These are not two unrelated things.
So you entirely fail to understand how definitions work?
They are 2 definitions for a particular concept.
It is not saying both must apply.
So once again you scrub the equality part and there’s no mention of trying to elevate women above men.
The equality part wasn't there. You trying to force it in when it didn't exist, is your problem.
The point is not that it specifically says to elevate women above men, it is that it doesn't preclude it.
And as shown by examples, that is what they are doing.
No, it’s actions to promote Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin joy rides for the filthy rich and Katy Perry’s upcoming tour dates. There’s no benefit for women with this nonsense.
Well as Katy Perry is a woman, it would seem like there is at least a benefit for one woman.
But if you want to go down this path, you could do the same for so much other BS from feminism.
The first big problem was you trying to blame feminist mentality for the definition of rape in English law, which predates feminist movements by centuries.
Yet again, you distort the facts.
The question is where are the feminists trying to get equality rather than superiority?
And this isn't some ancient law we are talking about. This is the sexual offences act 2003.
i.e. it was a bill passed in 2003.
And it isn't like the law can't be updated.
e.g. back in the Sexual Offences Act 1956, it was specifically for a man to rape a woman, with no elaboration, and included a provision for it to still be rape if a man tricks a woman into thinking he is her husband.
It was then expanded in 1994 to include the rape of men by men, expanding it to include both vaginal and anal intercourse.
It was then updated in 2003 to include oral sex, and remove the part about a woman being tricked into thinking he was her husband.
So no problems expanding the definition, as long as they keep it so there can only ever be male perpetrators.
So why not go that step further and make it gender neutral, so both men and women can be legally recognised as having committed rape.
Why should they?
Equality.
You know that very thing you were saying they are trying to do?
Or do you want the idea of equality that was quite common in the US of "different but equal", where it is fine for a school for only white people as long as black people also got a school.
And in part to stop the very mentality you are displaying.
It’s just willful ignorance to pretend that the threat of sexual violence by women on men is even remotely close to what women have to watch out for.
No, it is wilful ignorance, built upon the very thing I am calling out, to pretend that women are so much more the victim of rape.
e.g. look at this report, and the key claims they want to present from it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140604235001/https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdfe.g. right at the top of Key Findings, they want to report 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men have been "raped".
You need to go further down to see that 1 in 21 men were "made to penetrate".
And if you go to table 2.1 and 2.2, you can see that 1.1% of women were "raped", and 1.1% of men were "made to penetrate" in the 12 months leading up to the survey.
We also see a total of 5.6% vs 5.3% for sexual violence (assuming all women who reported being "raped" also experienced some other form.
So it is nothing like this massively 1 sided thing you want to present it as.
So no, it is not wilful ignorance on my part.
No doubt there are individuals who do. There is a range of views and opinions in any group or movement. But that is not what feminism is, and it's not what the feminist movement as a whole is demanding.
So you are just saying the vast majority of so called feminists do not represent the feminist movement or follow what feminism is about?
I have provided clear examples.
The most clear-cut is the issue of infant genital mutilation.
Where feminism opposes doing this to women.
That makes it clear it is not about equality.
Even today they have fewer opportunities and are paid less for doing the same work to the same standards.
I fail to see this anywhere in the west.
In fact, I find the exact opposite.
There are plenty of opportunities which are literally just for women. Where men are excluded from applying. All in the name of "equality".
Likewise, I can't find actual cases of an actual wage gap. Instead there are normally other factors which influence it, such as working overtime and the particular jobs.
Some men recognize
And some sane people recognise that there is discrimination the other way and will speak out against it instead of dismissing it. Even when people like you will dismissing them as being a bigot when they do.
Just look at how you have responded.
Doing whatever you can to just brush it away.
Ignoring clear examples I provide, and trying to label me as a bigot.
And defining a multibillionaire's blatant publicity stunt as "feminism" is just an absurd attempt to disparage what feminism actually is.
No, it isn't.
It is calling out what it is.
It was a feminist stunt to have an all female crew.
I see no reason to not label it as feminism, compared to all the crap feminism has produced.