The reply is stooping to the same level by personifying the octopi and applying human gender theory onto them, but it’s doing so specifically to show that this framing is misogynistic. It’s not as simple to clearly demonstrate this sexism if you stop personifying the octopi. Because there’s layers of misconstruance, it’s much simpler to address the layer you specifically have issue with rather than all layers at once.
It’s not really a simple issue to handle cleanly without becoming clunky with explanations. The same communication dilemma happens with STEM trying to address misinformation.
Pretty advanced misogyny to personify octopuses and then blame the “women” octopuses for rejecting sexual advances.
Isn’t the reply doing the same thing to male octopi?
Yes, but, you see, misandry is cool.
Disagreeing with a misogynist isn’t misandry.
The reply is stooping to the same level by personifying the octopi and applying human gender theory onto them, but it’s doing so specifically to show that this framing is misogynistic. It’s not as simple to clearly demonstrate this sexism if you stop personifying the octopi. Because there’s layers of misconstruance, it’s much simpler to address the layer you specifically have issue with rather than all layers at once.
It’s not really a simple issue to handle cleanly without becoming clunky with explanations. The same communication dilemma happens with STEM trying to address misinformation.