There’s a long, documented, researched, history of men being raised to expect things from women.
I find the implication that there is not also a long, documented, researched, history of women being raised to expect things from men, quite amusing in its ignorance.
What?? Keeping a discussion to one aspect of a topic is absolutely not an example of bias, it’s an example of contextual scope. It’s the only reason we can have a discussion about anything without having to include the full context it’s situated within (which would be the entire universe).
I find the implication that there is not also a long, documented, researched, history of women being raised to expect things from men, quite amusing in its ignorance.
That is in absolutely no way implied by that statement; the existance of a truth does not imply the existance of it’s inverse.
yes but focusing on one side of the discussion ignoring its counterpart is a clear sign of bias, so despite being technically correct it’s unhelpful
What?? Keeping a discussion to one aspect of a topic is absolutely not an example of bias, it’s an example of contextual scope. It’s the only reason we can have a discussion about anything without having to include the full context it’s situated within (which would be the entire universe).