[refulgentis]

Hmmm...I'm not sure if gender equality advocacy is when you always advocate for complete equality in all things always.

There's a side component of the mens right advocacy movement that tries introducing the idea that there's some flaw in woman's rights movements because they're not true gender equality movements: inter alia, famously, lawsuits over ladies nights at bars

I think the reason that doesn't carry much attention is because it's intuitive, even without the concept involved, to understand why someone might advocate for equal pay but not for equal conscription. We are but sentient meat.

[fruitworks]

>.I'm not sure if gender equality advocacy

Of course you're not sure. You are the recipient of a decades long campaign to redfine the meaning of equality.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

[ponector]

Isn't it about equal responsibilities? No one is talking about women should be serving in the assault infantry together with men. But there are many different jobs to be filled within army which are equally suitable men and women: pretty much anything tech related: aircraft, drones, tanks.

[pessimizer]

> There's a side component of the mens right advocacy movement that tries introducing the idea that there's some flaw in woman's rights movements because they're not true gender equality movements: inter alia, famously, lawsuits over ladies nights at bars

It's not just men's rights. There is a massive part of the West who believes that to acknowledge that women are physically different than men is the real sexism. Erasing female as a distinct category entirely is supposed to be the anti-sexist option. Females are just weak men, too lazy to get taller and stronger. Or men are just big, sterile, extremely strong women. Now that I type it, I guess it is a men's rights movement.

Turning "woman-hating" into "misogynist" into "sexist" was as men's rights as turning Women's Studies into Gender Studies.

edit: always remember that the history of "sexism" is not a history of people hurting people, it's a history of men hurting women. Sexism is a euphemism. The reason only males are required to do military service in Korea is because men decided that's how it should be. If men decided otherwise, it would be changed.

[jadamson]

> There is a massive part of the West who believes that to acknowledge that women are physically different than men is the real sexism.

Followed by:

> The reason only males are required to do military service in Korea is because men decided that's how it should be.

Is a truly staggering juxtaposition.

> If men decided otherwise, it would be changed.

SK is a democracy with a slight majority women, but of course, feminists and statistics are like oil and water. Always remember that.

[refulgentis]

Idk what either of you are on about, if it makes you feel better.

Seems like he's trying to complain...everyone? blue team? women? women and betas? women and lib cucks? women and misled men?...lie and say women are as strong as men and saying otherwise is censored as sexism.

You misread it as complaining about people who say there's a difference in mens and womens strength, and start complaining about how this is adjacent to blaming male voters for conscription given woman vote too, and all feminists won't read statistics.

Both of you need to grow up, in that, these are silly strawmen and not even wrong, in the Pauli sense. There's nothing to engage with.

You're making up obviously false stuff, and you've found a safe way to not have to engage with reality by claiming if you tried, you'd have to deal with all feminists ignoring statistics because all feminists believe men are as strong as women.

[jadamson]

> Idk what either of you are on about, if it makes you feel better.

Then please don't waste my time.

[anoncareer0212]

Why bother to be on a discussion forum if you're so pressed for time that you're lashing out at people agreeing with you and consider any interlocution a waste of time?

From the outside, it looks like all you get out of this is feeling upset, and it makes us wonder how you misread so wildly.

[jadamson]

I didn't misread anything. refulgentis edited his comment after I replied, and the issue seems to stem from his failure to understand the comment I replied to. Without that context, my reply obviously won't make sense either.

The comment I replied to is pretty standard feminist dreck, and if you can't understand it, maybe interlocute them first? Debate is one thing, spoon-feeding you explanations of someone else's comment is another.

Still, I'll give you a hint: both pessimizer and I agree that men and women are physically different - again, I did not misread them in that regard. The difference is that I take that to a logical conclusion, while they are bound by ideology to stop short.