Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sorry, sly. I don't mean you.

Like I said a sensitive male is fine, but not a crybaby - there's a big difference.

A crybaby is childish and sulky, one who whines and complains to get there way or uses lots and lots of sarcasm (which, unless its for humor/joking, I consider most sarcasm and passive-aggressive behavior cowardly and avoidant).

I don't like hypermasculine males, either - in fact, I don't like hypermasculinity or feminity, and find people who are far more balanced in perspective to be far easier to get along with.

I don't think being masculine means 'big tough, aggressive, alpha male' rubbish - that's hypermasculinity.

To me, being masculine is about honor, humility a sense of purpose, altruism, brotherhood, personal strength, respect, confidence, independence gentlemanliness, chivalry, ambition, hard-working, sympathetic, etc.

Femininity is about empathy, independence, humility, altruism, compassion, personal strength, respect and care for all others, hard-working, sisterhood, ambition, purpose, childcare.

Most of these things are considered by many societies' to be virtues.

Also, if you can't already tell, most of the traits of both have heavy overlapping, which is my way of saying I feel we're different, but all still human, and that women are still in many ways the same as us.

I totally agree with this and what you said previously about feminine not meaning someone isn't a strong person.

Although, I would argue the childcare not being in the male category too. My Dad was the one who got us up and ready for school in the morning and my Mum made the dinner at the end of the day. It was their way of sharing the task of childcare. The hypermasculine men really miss out when they call childcare a woman's job. They miss out on a greater bond with their kids. It's a shame.

That's why some say that feminism is good for men too. Breaking that stereotype that men can't be involved in childcare means that men can have a better, closer relationship with their children.

You read that too fast he did clearly say sarcasm can be humorous.

And I take it that bit about women needing a strong man is a joke so I'm not going to rise the bait.

Anyway, here is the root of the word sarcasm. It is not a nice thing. This is from Merriem Webster's dictionary.

A very small amount of women can be like that too and I especially hate the 'entitled princess syndrome', but I was, at least when I made my posts, talking about how men have become effeminate today. And feminine men certainly can be that way as well (again, a minority...hopefully).

It seems we're millennials either we're hypermasculine pseudo-alpha male dºuchebags who work-out to get so big and strong it's actually unhealthy (it dampens their mobility and they may train their muscles unequally, causing them to be disproprortionate), or skinny/overweight feminine males.

Like I said, men today are becoming more feminine, but women aren't changing enough to compensate for a society equal in masculinity and feminity (which, as I implied, is in my opinion ideal).

A society leaning one direction or the other is not to my preference. And, if 'patriarchy' and masculinity as good and feminity as 'bad' has been the dominant attitude for much of history, I am certainly disliking the apparent shift in attitude as we are falling into the proto-type stages of the future matriarchy.

In countries such as Australia third-wave feminism, especially extremism, is the dominant attitude here among both men and women alike.

I have no citations to back this up and my evidence is purely anecdotal, but we've already had at least three Australian males who agree with me, and it is a fact that our Australian parliament has plenty of women, women are offered equal opportunity, we've had a female prime minister, our govener general is a woman, and the richest person in the country is a woman.

If anything, like RetroGamer said, considering the three most powerful women in the country were all, at one point, all in power at the same time, clearly women have just as much power in my country than men do. The only way men have power is, of course, the majority of our Prime Ministers have still been men, but most have had at least a few women in their parties.

And, I already said sarcasm is funny. I just mean I consider passive-aggressive behavior (something sarcasm often falls under when not used for humor but for spite) one of the ultimate forms of weakness. Strength isn't just about 'muscle' and being 'tough', it's also about confidence or simply being able to say something honestly to someone else's face tactfully.

Being brave enough to ask for help, also is not passive-aggressive.

I'm talking the little sneaky bastard who scratches your car because he made you angry at him, the people who ghost you, the people who avoid you subtly, the people who spit in your drink, the people who talk negatively behind your back, etc.

It's one of my biggest pet peeves, because it seems so accepted by society to just be passive-aggressive.

I understand 'treading carefully' e.g. not telling a friend everything you dislike about their behavior as it'll only make them angry, or secretly hating your boss but dealing with it, but I don't consider that type of stuff passive-aggressive at all. That stuffs just passive/non-active. Passive-aggressiveness is actively trying to be spiteful towards others but appearing innocent.

Really? I don't know what kind of job you have. Where I work I get paid $28 per hour. There are women there working in the same position as me and they get paid $28 per hour.

