14
Humor"What is a chair đ„Ž"
I was literally about to go to sleep when this popped into my head
The defining feature of a chair is the BACK. It's a PIECE OF FURNITURE meant to seat one individual, with a back. The back is mentioned in the actual definition.
Seats are more abstract. They really should have gone with that for their little "gotcha" regarding what a woman is.
Perhaps we should start calling trans identified males "Chair/s" as a funny sort of "slur" to illustrate that just as there is a solid definition for chair, there's also a solid definition for man, and they really suck at trying to confuse us on what either of those things are, as much as they'd like to.
đȘđȘđȘ
I had someone come at me with this bullshit. Some sociologist wrote an article several months ago making this claim with zero evidentiary backup, but women have latched on to it like it is gospel, despite no woman having a world record in any event that beats the male record. Then they fall back on weight, height, and "body composition" are better ways to divide people for sport, completely ignoring that a woman of the same weight and height will not have anything close to a male's body composition, that male bone density is greater than female bone density, that male athletes have body fat % that are dangerous and unhealthy for women. It is magical thinking. If men and women are so equally matched physically, domestic violence, rape, etc would be incredibly rare. But some women are too afraid to acknowledge that males are physiologically stronger and harder to injured than women, because they think that means women are inferior to men.
It is magical thinking. If men and women are so equally matched physically, domestic violence, rape, etc would be incredibly rare.
Covert victim blaming
I don't think so, I think it is a complete lack of critical thinking and categorical blindness. They do not even consider how what they say with respect to sports carries over to other aspects of women's lives.
That one is so bizarre.
If women could beat men at sports we wouldn't have to worry so much about male violence against us. We'd just put our rapists in headlocks and then punt them over the fence.
Are we sure about this? I thought men were the only ones allowed, but we wanted to play sports as well, so we fought and fought until we got our own leagues and teams
I'm pretty sure there was never a time in history when men and women competed against each other and women starting beating the men, leading to segregation
I'm pretty sure there was never a time in history when men and women competed against each other and women starting beating the men, leading to segregation
Iâve heard people say that shooting competitions were segregated because women could beat men and men were upset, but Iâm not finding confirmation that men were upset. (And they seem to imply that since women could win at shooting guns, and maybe ultramarathons, that all sports might as well be sex-mixed.)
Margaret Murdock competed with men and nearly won Olympic gold, getting bumped to silver by tiebreak rules, but it seems like the men she played with were supportive. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Murdock
It's such wishful thinking. I hate that women are physically weaker and slower. If I could press a button now to make women 5 times stronger and faster than men, I would do it with pure, unadulterated glee. Then I would tune into Sky News and watch Afghan woman beat the shit out of the Taliban. How do they think women became subjugated if it isn't to do with the strength difference (as well as pregnancy etc.)? Do they think we were just much dumber?
They probably don't think women are subjugated. Or if they do
They think this, or that we are socialized to be weak or something.
Iâve seen people claim that women are weaker because of socialization, and we have to pretend otherwise to reverse course on the socialization.
I mean afghan women would not beat the shit out of the taliban. Nothing would change because afghan men have all the guns and all the money to buy guns.
Physical strength disparities got us here, but reversing them canât get us out. The only positive I could see is there would be maybe 1-2 months of lag time where women could kill men with our bare hands and maybe in some courts possibly they could have a judge who was fair enough to give her a slap on the wrist for a âcrime of passionâ as is the norm for when men do it to women. But even in the 1-2 months it would take for laws to get hastily passed to suddenly account for the human body as a weapon, judges and juries would likely just let their bias give women the same old harsher sentences we always get for doing the same crimes men do (but for good reason).
Maybe if you gave female people the same disregard for all human life that men have, and gave men the same value of human life that women have, at the same time as swapping the strength factor then youâd see some serious change. Maybe you could even just swap the âvalue human lifeâ thing and things would change even with strength remaining the same. There is nothing at the moment stopping American women at least from using weapons to take out men en masse. The reason we donât do it isnât because we currently have less physical strength than men.
Laws and economics are the problem. Laws wonât be applied fairly just because the sexes are reversed. If men knew theyâd be locked up for life if they killed a female partner, they would be less likely to do it. If male bodies were regulated the same way firearms and knives are, they wouldnât have as much opportunity to kill. If men were dependent on women to get access to everything they need and want, and women were encouraged to deprive men of money in every way possible, then men would have more incentive to keep women alive to try to maintain access to those resources.
The ship of brute force terrorism for thousands of years has sailed. It reminds me of monopoly when your opponent gets a bunch of lucky dice rolls at the beginning of the game, and then you have to sit around yawning and paying out the nose every turn because you have no properties. Itâs a done deal at that point. Luckily life isnât monopoly and we can change the rules if we want.
Oh I know. I just got too into the revenge fantasy.
And I agree that killing with bare hands would be taken seriously in a way that it isn't today. When I get alerts about rioters in the UK being remanded in custody, getting long-ish sentences, and crying in the dock, I wonder why they can't provide this tough approach to men who batter and rape women.