Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

Yep well awar of how much feminist hate Mra because it has men in its name and how dare men want equality. All men are enslavers of women and part of the global conspiracy to keep women slaves.

I must have just lost my past 28 invitations.

I am a feminist so yes. There are different studies that show that women still face unconscious discrimination. However, feminists who are anti-men I disagree with.

What really gets me, is the "feminists" that defend Islam, yet think thee United States suppresses women's rights. Women are raped all the time in Islamic countries and aren't even allowed to leave the house without a man. Hell, they'll execute a woman who's been raped for "tempting her rapests". Islam is barbaric in the truest sense.

i despise those things about islam. i suggest that you read "infidel" by ayaan hirsi ali. she's an ex-muslim anti-muslim feminist. i. however, hate the actions, not the people. i don't, for example, think that syrians need to stay in syria to meet their deaths.

If you look more closely, you will find that they don't actually defend the tenets of Islam, just the rights of people to practice it.

"And and you show you're a true extreme feminist by comparing men to slave owners."
In history, yeah, women have basically been slaves for most of it. Much like I consider most poor workers in China et al. poor asian countries as slaves. But regardless of that fact, you clearly don't understand how ANALOGY works.

"I'm guessing you beleive all men to be part of the the secrete patriarchy that runs the world."
If you're just going to guess at things I believe, then there is literally no point in talking to you. There can be no real discourse, you just told me you aren't listening.

In my texting example, it was the students texting the teachers, not the other way around. The teachers in neither case did anything themselves.

Examples of society thinking it's wrong for age-gapped people to date is just another anti-choice thing, and if you don't think people with large differences should be dating that's not about gender differences at all.

Yes, I feel ashamed of being called a feminist because of a**holes like YOU who shame it and say it hides its true agenda which is complete female dominance over men in your KKK comparison, (I can't even get to how wrong what you said is) and then get all crotchety when non-extremist feminists still want to use the name 'feminism' because of SEMANTICS.

And I didn't even cite the multiple ways in which women are still subverted in Western society, because everyone else is doing that.

How do I upvote this?

The MRAs are not about men's rights. Go to any of their fora and they aren't talking about helping men (starting shelters for abused men, reforming the justice system, starting parenting classes to change the stereotypes about men being unable to care for children, etc), they're whining about their ex-wives, about the women who won't have sex with them, about women who dare to have goals in life other than being attractive to men, or about their current partners who dare to have human lives apart from their spouses and boyfriends.

"Let me give a few example of the latter. One of them came up as a question on this site that I answered. Why when an older man at a bar wants to pick up a younger girl it's creepy, but when an older woman picks up a younger man, it's ok? A young woman is somehow more vulnerable than a young man in societies' eyes, unable to make decisions for herself. But a man of her age is somehow more capable of making proper decisions than her.

A female teacher accidentally gets sexual texts from a male student thinking he's talking to someone else. The school board finds out and does nothing. A male teacher gets sexual texts from a female student thinking she's talking to someone else, the school board finds out, he looses his job. Why? Because the female student is for some reason more vulnerable than that male student.

Both cases, negative consequences for the men only because the women are seen as more subordinate, more pliable, more in need of protection, less able to choose properly for herself.

Pretty much the only right that I see as a purely male issue not stemming from women's lack of power in things in general are custody issues (the only area where women have HAD power) and things stemming from people who think men cannot raise children, which is no one I've ever met in real life although I have met people who say that in early stages of a child's care that a man is not capable of doing it which is just BS."

Why does this necessarily mean you are more comfortable to identify as a Feminist and not an equalist?

I find a lot of people are drawn to the underdog/whoever is more oppressed/disadvantaged in society when it comes to fighting for 'equal rights', but why do people do this?

Genuinely, why can't one fight for equality and try and fix the issues both the advantaged and disadvantaged have?

"*Because in most of the world, women still get the short end of the stick by FAR more than the things we argue about in most of the western world."

What do you mean?

"*Because you don't take a slave movement that the slaves called a freedom movement and now call it an equalist movement just because the once slave owners demanded it be called that because they have to also work equally as hard as their slaves once did."

Black people called it the Civil Rights Movement when they fought for equality.

Homosexual people say they want 'marriage equality', not gay marriage.

Both are still oppressed today.

Homosexual people were never slaves, but African American people actually were slaves but even when they were still disadvantaged they called it the Civil Rights Movement.

Feminist's could have called it the 'Gender Equality Movement' even when back in the '70s when it first started, because even back then the neutral term of Gender Equality Movement would have implied a movement for gender equality and implied that we are not equal.

A more fair comparison to me would be such as how slavery in the U.S. ended yet black people were still treated with racism many decades after, yet they never called themselves 'Blackist' but the Civil Rights Movement.

"The MRAs are not about men's rights. Go to any of their fora and they aren't talking about helping men (starting shelters for abused men, reforming the justice system, starting parenting classes to change the stereotypes about men being unable to care for children, etc), they're whining about their ex-wives, about the women who won't have sex with them, about women who dare to have goals in life other than being attractive to men, or about their current partners who dare to have human lives apart from their spouses and boyfriends."

A nasty generalization just as awful as saying all Feminist's are like the minority of extremist's are.

Besides, MRA's that complain of women are just the same as Feminist's complaining of patriarchy and complaining about men.

What exactly has perception got to do with equality? Men and women are not the same. Equality =/= homogeneity.



Or perhaps they actually stem from thinking that men are less valuable.



Why would either be considered creepy? Why do the young people in your examples have less agency than the older people? Either you're a horrendous ageist, or you recognise that we value youth in much the same way that we value females.



