crfriend wrote:
So, one "conservative" (new-school usage there, beware) pressure group gets things completely out of context and makes a hullabaloo out of it. They're merely showing their own ignorance -- in spades.
Do you mean those funny guys with the most hilarious remarks?
Oh, he has no pants, so he wears a skirt.
By that logic, a cyclist doesn't own a car.
Versatility requires more often than not a compromise in terms of aesthetics, therefore it is inavitable that you receive a moronic 3rd party comment behind your back if ye wear the Macabi in short configuration.
crfriend wrote:
Clothing does not define who, or what, we are. It can be used as an outward expression of our own tastes, but it can also simply be a fashion statement. Yet even in a roomful of highly-educated people at my elder aunt's 70th birthday party last year I continually got peppered with questions to the effect of, "Are you transitioning?" -- to which the answer was an unequivocal "NO." I finally shut most of them up by suffixing the "NO" with, "It's a fashion statement. There is NO SUBTEXT." Sometimes it's amazing how dense folks can be.
People make clothing, not the other way arround.
crfriend wrote:
So, in relation to that flap in France, I have to ask this question: "What connects a protest to forward equality of the sexes to the concept of 'gay marriage'?" Actually, I don't, because the answer is, "Nothing!" On the concept of "equality" we need look no further than the boardroom at one of the United States' biggest newspapers who just sacked a woman who had the courage to point up the (still!) unequal pay between men and women. Kudos to her for her courage and shame on her boss and the company for their actions. Is demanding equality of pay also promoting homosexuality? I rather think not.
No bro, no, don't mistake "get payed" for "have earned," da pay gap has been debunkend countless times. E. g. men have no uterus, men work more overtime, men get compensated for more dangerous and physically demanding jobs ... in general.
crfriend wrote:
Fair play is fair play. Let's level the damned playing field once and for all. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our sisters should be something that we (and especially this lot) should be proud to do. Equality, recall, is transitive; if something is OK for one but not for another equality does not exist. Full stop.
Ach, It is not a matter of proportion but a moral one. I am sick of sexist bigots and hypocrites.
A chick who claims that skirts were "women's cloth" and wears trousers should either wear traditional "women's cloth" only or abolish those categories alltogether to be consistent. Otherwise she is a sexist, because she applies dat principle only to men, a bigot, because it is subjective opinion and a hypocrite because of double standard.
In conclusion: Even if she would apply these principle consistantly, that would make her a bigot, due to the subjective nature of the claim.
You don't own peoples' thoughts and emotions. The tendency is, those who laugh ain't open minded and curious and those who are open minded and curious don't laugh. The ignorants are in between.