Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wait whattt? :o" data-source="post: 66909" data-attributes="member: 564">I don&#039;t think the thread is strictly about that. I mean, OP themselves have acknowledged this is a &quot;troll post&quot;, so I am under the impression this is more satirical than anything as you have said: &quot;OP just flipped the script on the extras who can&#039;t compete. If you hate that mirror, good.&quot;I got into &quot;gender complementarity and invisible labor valuation&quot; because YOU linked an article that specifically talks about that. It cites the undervaluation of domestic and care labor as a reason for the &quot;ambition gap&quot;. I was under the impression this is where you were trying to go, and so I played along with that. Besides, this still IS relevant to the post anyway. I don&#039;t see what the issue with going there.Framing aside, I am literally correct though. You asked, I answered. Mind you, I simply presented an example without actually making a claim using that example. I never presented the example and then said, &quot;Therefore, women are equal&quot;. I simply just gave you an answer based on what I read.Okay, but where are you going with this though? Like, what exactly is the point you are making? That this is how society is ought to be? That men ought to rule over women? That women ought to subject themselves to the reign of men or that women are ought to be subordinates to men?Also, try not to be antagonistic. We are not fighting here, we are discussing.Edit: changed &quot;women are ought to be subordinates to women&quot; to &quot;women are ought to be subordinates to men&quot;Sorry for the mistake and late edit :p</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wait whattt? :o, post: 66909, member: 564"] I don't think the thread is strictly about that. I mean, OP themselves have acknowledged this is a "troll post", so I am under the impression this is more satirical than anything as you have said: "OP just flipped the script on the extras who can't compete. If you hate that mirror, good." I got into "gender complementarity and invisible labor valuation" because YOU linked an article that specifically talks about that. It cites the undervaluation of domestic and care labor as a reason for the "ambition gap". I was under the impression this is where you were trying to go, and so I played along with that. Besides, this still IS relevant to the post anyway. I don't see what the issue with going there. Framing aside, I am literally correct though. You asked, I answered. Mind you, I simply presented an example without actually making a claim using that example. I never presented the example and then said, "Therefore, women are equal". I simply just gave you an answer based on what I read. Okay, but where are you going with this though? Like, what exactly is the point you are making? That this is how society is ought to be? That men ought to rule over women? That women ought to subject themselves to the reign of men or that women are ought to be subordinates to men? Also, try not to be antagonistic. We are not fighting here, we are discussing. Edit: changed "women are ought to be subordinates to women" to "women are ought to be subordinates to men" Sorry for the mistake and late edit :p [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread