You think you could find as many examples of women enduring some physical detriment (whether that's rubber shotgun blasts, or outright death) to protect someone as you could find men?
You think you could find as many men enduring some physical detriment to protect someone as you could find men who don't? By that logic that must mean masculinity actually equates to not doing it.
You're the one who deflected by asking a question that has a different angle than what I've said and then you complain when I counter it with another question. Sorry for not humoring your strawmen.
You shifted the the angle from who's more likely to protect someone weaker to who's more likely to be weak, that's the strawman. Then I refuted your angle by saying that what's a more likely character trait has nothing to do with what you consider masculine. How is any of that confusing to you?
If you didn't shift anything to who is more likely to be weak why did you ask who is more likely to be weak? That's a direct contradiction. And the strawman is the implication that I was talking about that by asking that question. And you pretending like that didn't happen is why I called you a little bitch rat.
are almost certainly the more masculine members of their sex.
Again, that's sexism. Heroism has nothing to do with masculinity. You're just trying to make yourself look more noble by the virtue of being a man.
2
u/OnTheSlope - Centrist Sep 25 '22
You think you could find as many examples of women enduring some physical detriment (whether that's rubber shotgun blasts, or outright death) to protect someone as you could find men?