Re:There’s a $200k reward for anyone who proves Microsoft ri...
by dorkalorka on Monday August 15, 2016 @02:17PM
(#12292300)
You just showed that the words "weak" and "emotional" mean two different things. No one ever questioned that.
Re:There’s a $200k reward for anyone who proves Microsoft ri...
by HeyLaughingBoy on Monday August 15, 2016 @02:47PM
(#12292531)
The assumption in the post I replied to was that being emotional was seen essentially as being weak.
Re:There’s a $200k reward for anyone who proves Microsoft ri...
by dragonwriter on Monday August 15, 2016 @04:07PM
(#12293009)
No, the question was in what way one was more neutral than the other.
I mean, the whole post (excluding quoted material used to show what that post was responding to) was (including the incorrect use of a period where a question mark was intended):
How is the idea that women are "more emotional" than men "more neutral" than the idea that "women are weaker than men".
Re:There’s a $200k reward for anyone who proves Microsoft ri...
by dorkalorka on Monday August 15, 2016 @03:18PM
(#12292722)
No it wasn't. The question was whether one was more neutral than the other.
Assuming that your question is meant in good faith, here's an example. I have two sons. One is extremely emotional, far more so than his brother was at that age. He cries over minor incidents, take small slights to heart, gets upset easily, etc. His teacher describes him as "feeling things very deeply."
However, he is also extremely bright and very strong willed. Even at a young age, we can already see that he is not the type of person who will allow himself to be taken advantage of. Despite his sometimes irritating emotionality, there is simply no way I could ever characterize him as weak.
Does that help?