• Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    The argument doesn’t sound as convincing this way:

    A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of assailants on an equal field with the burliest of women.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      that is not a resonable test in this situation.

      Dont use ‘woman’ as an adjective. No need. Just use dainty/frail vs. burly.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Okay, but they did. I see how it sounds sexist, but how is it actually sexist? Dainty women do exist, and are on average, more dainty than dainty men.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Well, using the stereotype is to reinforce their point. It’s a argumentative tactic. Like if someone said “eating greasy McDonald’s or whatever”, they could have just said “eating unhealthy food” but using specific imagery that plays into stereotypes gives a more emotional reaction.

              • aidan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                Maybe, I’m not sure where I fall on that. I view it basically the same as like the “fat American” stereotype- so is that xenophobic? Actually I would say that is worse, because being dainty isn’t necessarily a negative trait to many people.

                • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Hmm trying to shore up a losing argument with a flanking maneuver, using the same trite tactic, to nations instead of gender.

                  Going after redheads next?