Do you have a specific example of an employer who pays men more power hour than women for the same job?While I support women's right to work and choose their own career path it may have unintended consequences. There are some commodities that stay the same in price (when compensating for inflation) such as a loaf of bread but there are other commodities that are tied into the average income, such as the price to buy or rent a house.

We can always make more bread but in an established city there's only a limited amount of space so houses go to the highest bidder (sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively, either way, average family income sets the price to buy or rent a house).

Last year I posted asking why it's now viewed as a necessity for both members of a couple to work in order to get by, when 50 years ago one wage was enough to support a family. I don't expect anyone to remember that because it was last year.

Anyway, I think I've figured out the answer. It's because some aspects of the cost of living are determined by the average household income. So if every other couple has two incomes than the one I'm in also has to be have two incomes to just keep up with the average income. But 50 years ago we could have one income and be keeping up with the average income because most other couples had one income as well.

Again I don't want to take away any woman's right to choose her own career but considering there are many jobs in which workers are overworked, underpaid and generally treated why wage slaves I find it questionable why they'd want to join the working class to suffer with the rest of us.

I can understand if a woman has some specific ambition, such as being a doctor, lawyer or engineer but the majority of the workforce is not made up of such professions. Most dual income couples are merely trying to keep up with all the other dual income couples.

It's the proverbial tragedy of the commons. Anything that increases the average income will also increase the average cost of living. If one member of the couple can't work, then it's harder for them to live in a world where prices are set in accordance with a dual income couple.

I'll agree that if both work 8 hour days that it's unfair for one to do all the housework. I'll agree that in ideal world, if both work 8 hour days than they should both do 4 hours housework after they both come home. But what I don't get is why would they want to have 12 hours per day each when they could both have 8 hours each?I think it has and this could cause the movement to lose site of its original goals. For example, global warming was made into a biger issue into the public sphere when An Incoveniant Truth came out, a movie made by a Democrat politian. Imagine if An Incovnent truth had been made by Neil Degrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku or even Bill Nye the TV Guy?

Then maybe anInconvenientTruth would have had a higher science content and less political content. Then maybe global warming wouldn't have turned into this left wing vs right wing thing were both sides seem to care only about politics and not about science.

I think the same thing may have happened to feminism. It used to be about helping women but now it seems like a gambit for a few people to gain political power. Note that if a handful of women gain more power, this will not increase the amount of power given to the average woman, quite the contrary, her followers will give up more of their freedom to join her cause so in the end it will make women less free.

I've been meaning to buy a book byProfessorChristina Hoff Sommers called Who Stole Feminism about how certain people took feminism and used as a tool for their own political purposes which have nothing to do with helping women. I already have her other notable book, The War on Boys.

Politising a movement is usually the death knell to the original spirit of that movement. Rather than telling women to do this or men to do that, I believe that society will improve when we just let different people do different sorts of things, rather than trying to make everyone live our lifestyle.
We need toacknowledgethe differences between individuals and that what works for one might not work for another. Honestly we should stop telling people what to do.

The workplace is a terrible breeding ground for passive-aggressiveness, as workplace bullies want to do all they can to hurt you but keep their assured paycheck.

Who says that? Is it feminists? Is it women? Notnecessarily. In my experience the idea that women are innocent and can do nothing wrong is perpetuated by men. I've seen men praise women for doing an average job of something when they wouldn't praise a man for that level of skill. I think it's sexist andpatronizing, like they're saying she did a good job for a woman.

It's also men who act like women can do no wrong. I rarely see women think that way about other women but men see women like that all the time. Again I think it'spatronizingbecause it's like they're saying that women are so innocent and childlike that they can't do anything bad.

Like if there's a domestic and the cops automatically assume the man is the perp and the woman is the victim. Why do cops do this? Did the feminists tell them too? Know. Cops have always acted like that, as have men in general.

It's a gender reversal. Just like how some feminists blame men for fat shaming women when most of the time women get fat shamed by other women. A lot of the women are guilty of stuffattributedto men and men are guilty of stuffattributedto women.Part of the reason those shelters were set up so women could escape their husbands and still have housing and food. Back when they were started, it was the age of the nuclear family. Men were the breadwinners and they typically held the dead or lease to the house. Back then women were unable to leave their abusive husbands because he owned the house she lived in and he was her only source of income.