Alternatively:

Male default = predator
Female default = nurturer

Again, your focus is on the younger pairing. There are more factors at play here than gender, yet your reductionist, tinted-lens approach ignores them completely in favour of your favoured narrative.



Both cases, no negative consequences for the women because they have higher value and therefore more privilege.



Margaret Thatcher must have been a figment of my imagination. Seriously though, women have had more voting power than men across the western world for years.



Men, in general, definitely have disadvantages when raising children from a young age. That does not make it an impossible task, however. For example, my inability to lactate created a minor dilemma when my partner returned to work. Of course this is not an example of inequality. Rather, this is a product of dimorphism.



And yet your examples revolved around first world perceptions rather than equality.



Referring to women throughout history as "slaves" is ideological revisionism at its very worst. You are also outright stating that I (along with every other man currently living in the western world) have owned slaves.

Let's face it. The reason you call yourself a feminist rather than an egalitarian is that you are not in favour of equality. Furthermore, if you genuinely believe that I have somehow committed a sin by nature of being born with the wrong chromosomes, you've bought into a patently sexist ideology.



And yet it's somehow incredibly easy for you to cast the blame for what you perceive as 'crimes against women' at the feet of all men, guilty solely by nature of their having the wrong genitalia.

You exemplify exactly why I would not date any 'modern' feminist. I prefer men and women who judge based on actions rather than those who judge based on arbitrary traits over which people have no control.

Even were I to accept your perception of 'MRA fora' as 100% accurate, why does it matter if MRAs choose to use them for the purpose of venting about their problems rather than for activism? Are you against MRAs having a space on the internet in which they can seek the comfort of people who share their perspective? Do you apply the same standard to every forum on the internet?

I've done little on WP recently to promote beneficial programs for people on the autism spectrum. Should I likewise be castigated for my improper use of the space available to me?

To the best of my understanding, marriage did use to be a contract of ownership, involving a piece of chattel, in which she was understood to be a helpmeet.

The titles were honorary.

Some slaves regretted the end of slavery:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/wpa/durham1.html

And, some demoralized peoples are sincerely grateful -- no, worshipful -- toward their dictators.

And, it was written that she should reverence the male.

I have always had some kind of rhetorical respect for voluntarism, but we are extremely biased by the secular, humanist Enlightenment, assuming that our politics are ingrained into natural law. What we are experiencing, in the here-and-now, has not always been, in all times or all places.

Said arrangements did not necessarily require forcible abuse or disparagement, because they were not change agents and revolutionaries.

Because there's an advantaged side, and fighting for the unadvantaged side will end up actually fixing the issues the disadvantaged side has. There is no 'fight' for an advantaged side to have unless they are fighting to keep their advantage. Note again that I do think things like child-rearing are advantaged for women.



...The fact that female genital mutilation happens, that women up getting raped far more often, that they end up not being allowed to get educated because their proper place is at home helping raise the kids, that they will get blamed for their own rapes, that they will be raising children in their young teens, that their dress code is ultra strict, that they will be the ones punished by men if they talk to other men, etc. I cannot even imagine all the s**t they have to go through.


If you perceive of a person as different you will treat them differently. If society perceives that a man cannot raise a child or use formula or buy breast milk, then that's a problem.



??? -I- don't recognize that dating of younger people with older people is creepy, society does and the person no the site who asked the question clearly had gotten the idea that it was so from society, but only the one way around. You completely misunderstood what I said, putting me on the other side. And yeah, I do see that we value females much as we children...unable to make their own choices about things.

Sure, you complain that men are considered predators, but they cannot be considered predators if they do not have prey. You have now equated women with being prey, weaker, having to run from people. I will restate what I said above:
Because there's an advantaged side, and fighting for the unadvantaged side will end up actually fixing the issues the disadvantaged side has. There is no 'fight' for an advantaged side to have unless they are fighting to keep their advantage.



Already been addressed when answering someone else. That's not what I said.



What are you talking about?? Much like I've already addressed before, if people are just going to just put words in my mouth, there's no point in having discussion. There's no point in me addressing these things because it's not my stance.

Last edited by cavernio on 13 May 2016, 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yup.

Is it possible, that people are not getting the end of a stick, when they are not being radicalized.

In other words, might they be happier, if they were not prompted to rebel, by foreign interlopers.

Again, this has nothing to do with equality. People are different. My perception of different people is different. My treatment of and attitude to each individual is unique to them.



I understood you perfectly. It is you that has obviously misunderstood me. Who did you believe I was referring to when I said "we"?



Ah, so your society prevents women from voting then, right?



Actually no. I was pointing out that you were doing so. I believe that men and women are equally capable of being both predator and prey. Do you see the difference?



Excellent. Please point out the legal inequalities that exist for women in the west. That is to say, those rules that society has agreed to set in law which disadvantage women.



The subject was feminism vs "equalist" and your narrative is that women are slaves. Your objection to calling yourself an "equalist" over "feminist" is:

"Because you don't take a slave movement that the slaves called a freedom movement and now call it an equalist movement just because the once slave owners demanded it be called that because they have to also work equally as hard as their slaves once did."

Who, then, are you referring to in the bolded text? Contextually, there's only one answer to this question.



Isn't it fascinating that I and others have come to the same conclusions about your position? Clearly there's a conspiracy afoot. Mayhap a patriarchal pact to discredit you, no?

Or perhaps you've misrepresented yourself horribly. Upon whom, do you suppose, falls the responsibility for redressing the apparently erroneous perception we have gleaned about you from your words?

Of course, that was rather my point to begin with - so thanks for demonstrating it beautifully.