[006]
taltamir
Current Version
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
All it needs to say is \
to:
All it needs to say is \\\"Please refrain from adding Real Life or Truth In Television examples in this page\\\"
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren\\\'t designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.
I think the issue is, that both articles seem to focus too much on the definitions of misogyny and misandry without sufficient focus on the straw aspect.
Also the straw feminist article suggests feminism IS misandry... and now that I think about it, specifies \\\"drawn\\\" instead of depicted (suggesting a comic or cartoon only).
I think the following line: A character whose feminism is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.
Would be better as: A character whose misandry is presented as feminism for the purpose of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.
And to add some more focus to the straw aspect in both articles.
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren\\\'t designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.
I think the issue is, that both articles seem to focus too much on the definitions of misogyny and misandry without sufficient focus on the straw aspect.
Also the straw feminist article suggests feminism IS misandry... and now that I think about it, specifies \\\"drawn\\\" instead of depicted (suggesting a comic or cartoon only).
I think the following line: A character whose feminism is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.
Would be better as: A character whose misandry is presented as feminism for the purpose of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.
And to add some more focus to the straw aspect in both articles.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
All it needs to say is \
to:
All it needs to say is \\\"Please refrain from adding Real Life or Truth In Television examples in this page\\\"
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren\\\'t designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.
I think the issue is, that both articles seem to focus too much on the definitions of misogyny and misandry without sufficient focus on the straw aspect.
Also the straw feminist article suggests feminism IS misandry... and now that I think about it, specifies \\\"drawn\\\" instead of depicted (suggesting a comic or cartoon only).
I think the following line: A character whose feminism is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.
Would be better as: A character whose misandry is presented as feminism for the purpose of either prooving them wrong or ridiculing them.
And to add some more focus to the straw aspect in both articles.
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren\\\'t designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.
I think the issue is, that both articles seem to focus too much on the definitions of misogyny and misandry without sufficient focus on the straw aspect.
Also the straw feminist article suggests feminism IS misandry... and now that I think about it, specifies \\\"drawn\\\" instead of depicted (suggesting a comic or cartoon only).
I think the following line: A character whose feminism is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.
Would be better as: A character whose misandry is presented as feminism for the purpose of either prooving them wrong or ridiculing them.
And to add some more focus to the straw aspect in both articles.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
All it needs to say is \
to:
All it needs to say is \\\"Please refrain from adding Real Life or Truth In Television examples in this page\\\"
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren\\\'t designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.
I think the issue is, that both articles seem to focus too much on the definitions of misogyny and misandry without sufficient focus on the straw aspect.
Also the straw feminist article suggests feminism IS misandry... and now that I think about it, specifies \\\"drawn\\\" instead of depicted (suggesting a comic or cartoon only).
I think the following line: A character whose feminism is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.
Would be better as: A character whose misandry is presented as feminism for the purpose of either proofing them wrong or ridiculing them.
And to add some more focus to the straw aspect in both articles.
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren\\\'t designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.
I think the issue is, that both articles seem to focus too much on the definitions of misogyny and misandry without sufficient focus on the straw aspect.
Also the straw feminist article suggests feminism IS misandry... and now that I think about it, specifies \\\"drawn\\\" instead of depicted (suggesting a comic or cartoon only).
I think the following line: A character whose feminism is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.
Would be better as: A character whose misandry is presented as feminism for the purpose of either proofing them wrong or ridiculing them.
And to add some more focus to the straw aspect in both articles.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
All it needs to say is \
to:
All it needs to say is \\\"Please refrain from adding Real Life or Truth In Television examples in this page\\\"
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren\\\'t designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.
I think the issue is, that both articles seem to merely define straw misogyny as misogyny and straw misandry as misandry without distinguishing that they are actually strawmen examples
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren\\\'t designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.
I think the issue is, that both articles seem to merely define straw misogyny as misogyny and straw misandry as misandry without distinguishing that they are actually strawmen examples
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
All it needs to say is \
to:
All it needs to say is \\\"Please refrain from adding Real Life or Truth In Television examples in this page\\\"
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren\\\'t designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren\\\'t designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
All it needs to say is \
to:
All it needs to say is \\\"Please refrain from adding Real Life or Truth In Television examples in this page\\\"
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page