Nowadays it's common for both sexes to work. A woman could leave her partner without being cut off from all income. So those women's shelters are very oldfashionedin that regard and also kind of patronizing and sexist, like they assume women are incapable of earning their own income or getting a job by themselves.

This is the really sexist theme in society that bothers me. When people treat women like they're children. If we want to end sexism against women we should start by addressing that.
I've heard a lot of talk about the strait white male. Even the idea that their opinions don't matter because they're strait white males.

I believe this is like Joseph McCarthy accusing all his enemies of being communists and then saying their opinion doesn't matter because they're communist. The trouble is it's a cheap debating technique that relies on ad hominem attack.

It's like they can use that to dismiss any type of argument without having to look at it and think of a counterargument. It's like playing Calvinball, Calvin always wins.

I think it goes back to my idea the the politised version of feminism is about giving a small handful of people power over both men and women. If someone wants to debate you than they debate you, point by point if necessary but if someone wants power, they silence you. They use their catchall argument without even listening to what you said.

Probably not but Tony Abbot was still a sexist and a classist who's been recorded saying he doesn't believe women or working class men should go to university.In Australia and other places. They expect the poor to pull themselves up by their boot straps.

On another forum I asked if they thought a poor guy and an upper middle class guy both had the same chance atuniversity. The reply was, "Yes, the poor guy can just work his way through university". I don't know about you but if I try to work and/or study for more than about 8 hours per day my brain gives out. I think the additional tiredness of holding a job would give me poor performance in my studies. People need to rest after all. Not resting is bad for yourphysicaland mental health. Also he'd have less time after class for assignments and study.

Yet the other forum goers still thought that both had an even chance. The trouble is our culture likes underdog stories. Yes there have been a few people who, through a monumental effort and disregard for their health managed to bootstrap themselves out of poverty by pushing through sleep deprivation and working without break lost past the point when they were exhausted.

Society likes underdog stories so these people are celebrated. Then society expects other people to do the same thing. They don't want to help them too much or it would ruin the underdognarrative.

True that some people can work 16 or 20 hour days without going insane but the trouble is society is a competition. That means if one person does it, the next day everyone is expected to do it.

It's just like in certain Olympic sports when someathletesruined their health with over training and overly restrictive diets. It's just like in South Korean schools were they study 20 hours per day because the other students do and they're in direct competition with them in exams.

If they set up a gentleman's agreement that no one would study or train more than 8 hours per day, than everyone would still have the same advantages and disadvantages in competition with each other.

The trouble with acompetitivesociety is that in order to win, some people will push themselves extremely hard and then other people will want to keep up with them and so they'll push themselves extremely hard. Pretty soon everyone is pushing themselves extremely hard not to get ahead but to keep up with the average. And then your boss/coach/teacher expects you to keep up with the newly established average.

Most of those average people would have been happy with 8 hour days if that was all that was required to keep up with their competition.

I believe thecompetitionleads to tragedy of the commons. While everyone should pull their weight in society we should pull together rather than pulling in a tug of war.And I think we shouldn't push underperforming students into STEM fields if they're going toperuseother career paths or even drop out part way through. This is a waste of money.That's what I got. I still had to compete against other people who qualified for the same affirmative action to get the job. After I got it I still had to work hard toacquirethe skills needed for the job. They didn't just give me the job, they gave me an opportunity to learn how to do the job. That's the kind of affirmative action we need.If they want more people in STEM fields then they should join STEM fields because their own presence their would increase the number of women in STEM.Can poor people be thought of as a group? They should be! Australia is similar to other Western Countries in this regard. I notice that sometimes they dodge questions about why they mainly want to help privileged middle class women instead of women in Africa and the Middle East, who are truly being oppressed.

Like this thing I saw on Youtube. A guy asks some feminists and SJWs why they didn't try to stop the rape culture in Africa and the Middle East. They replied by saying it was more important that they stop the rape culture in America. Firstly, it doesn't exist. Secondly, if it does exist, why should it take priority?

It's like in the ER, if onepatienthas a mild injury and the other patient ishemorrhaging, which do you treat first? Should they doctors say they have to treat thepatientwith a mild injury before they can't start treating the patient who'shemorrhaging?

Really they want power and they won't people in Africa and the Middle East because they can't gain power from doing so. It's like how they don't want to help poor people because there's little more that can be squeezed out of them. They'd rather help the tragic, wealthy upper middle class white girls. They have more to give. They can gain theirallegianceby uniting them against a common enemy, straight white men, much like how Hitler united Germany against the Jews. Nothing unites people like a common enemy and who that enemy is doesn't really matter. They can choose any group and it makes no difference.

