Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

Egalitarian.

Probabaly, yes.

I've always argued if you believe yourself to be an equalist, why not identify as one instead of 'FEMinist'.

If you are a balck person and want racial equality, does it make more sense to identify as a 'racial equality activist' or 'BLACKist/black people rights activist'?

Racial Equality activist, gender equality activist, Activist for gender/sexual orientation diversity (rather than LGBT activist), humanist, these are all neutral terms that imply no preferential treatment or preference of what goals and issues you focus on.

I argue this all the time to Feminist's and always recieve significant backlash, and none of them ever listen to my arguments and will continue to identify as 'FEMinist', which by definition implies a preferrential treatment of women's rightsover the rights of men.

just proof many feminist's really do seem to only worry about women's rights, as they outright refuse to ever adopt a neutral term over a gendered one.

LGBT actvisists don't call it 'gay marriage', they call it 'marriage equality', Martin Luther King called his movement the 'Civil Rights Movement', not the 'Blackist/black rights movement', so why is it so out there of an idea for a woman who actually wants equality to call herself a Gender Equality Activist, just like a man who wants equality should (I also see MEN's rights activist consider themselves to be fighting for 'equality' when the first two words do no imply that.).

I don't follow your logic here. Seems that the MRAs are quite straightforward when it comes to the specific legal equalities they're fighting for. Does being an MRA prevent you from being an egalitarian?

It seems like a bit of a stretch to take two out of the three words out of context - after all, the label is describing an action: advocacy of or activism for men's rights. One might describe an egalitarian who advocates for the rights of both sexes as being both an MRA and a WRA - the two are not mutually exclusive.

Otherwise, I agree with your post in essence. I remain, however, more concerned with the actions and behaviours of individuals than I am by their self-defined identifiers.

It would almost certainly kill the date or potential for a date if she asked me if I was a Feminist. There are different kinds of feminist, but anyone who would ask me if I was one I would be extremely wary of. Such a question I associate more with the phrase "dropped the F-Bomb" than an actual F-Bomb. "The date was going well, then she dropped the F-Bomb. She asked me if I was a Feminist." Not the word feminist though. Just this one specific circumstance. Starts all sorts of alarm bells ringing.

I doubt there are many women who want to date a sexist. Questions testing me to see if I was one probably wouldn't put me off. Even if I was straight out asked if I was a sexist, that probably wouldn't bother me. But the people who think you're either a Feminist or a sexist, we're not compatible. The dictionary definition of feminist matches up with me. But anyone feeling the need to identify as a Feminist never seems to match up with the dictionary definition. We don't have labels that mean "not a murderer" or "not a thief", etc. If we did, I expect thieves and murderers would try to make those labels stick to them. And I think I just had an epiphany.

I'm from the EU myself. I'm pretty sure the trends are the same for the EU. It's just easier to find US-based data.



Thanks.



... very very slightly.



Generally speaking, one can make the following observations :
* Autistic men are less average than Autistic women.
* Autistic women are less average than Neurotypical men.
* Neurotypical men are less average than Neurotypical women.

When I say that a particular group is "less average" than another, it means that members of that group are more commonly found on the outliers of any Bell curve for various intelligence traits, personality traits, physical traits, etc. For example, it means that neurotypical women are least likely to be either intellectually gifted or intellectually disabled, whereas Autistic men are more likely to be either of both.



My girlfriend has a PhD in bio-sciences. Most of her colleagues are female.
I have a bachelor in IT. Most of my colleagues are male.

I don't see a problem with that. Neurotypical women tend to favor life sciences, law and other fields that focus on living creatures. Autistic men tend to favor IT, engineering and other fields with a strong abstract, mathematical foundation. Neurotypical men and Autistic women are typically somewhere in between. This is due to biological differences and any attempt to overcome those differences benefit neither men nor women and neither Autistic people nor Neurotypical people.



The kind of abuse men impose on women tends to differ from the kind of abuse women impose on men... again due to biological differences. What's equal in both genders, however, is that members of both genders can be perpetrators and victims.

We as Autistic people are both more vulnerable and more exposed to the dark side of humanity, especially that of the gender we are attracted to. It would be wrong to draw the conclusion that all men, all women or all people are bad, though... although it may be tempting for many of us to start thinking like that.



If you believe in egalitarianism, you could call yourself an egalitarian.
If you believe in humanism, you could call yourself a humanist.
etc.

Whichever label is the best match, depends on whatever best covers the load. I don't know what label would suit you best, as I know nothing about how. However, in my opinion (and that of many others), Feminism is just socially accepted anti-male sexism therefore not a proper label for someone who supports egalitarian principles.

Finally, let me illustrate with the following image why I believe "equality" is a flawed notion :

Good points.

Of course this isnt true, the feminist will still expect the guy to pay the bill.

when i ask the guy out, i pay.

That's noble of you, but if your profile is correct, you are 59 years old, and thus at least twice as mature as the average 18-30 year old female.

How many women in your experiences have you come across that you can honestly say would do the same?

From my experiences, of the dates I've been on, even if I asked, they wanted to pay individually for themselves while I pay for myself.

Even my second girlfriend's mother payed for me when I had dinner with her family, but of course encouraged me to 'treat her' in future dates with my gf.

My rule is, first three dates, whoever asks pays, then from that point on it's split the bill.

Not paying individually. That's such a foreign concept it threw me off both times it happened to me.

I was so happy when I at last stealthily payed for my dates drink one time (bought two cokes. "You drink a lot of coke." she said. Lol. "It's for YOU!" I said.)

Anyway, I know I may make a big deal out of who pays for dates, but usually it says a lot about the other person.

A woman who simply demands you always pay for her entirely, probably has an entitlement complex.

You can't assume a woman who pays for herself would...

i also paid in my earlier days.

Well i did have a woman pay on a date which was not expected, I insisted but she made more money than me, it was awkward i did not expect that at all, she was married but wanted to sleep with me but I refused. Is that feminism or being with the wrong horny desperate woman at the wrong time?

sounds like she was looking for a boy toy. good for you for not getting mixed up in that.

Yeah, it would have made things very complicated, and I don't like drama.

I would date someone open minded, like my ideal guy would have no qualms about cleaning the toilet, but not some one who just repeated tropes they get off Buzzfeed, Jezebel and Jessica Valenti articles.

I saw a Cracked video on YouTube the other day where they made fun of Jerry Seinfeld for being out of touch. Well he is a bit, but one of the things he said that was ridiculed was: "my wife said something to my daughter about hanging out in New York and meeting guys. My daughter said: 'that's sexist!'"

That right there is a trope that a teenager has lifted off the Internet.

Yes, it's sexist to imply that young women should only be concerned about boys and not be interested in learning, but that's not what her Mom said. All she was doing was supporting her kid's normal desire to meet someone she is attracted to. That's not sexist. Sigh.

LOL....I barely know what a "trope" is---so I won't be repeating any tropes any time soon.

For some reason, I've always wanted to go bowling with a woman. It happened a few times with my ex-fiancé--but it wasn't the same thing. She didn't really know how to bowl, and she didn't really want to learn. All she wanted to do is to throw the bowling ball on my foot as a joke.