[–] LottaBeetusJuice 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
AW: This is exactly what I'd expected.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
[–] EarthquakesAreScary 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I don't think I've ever seen anyone, man or woman, wearing one of those types of things who didn't look exactly like the stereotype. The lack of self awareness to not realize they're hurting their own cause by showing their inclusion in it is insane.
[–] Fatchilles 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago (edited ago)
I'm not a logician, I'm a mathematician. But they're close enough that I think I can help. There are a couple of ways to look at this, the easiest being the formal logical way and the set-theory way.
In formal logic, we are basically saying that it's not a biconditional (they don't always exist together, which is an if and only if statement). Let's call the statement p "is a 'feminist'", and call q "is a fat and ugly wxmyn". Then p implies q, meaning that if someone is a 'feminist', then that person is a fat and ugly wxmyn. However, it is not necessarily the case that q implies p; that is, there exists a fat and ugly wxmyn who is not a 'feminist'. Thus we have if p then q but not if q then p, so not p only if q. Thus we don't have p if and only if q. Much like water implies wet, but wet doesn't necessarily imply water.
In set theory, which I think is easier to understand, you have the set F of 'feminists', and the set W of fat and ugly wxmyns. Then for all f in F, f is also in W (because 'feminists' are fat, ugly wxmyn). However, if w is in W, then it is not necessarily in F, for the same reason that q implies p doesn't hold above. Thus we can say that F is a strict subset of W, i.e. F and W are not equal and W contains an element not in F.
EDIT: Realized that I didn't fully answer the question. The reason for the shirt is to mark the whale as a member of F rather than simply a member of W, which is a relevant distinction due to the relationship between F and W.
[–] Phillyshitlord 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
It looks like the kind of ham that's only single because of its "standards".
[–] DiabetoStinko 0 points 13 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago
Because they demand the triple 666s
Lol she looks like the night janitor at my office
[–] CognitiveDissident5 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
You made me laugh so much I swallowed some saliva down the wrong pipe and had a coughing fit.
[–] SeethingHatred 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago (edited ago)
also 6+ inch dick.
It looks like something I left in the toilet bowl this morning.
[–] surprisecockfag 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
Like it needed that shirt to tell us it's a feminist.
[–] ScalarWhaler 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago
TIL feminism is a cheap t-shirt stretched over fat!
[–] ThisIsMyRealName 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Now you know!
[–] Deathstalker 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago
Manufactured by women in sweat shops. Except they don't sweat like a pig sitting in an air conditioned airport.
[–] theepilepticferret 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago
This is what a feminist looks like
Exactly what I expected
[–] SeethingHatred 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
...and THAT is one of the thinner, more attractive ones. Just let that sink in for a minute.