Yes, because they're afraid of lawsuits. Because of this reason the lowest ranking receptionist may have power over the boss. If she wants the boss to fire some other guy she dislikes, she can make him do that because he doesn't want to get sued. It's like the tail wagging the dog.

If the guy she dislikes gets mad about being falsely accused ofharassment, she can use his reaction as further evidence of hisharassment. She may provoke him into reacting and use his reaction as evidence against him while ignoring the s**t she did to provoke him.

Passive aggression turns the office into the Salem Witch Trials. If you don't likesomeonejust accuse them of witchcraft or in this case,harassment.

This is also one of the reasons why I wouldn't date a feminist. I wouldn't want her to use passiveaggressionagainst me. Or call me a member of the vague and mysterious Patriarchy. Or tell me I'mprivilegedwhen I grew up in poverty. Maybe I am privileged compared to people who grew up in more severe poverty than I did or have other problems but that still shouldn't be used todismisswhat someone has to say.

I mean, I could be having a debate about Coke vs Pepsi and then I find out my opponent is Bill Gates. He makes a well reasoned argument in favour of Coke and then I say "None of what you said matters because you're moreprivilegedthan me andprivilegedpeople are always wrong"

Would that be a good argument to use against him? But I digress, I feel very lucky that my girlfriend has explicitly stated that she's not a feminist and she dislikes feminism. She brought up the subject on our first date.

I'm going to say something controversial. The thing with loud, prominent women having power is that it puts pressure on those of us who will never attain that. Are men really believing that we can do just as much as them and somehow we all need to step up? Some of us have bodies that stop us working properly for a week or 2 every month. (yes I've seen a doctor about it, tried all sorts of mediation and pills) Some women don't have those problems and can work through it and be successful, they can be world leaders and that's great.

I am really struggling to work full time. My health is really suffering, but I feel like I have to in order to pay the bills. I am never going to be super successful. The reality is the same for most women.

Men do have a biological advantage when it comes to their physical abilities. I hate to admit it, but it's true. Even though I am intelligent and work at a "good job" I'm not going to manage what a man my age can do in terms of learning to get better at my job and doing tutorials and learning new skills in my own time. I'm worn out.

Does that make me a bad feminist. No. I'm a realist.

Are men really being swayed by this loud minority? The rest of us aren't like that. When you say men are becoming more passive because of feminism. I don't understand. The majority of women aren't like that loud minority. Why are they having such an effect? Are they really making men more passive?

I'm sorry Retrogamer, but that's really not reality. I've been a receptionist in a few different places and that really is a silly comment. Receptionist don't make the big boss's decisions.

I've also worked in HR and that's not at all how things work at all. Reality check!

Passive agressiveness in the work place is a lot more subtle than that and men do it to. Offices are the worst for it. Like someone will leave a folder open on your desk to hint that you didn't do a thing they expected you to do rather than saying "oh did you do this?" me replying "no I forgot, I'll do it now", then them saying "ok" (this actually happened to me, she was so passive agressive I didn't know if I was coming or going)

I've seen it between men in the office too. Polite snarkiness.

Hi Hurtloam,

I hope you're still not mad at me for being an "office pest."

Retro's case can only be real if the receptionist is the boss' mistress (having sex with him) - otherwise it's ridiculous to think that she has any kind of power on him.

I've been working in an office for many years.

I really don't see this sort of power dynamics.

You only see it in tabloids.

hurtloam, I notice a lot of WPers aren't in touch with the reality - males and females alike.

For example, few loud feminists here on WP (**cough** I won't name them) get offended by every 'sweeping generalization' observed in one gender -yet I don't personally believe those are really in touch much with other women in life; their social circle is probably limited to other loud feminists ...

For example, I recall a thread about whether a guy has a to ask first to give a kiss on a date or not, and there was a couple of loud feminists here who were very offended by the idea and were so insisting that guys must ask; and they got very furious when I posted links to threads in other dating forums (with far more users than here, and of the same cultures of the users here) where 90% of female respondents obviously expressed they prefer the non-asking romantic kiss.

They live in bubbles, without much sense of reality.

Personally, I only see loud feminists on the internet, even the local ones, but when it comes to actual dating and friendship, all women I encounter turn out to like the typical manly traditional man.