>>97248721I feel like the reason why his statement can be taken as anti-feminist is because it kind of swaps cause and effect.
Yes if full equality is achieved (as a hypothetical), no one should have to point out the breaking of gender norms, because there would be no different norms or outliers.
For example lets take a sum
>1 + 3 = 4. >Addend + Addend = Sum. Now lets differentiate between the addends, Addend 1 and Addend 2
>Addend 1 + Addend 2 = SumNo one has to point out how Addend 2 will finally gaining the same recognition in making up a sum as Addend 1. It doesn't make any sense because we don't think about numbers that way, and understand that yes both parts of an addition, even if unequal values are important in making up the entire sum.
However, proofs do get made in theoretical math that show that the addends are commutative, that the order does not matter and that they are completely interchangeable. The existence of those proofs does not mean that the commutative property is somehow false or strange. They do not "ultimately undermine" the concept of a commutative property. They can certainly feel awkward to someone who takes that for granted, but that's just rigorous math that becomes more obviously important when dealing with more complicated mathematical concepts that aren't so elementary.
In that same sense, pointing out evidence of gender equality does not necessarily have to prove a lack of equality in every day life. It could, but it doesn't have to.Also, I would say that in some ways, especially in athletics where there are biological differences that are regulated differently at a high level, there is clear inequality. I don't think anyone really takes for granted that at the highest level of athletics that men and women are equal contenders even at the same weight class. That may not be the case in a pick up game of soccer, but still, there *is* an inequality there, making Amy's statement justified by Knuckles own standards.
