When a feminist or masculinist argument is rendered moot because it applies equally to both genders.
Practically applied by replacing the gender terms in an argument with their antonyms, i.e., if, in a piece of writing, you can reasonably replace the words 'women, female, maternal etc' with 'men, males, paternal etc' (or visa versa) without significantly altering your contention; then it's not appropriate to argue your point from a feminist/masculinist perspective.
Practically applied by replacing the gender terms in an argument with their antonyms, i.e., if, in a piece of writing, you can reasonably replace the words 'women, female, maternal etc' with 'men, males, paternal etc' (or visa versa) without significantly altering your contention; then it's not appropriate to argue your point from a feminist/masculinist perspective.
1. You can't use "women are pressured in to having children because their parents want grandchildren" as a feminist argument, it doesn't pass the Law of Androgyny test; that point would still be valid if you replaced 'women' with 'men.'
2. You can't use "men are pressured in to having children because their parents want grandchildren" as a masculinist argument, it doesn't pass the Law of Androgyny test; that point would still be valid if you replaced 'men' with 'women.'
2. You can't use "men are pressured in to having children because their parents want grandchildren" as a masculinist argument, it doesn't pass the Law of Androgyny test; that point would still be valid if you replaced 'men' with 'women.'
by McKinks June 21, 2014