Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

Feminists could use some extra words to go with feminist. We already have the dreaded intersectional feminists. I've seen some identify as everyday feminists, but I don't have much experience with these, or know if they share common values. Christina Hoff Summers calls herself the factual feminist.

This was discussed in the fields of emergency rescue and military.

You can do what a man can do, physically. It's very true.

You have to try harder, and it takes longer to recuperate.

It's a matter of putting the same strains on someone of slighter bone structure and with ~30% less blood solids.

As someone who is comparatively well built, I am moritifed on a regular basis, by the wear I have put on my body.

I find that I am in constant competition, among other men, some of whom are faster or better climbers.

We work to suit our strong points.

^if all women were 120lbs or less, and all men were 150 lbs or more, you would have a better point. It's true that a very slightly built woman will be putting a lot more strain on her body doing heavy construction than the average man; that's no reason to limit the 6' woman from doing that job, though. Likewise the fact that women are socialized to be into kids isn't good reason to prevent a really kid-oriented guy from teaching.

I would not date a male feminist.
If I was one that wanted a woman, well it means I want all that is beautiful about a woman.
So probably not then either.

If this was a different era then yes I would.
As it stands now I'd date an egalitarian woman.

I would, and I have.

I'm thinking of a woman who was enough of a feminist to have actually organised a conference on feminism. And no, she did not spend the whole time cursing me for being male. Also, I didn't spend the whole time treating her with contempt for being female. It was like this deal we had...

Depends on your sex, I doubt very much that the example above would even speak to a bloke let alone date one.

More to the point why are so many men threatened by women who demand equal acceptance in society. There are freaks on all political social spectrums, why the focus on the manics that throw a woman out of a feminist house because they give birth to a male child (yes this happened to a friend of mine) these are the extremist fringe dwellers who will ultimately get no where politically. What though is wrong with the women who simply demand that no matter what the situation they get equal say, acceptance and opportunity as their peers no matter their gender.

feminism was never about equality

Eeyeahhh, the Klan is a super feminist organization...
(/sarcasm)

Table of Contents

WOMEN OF THE KLAN:
Foundations of Modern Feminism

The invisible Empire – Women of the Klan
Early History of Gynocentric Chivalry and the Klan
False Accusations of Rape:
Sentencing Disparities Between Men and Women
Elizabeth Cady Stanton: “Women are infinitely superior to men.”
Margaret Sanger – Feminsim, Racism & Misandry
Modern “Jim Crow:” – The “iHollaback” Initiative




the rape culture hysteria was first directed at Black Men

What's "wrong" is they point out that equality doesn't yet exist, and that much of today's most blatant inequality still gives women, on average, the shorter end of the stick. A lot of people can't swallow that idea, and even think the pendulum has swung against men.

In reality, though, patriarchy doesn't benefit all men over all women. It mostly just benefits the patriarchs - the currently powerful men. Negative stereotypes of men often favor the existing power structure: for instance, excusing rape on the basis that men are inherently bad at controlling their sexual urges, and keeping powerful men out of responsibility for child-raising and elder-care on the basis that men are just not as good at care stuff as women, because of the way they're born. However, these stereotypes do, admittedly, often screw individual men over. Some feminists actually acknowledge the ways sexist stereotypes screw over men, and still call themselves feminists rather than "equalists," for historical reasons and to acknowledge that the most powerful in society are still far more likely to be men than women and use sexism to keep both women and lower-status men from challenging their status.

Examples please. You're making some rather bold claims.



But the powerful women don't benefit at all? By labelling the societal hierarchy as a patriarchy you are gendering the issue and creating an environment which excuses atrocious behaviours towards men - especially those with white skin. If your issue is with class and uneven distribution of wealth, use that as your framework. Of course, you'll also have to accept that your ideology is therefore more akin to some post-modern evolutionary form of Marxism.



Nobody excuses rape on that basis or any other.



Negative stereotypes of men do not give powerful men choices, their power does. Just as powerful women have a wealth of choices beyond that of the majority of us.



How?



And I have sympathy for the likes of Christina Hoff Sommers who are trying to hold onto a label that has been co-opted by gender supremacists. They're fighting a huge uphill battle. My advice is to simply drop the label and let them have it, so as not to be conflated with the "feminazis".



Due to trends in decision-making that generally differ between the sexes.



You mean like in this video, in which Biden demonstrates an unhealthy disdain for the capabilities of women and for the plight of men?

Ok. Examples of women getting the shorter end of the stick: lower pay on average, especially after becoming mothers, and it's not just because women "want" to cut back on their work, or would want to if men were more freely allowed to and encouraged to cut back on their work. Laws restricting reproductive rights. (Yes, there is that issue that men have to pay child support if they accidentally get a woman pregnant due to a broken condom or whatever and she keeps the baby. But being pregnant is a big pain in the butt and sometimes dangerous, so women need to be able to avoid it when possible and end it when need be to not have to constantly worry about a big monkey wrench being thrown into their lives.) Women's products often costing more than men's, with the exception of car insurance. Ridiculous beauty standards being shoved in women's faces more than in men's faces. Aggressive, social climbing women often seen as, well, female dogs for not meeting gender role behavior standards. Street harassment. More blatant discrimination outside the first world. Getting lots of mixed messages about sex growing up that can lead to some not-so-great decisions or not recognizing on time whether a guy is dangerous.

