https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/salma-hayek-on-hollywood-you-have-to-look-20-112797395853.html
Funny how she was all for exploiting her beaty when she had it but now that it is fading she hates the idea of exploiting women.
You've got a point there.
shareIt's fading? I beg to differ.
shareOP is just a misogynist pedophile.
shareWhat, so there is a converse relationship between having life experience and favoring feminism in this case?
It seems irrelevant to comment on her appearance in this context...
I move that we seal this matter until further evidence has been presented, on the grounds that OP is an obvious d1ck, and potential misogynist. All in favor?
Speaking against women is not misogyny. Do you even know what that word means or do you just like to toss it around because it's trendy to do so?
shareSpeaking against women is not misogyny.
That isn't correct or incorrect, it is just not specific enough... This is how you talk about the subject;
"Speaking against women for its own sake is misogynist behavior."
... Which is a correct and relevant statement.
What you are referring to is the definite state of being a misogynist; cutting a persons head open and looking inside for the physical form of hate against women... Which has yet to be accomplished. But we'll get back to you once we've experimented on enough men.
In case you already knew this, please accept this sympathetic pat on the shoulder for failing at trolling. In case you didn't... Please don't discuss this with anyone again before actually reading up on the matter and gaining real knowledge. You won't be able to grasp this with sheer logic, you need to read up on the relevant scientific discourse.
it's precisely relevant. both things are exactly the same. she's talking about women who are being exploited for their sexuality as actresses and she was ok being sexually exploited when she was a young actress. that's hypocritical and wrong.
shareNo, it would be hypocracy if she held both sentiments at once. This is a matter of a person changing her mind, which was implied in my post; there cant be a converse relationship between time elapsing and any new state of mind, without the development of the state of mind.
The correct way to say this is that your argument is inherently contradictive, and therefore not logical; she cant have changed her mind and still hold her old views at the same time, that makes no sense.