{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
4/18/2013 3:13:02 AM
2
But isn't that a good thing? Allowing women on first would be an implicit statement that they are weaker and less able to take care of themselves, wouldn't it?
English
-
Yes. That's my point. MRA's like to point to things like WACF as examples of "misandry" but 99% of the time they're the result of patriarchal notions of gender that hold women to be weak and incapable of saving themselves. Which is bad. No feminists I know think that WACF is a good thing.
-
If they want equality they're going to have to fight for it! "Women and children first" is a nice notion, but the results of this study don't surprise me. People like to think they'd be honorable in a survival situation like that, but you never know what you're really going to do unless you find yourself in this predicament.
