there is still a lot of room for interpretation. Who defines what equality exactly includes? And please don't post the definition of equality now ;-) I can't change the pastebin now.
- mherkender 13y agoI'm an atheist, and there are atheists I don't agree with, but there isn't one way to be an atheist and I don't really expect anything from them except to not believe in god. I see feminism to be the same way, and I think you expect too much uniformity from it. Gender equality (I'll spare you the definition) includes many things, so I'm not sure how to explain it better than that, but I do think it includes not having unfairly strong, negative reactions to anything involving feminism and the common topics this kind of forum has.
- actsasbuffoon 13y agoThis is the first I've heard of the comparability argument. At first glance it reminds me of the old, "separate but equal" catchphrase we used when dealing with ethnic minorities in the US. The system led to treatment that was indeed separate, but equal... not so much.