[–] LottaBeetusJuice 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
AW: This is exactly what I'd 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.
[–] swimfanfan 0 points 28 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago
Ew. Real feminists aren't pro obesity because we actually want women to live.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago (edited ago)
[–] swimfanfan 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago
Right? Like, I'd love for there to be less emphasis and importance placed on womens' appearance, but 'weight' is not part of 'appearance.' While it is a bonus that thin people are the only people who are attractive, weight is a HEALTH issue. Trying to make it feminist to not care about your health is dangerous. It's like making smoking or alcoholism a feminist issue.
[–] [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.
[–] 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.
[–] surprisecockfag 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
Like it needed that shirt to tell us it's a feminist.