Powerful women do benefit somewhat, but only insofar as they keep giving the powerful men what they want. And I think "patriarchy" still has some merit insofar as stereotypes of femininity as negative are widespread (e.g., female dogs and female genitalia being the worst things you can call both men and women), and most powerful people are still men.

I don't think race, sex, and social class operate separately: racism and sexism and similar prejudices have historically been used by powerful men to create divisions and rivalries within a social class and among all who ranked below them - divide and conquer. Look at Donald Trump's rhetoric for a good example of that in modern times. A lot of the old de jure racism in the US was specifically set up to keep Black slaves and White indentured servants from rising up against their masters, and "rape" used to be much more strongly recognized and punished in the case of Black men assaulting rich White women. (In this case, the rich White woman was set against the poor Black man.)

I do think that poor White men, and poor men in general, have it quite hard in this day and age, but I think sexist attitudes about what men should be like help perpetuate that. If they promote strength and bravado over training and studying, they are not preparing themselves for the few jobs that are available to them, mostly in the service sector, the way their female counterparts do. With the manufacturing jobs gone to near-slaves in China, most poor men need to take the same strategy as poor women, the same kinds of jobs, to keep afloat. But they don't. And old sexist attitudes seem to be part of what holds them back from doing so. Including, yes, the notion that men just aren't as naturally cut out for service jobs and doing well in school meant to train them for those jobs. It takes longer than just a generation or two to really change culture. While we women were told we could do anything we wanted, men were still being told that they can't show emotions other than anger or excitement about a sports victory, that they should always bring home the bacon, and if they like being around kids or other traditionally feminine things, they must be some kind of sexual deviant, or not real men. I see this sexism as being just as problematic, if not more so these days, as any sexism aimed directly at women.

Other ways that sexism can screw men over: promoting dangerous behavior because it's manly (especially in young and poor men), keeping them from taking time off from their jobs to enjoy with their children and wives, discouraging them strongly from pursuing anything considered feminine even if they like those things.

The concept of feminism does seem to be hard to keep afloat given how many different and often opposing views have been spouted under the label, some of them indeed rather extreme or insensitive to wider social problems. It's perfectly understandable why many people who believe things consistent with older or more moderate strains of feminism reject the label, but I don't, because to say "not a feminist" strikes me as implying an acceptance of sexism.

As for the concept of "choices" being responsible for women's relative lack of representation among the most powerful: choices are not made in a vacuum. There made in the context of a society that thrives on relentless scrutiny of famous and powerful women for everything from their wardrobe to their tone of voice to their choice of spouse, and that makes it much more difficult for women to find househusbands or lower-ambition husbands to support them in their social climbing than it is for men to find housewives or lower-ambition wives, because men are likely to be teased about being with a woman more ambitious than they are whereas women are praised for being with ambitious men. Because, sexism still exists, even if it's more in the form of jokes than laws.

It just occurred to me that, of course, men on the spectrum might represent a special challenge to the notion of encouraging and training men to work in the service sector. However, there are some less social service-sector jobs, such as shelf-stocking, security, mail sorting, shopping-cart retrieval, and cooking, that may be suitable for the approximately 2% of men and 1% of women who are on the autistic spectrum and thus can't quite master the art of emotional labor. (These probably make up, I'm guessing, a similar percentage of service-sector jobs.) These might be useful alternatives for those who can't get a leg up to get into relatively autism-friendly white-collar work such as technology or academia. NTs would have to get over their prejudices to hire these people for these positions, though.

And one other thing I didn't address: Joe Biden and liberal identity politics. Clearly liberals in power aren't doing enough to really address these issues. They often just throw bones or use band-aids, addressing social issues without addressing economic ones or occasionally vice versa. The Democratic primary seemed to be a disappointing example of this: one candidate addressing mostly just social issues and the other addressing mostly just economic ones. Both have to be addressed at once, because both work together to make life easy for those already in power and a good deal harder for those farther from the center of the power structure.

I would, and we would have a lot to talk about, strategize, and conquer the world of men - mwahahaha - ...

My mother was the second strongest person in the gym (besides me) and could palm a basketball. Her military presses were better than some of the stats posted, by highschool football players.

Men asked whether they could remove some of the weights for her, but she asked for more.

I knew one lady, who outperformed 5 men, at the log sawing competition at Oktoberfest. She was over 6ft tall, and so was her 12 year old daughter. She had apparently worn-out or outlived 5-6 pretty husbands.

I am aware of exceptional cases, but was talking about averages. When you're talking about an entire group, you would tend to use the rule, and not the exceptions.

Also, they are still not as capable as men of the same size and relative level of fitness.

To say that someone is of a different type or kind, does not mean they must be mistreated or disrespected. Afterall, the whole premise of the forum is that we're alien, in general.

What I am talking about is true, most of the time.

If you're better than all that, then, good for you.

Many of the faces here, are very pretty, to me. It don't feel fearful, undermined, and it doesn't occur to me, to be disrespectful. I don't feel that we are enemies or that we should be pitted against one another.