Exactly, that why she was totally wrong to use their cases as a example of different treating of men and women by writers. That Dorian's issue got more attention because he is male, which is so untrue that it hurts. Dorian's issue got more attention in game, because it wasn't only against his will, but also against his nature. The differences were there, because there were all different issues and how they were handled had absolutely nothing to do with anyones gender.
That was very wrong approach to an issue, that discredited the whole disscussion and should not be encouraged. If anyone approach a serious issue, do it correctly with enough facts and evidence. Otherwise they discredit their own issue and other issues that are caught in the crossfire.
That's not so much her (is she a she?) being wrong as much as using a frame of reference that you disagree with. It's certainly not a case of imagining facts, which she was also accused of (though not, iirc, by you specifically), but it's also not a case of her making some of the arguments you have subscribed to her.
Frame of reference, models, narratives, perspectives and points of view, bias, ideological world view- these are all different ways to express the idea that how things are presented matter. Which facts are most relevant, if you will. For you, 'but also against his nature' is a very relevant fact. For her, the gender of those involved was.
There is no universally agreed basis of which is 'totally wrong,' because there is no ultimate arbitrator of what is 'right.' What matters to someone is what matters to them- and so long as they aren't ignoring or inventing facts to fit their narrative, it's generally accepted (in the West) that people are morally and ethically justified to express their own views of their own preferences. Which includes, of course, their preferred framework or prism through which they see the world.
Vehemently attacking someone on the basis of an incompatible world view, whether through personal accusations (which you did not do) or repeatedly mis-representing their arguments (which you did do), is generally not worthy of respect. Especially considering the way she raised her view- in a respectful, modest, and entirely non-confrontational way. She expressed her viewpoint of the world, and instead of engaging with her she was immediately attacked by people who would not even try to address what she actually said, or give reasons why they might disagree. You could have calmly disagreed, raised what you thought were more relevant points, and engaged her. Instead she was attacked, and fled, and I'd guarantee you that her world view wasn't changed by your righteous indignation of how wrong she was.
I may agree with your position more than hers, but I found her far more in the right than you.
Retour en haut
It's also easy to drop a conversation when nothing considerable was presented in your opposition 
I meant that women having more tendency (whether rational or not) to fear men in power situations (like an arranged marriage) is just the way of the world. 
