maximinus
maximinus
maximinus

Actually, it's often the 'feminists' that are misinformed, underinformed, or extremely reductionist and confrontational. The term and identity are often hijacked by people who use it for personal grievances. It's a mishandling of the term and the movement.

The term irks me, because despite my career in social justice, the lay-persons that label themselves 'feminists' tend to be uninformed yet confrontational. Certainly not all, but enough to give the term a negative connotation.

That's because it's not. A lot of the commenters think of themselves as feminists, though.

NOW it all makes sense. You're a gamer.

Children don't use pencils and erasers, they use cellphones and computers.

Absolutely. People we don't know can only be objects. We have zero ability to know them in any other way. Through interaction, people move from the objective to the subjective.

Is that a real comment? I can barely decipher the intent of your inquiry. Seeing strangers as bodies - given our inability to know their characters - is equal and safe for everyone. Moreover, it is a limitation not of society, but of life itself. We cannot know people for anything other than what we have encountered.

People - particularly those we don't know - can only be bodies. As we move toward closer degrees of acquaintance, your points become more valid. But I think that most people can attest that, as someone gets to know you better, they spend less time looking at your physical features and become distracted with all the

Reproductive organs and sexual desire are what the OP refers to, rather than a semantic argument about 'reproduction'. When homosexual people encounter people of our desired gender, our reproductive organs respond. Given the recent and historic studies that show men and women instinctually looking at bodies before

In what way would you like the majority of people that see you (complete strangers) to view you? Most people don't know you and have no reason to view you for 'who you are'. Instead, 99.999% of people are only privy to how you look. And when we throw biology and instinct into the mix, we have people looking at each

Yes, and for many of us, that's something we understand to be true. Given that I don't know 99.999% of men, I don't expect the male gaze to value me for 'who I am', because they don't know me. When men (and women) see me, they are limited to what is apparent - how I look. And when we throw biology into the mix,

Where are you getting your data from, please?

Eh, many peer-reviewed scientific journals and accredited departments list the maximum 'ideal' or 'healthy' weight for a woman 5'2" in height as much lower than that. Here, for example, the maximum weight is listed at 121lbs. So while this weight might not be normal for some people, and despite anecdotal outliers of

Given the sheer and massive destruction brought upon the planet by the use and manufacture of a single car - steel, plastic, chemicals, gas, oil, etc - a better tactic would be to shame the male drivers for oppressing both woman and planet.

I'll tell you what, after three college degrees, I see my brain as a depository of a lot of valuable information priced at nearly six-figures.

And to that, I can only say: good.

Because I'll be goddamned if I watch late night tv, that's why.

Happened to me - as one half of the break up. We'd been together for 5+ years and were all part of the same friend group. When I broke up with her, I broke up with all but 1 of my 8 best friends as per her request. 'Fairness' wasn't the issue, but her ability to cope with our breakup with the help of a supportive and

His argument falls apart when he disconnects the fucking vicious manner in which humans destroy the planet from the destruction of biodiversity. But yes, LEAVE NATURE ALONE.

My god, if people knew how much waste a single human baby produces.