"This woman is so good that a certain physical difference between genders that has historically been regarded a prestigious male trait can be made even more of a compliment by giving it to a woman".
I don't understand the obsession I find online of people searching for insults and controversies that don't exist.
I know that's what you meant. Regarding male-only traits as prestigious implies that they are superior to female-only traits. That implication is sexism. Whether or not you think sexism is insulting -- and it appears you do not -- it was definitely sexism. And other people find sexism insulting.
> Regarding male-only traits as prestigious implies that they are superior to female-only traits
Nope. It in no way implies that. That was an assumption you made. Among male traits, strength has historically been prestigious. How on earth is that implying female-only traits are inferior? Give me a first-order logic chain or something here because I'm not seeing the inferences.
> Whether or not you think sexism is insulting
I do think sexism is insulting. His post was not sexism.
That's reality. There are traits that men are better at. And the same applies for women. If someone finds reality insulting, it could be their problem.
But what you've translated isn't what the post said. You are inferring that the OP was talking about the physical differences that favour a man in that situation. If that's what they meant, they should have said so.
What the post actually says is "being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing".
If I took an opinion poll (appropriately administered in, say, the US) on who has the more accurate translation of the original post, I would bet a large sum of money that the vast majority would say mine. Here is the juxtaposition of the original post and your inference by the way:
> This is absolutely amazing. This woman is more of a man than any man I know, living in some desolate valley for all of those years now absolutely ALONE? One word: Wow.
> Being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing.
If you took an opinion poll split by gender, I think you'd find some interesting results. You, as a man, see it as a simple equivalence to physical strength, but do women see it the same way? At best, we can say "I don't know". So why not just use 'strong' in the original post, rather than talk about being a man?
And I'm not sure what is wrong about my original inference. The story is of a woman being "more of a man". It is "amazing", "wow". It's not a huge leap to see that being more of a man is portrayed as a positive attribute.
