{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/7/2014 4:55:08 PM
8
Man, Ubisoft's PR is garbage. They handled the 'no playable females' thing terribly and now they're afraid to admit that some things are objectively better than others so they don't offend anyone.
[spoiler]Maybe this whole thing was a plan to show people that equal outcomes hold back competitors. They're showing feminists how dumb they are.[/spoiler]
English
-
m8 I'm a feminist what have you got against it?
-
I'm for equality of opportunity so, naturally, I'm against people who think one side should get a boost. In the US there isn't a single right that men and women don't share that isn't directly linked to their sexual anatomy so feminism here can't possibly be fighting for equality of opportunity.
-
Objectification is an issue. There are others too. De jure most rights are shared, de facto not so much.
-
The fact is that women and men have the same opportunities and they both face unique obstacles in achieving the same outcomes. Feminism by definition is the expansion of women's rights. When rights are equal, you give one side an advantage by expanding their rights. If you think that the current rights are fine, then you're not a feminist. On top of that, even if feminism was about social equality instead of legal, you'd be biased to be only supporting one side and ignoring men's social issues.
-
You can be a feminist and also be for men's rights.
-
Edited by Lime: 10/8/2014 4:42:11 PMThen are you also a masculinist*? *under the definition that it's about social equality instead of legal, which isn't the definition. Edit: scratch that, I already explained you're not a feminist if you believe that rights should remain as they are, equal.
-
Man , that'd be a twist.
-
A brilliant twist... If that were the case 10/10 ubisoft
