Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

"If you want equality, then how come you never addressed me when I brought up the fact how the FDA and insurance companies give men with testosterone dysfunction such a hard time getting treatment?[/quote]

i didn't know you were looking for an answer from me specifically.

folks with actual proven low testosterone have no trouble getting replacement from their docs. i know because i used to practice medicine. also, my husband's urologist checked my husband's testosterone level without being asked to. only reason to do that would be for replacement if low. i don't know whether insurance covers it. can you give a specific example? or better yet, a link with statistics?

i was on vaginal estrogen. supposedly my insurance covered it, but my copay ($145) was most of the hefty price.

doctors don't prescribe estrogen freely because of the association with breast cancer and heart attacks. it's given in the lowest dose for the least amount of time.

testosterone is also associated with heart attacks, which is why it's not given unless the level is documented to be low.

estrogen doesn't help libido in women. testosterone does that in women, too. used to be a hormone replacement with both estrogen and testosterone called estratest. i doubt you can still get it due to testosterone side effects."

It depends on what the doctor considers low. The "normal" range used varies per place you go. SOme have the normal range of 200-800, some 160-762, some 300-1,100. The trouble is, they don't take into account age. So, 200 is normal for a man in his 80s. I can tell you from personal experience, since mine was at 344(it should be in the 600s) and the urologist I saw didn't even want to test for estradiol and told me, "We don't need to test for that." Well if estradiol is high, that lowers testosterone. The best testosterone replacement doctors are very expensive, since they don't have to follow the guidelines of insurance. If I wanted to see a doctor that would actually help me, I would either A. have to get re-tested and cheat so that I purposely make my testosterone tank by getting drunk the day before the test and getting no more than a few hours of sleep a week before the test, or B. Join with a company that has physicians that will treat me, but I have to pay $100 a month for treatment, $120 to talk to a doctor all the phone every 3 months, $300 for blood work twice a year, $25 prescription charge every 90 days. Keep in mind that's one of the cheaper services. I could do C. buy over the counter products and pay an online company $67 to give me a lab slip to get my blood tested every few months. It is still much easier for women to get estrogen. Also, depending on if a man has primary hypogonadism(body does't utilize LH and FSH), or Secondary Hypogonadism(Body utilizes LH and FSH, but numbers are low); testosterone itself may not be needed. I am secondary, thankfully. So, I only need a SERM(selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator) and maybe an AI(Aromatase Inhibitor).

I think my dad actually met my mother while arguing about feminism. In the end he got converted. So yes, I would date a feminist.

So, are you seeing anyone? lol

what are a few of these harms you've experienced?

I once knew someone, who ruined knives, by using the back of the blade and the pummel to hammer in nails, and also someone who would wipe motor oil onto new towels. I think the same logic applies to using women for physically-demanding labor. They are either more coarse, to begin with, or it will make them so.

I wear dents into myself and push it to the point of metabolic imbalances, sometimes, with gross results. I lose myself in repetition but, when I am done, feel mortified, and tell myself to make money in a more-leisurely way. You change agents, who have been chosen for social promotion, through no doing of your own, should feel grateful, on the level of life or death; statistically speaking you will live longer.

what women get from physically-demanding labor such as nursing or carpentry is to be in shape and have better health.

There is nothing wrong with women doing either and they have equal opportunity to do so.

As with any job they have be capable of doing it. Of course there is some sexual dimorphism, but also is just a mean figure.

If a woman can get a green beret, that is fine by me.

Physical demands mean different things. There are different physical demands in cabinet making, from those who construct A-frames for houses. Someone who does the walnut inlay on Rolls Royce, that is a skilled job which is physically demanding on the eyes and hands, but not due to load.

However even with physical loads we are limited as humans anyway, we use technology for that. The main thing is to do it safely.

Then problem lies when equality of outcome is mixed up with equality of opportunity. There is a lot of misleading political spiel, about that. Reality is, there are careers where that have been concerted efforts to get more women into, and by an large they are just not interested.

Engineering is a key example, they tried really hard to attract women in my old university and it is not as if they weren't getting the pre-requisiste A-levels, it languished at 2%. However women can do technical jobs, they just trend in certain areas and that is choice. Veterinary Medicine has switch from a predominately male field to predominately female. Medicine in general is pretty equally mixed.

When feminists talk of discouragement, or pressures, they don't consider that men are under the same sorts of pressures. These are highly competitive fields.

I don't have a problem with discussing the differences, however I have a problem with comparing apples with oranges. This happens in the debate over pay gap. if they are talking about paying in specific careers, you can't then switch it to comparing completely different conditions which have a magnitude of reasons, not all related to inequality.

Pay gap is illegal, has been for a long time. It is easy to identity, and bring to tribunal. It is exceptionally rare. It is just not feasible doing the same work, joining at the same time.

Maybe acting is an exception, however they are essentially contracted and can re-negotiate based on popularity if they are smart. They can do this quite successfully as has been demonstrated e.g. House of Cards.

What you are payed is set until you you are either offered an increase or you ask for a pay rise. Generally speaking, companies review pay of employees periodically, or they do performance based pay.

So both men and women can loose out on pay, depending on personality an performance.

The key thing is in a competitive market people can switch companies and be poached. So the more genuine competition there is, the more pay equality there is.

True equality is choice, not socially engineered affirmative action. This is the outcome vs. opportunity fudge.

I wouldn't date anybody. I'd rather live my life of freedom and war than be in love.

Yep lol. Been married for 15 years (legally-- in practice, it will be 18 years this fall). To a guy who told me what a feminist he was, and all about how feminists taught him how to treat women. It's been a rocky road.

Harms??

Before he was through puberty, feminism taught my hubby that women demand to have their asses kissed and to get their way ALL the time. That sounds great in theory. In practice, what it means is that I'm being dictatorial every time I have a strong opinion or a deep fear about something.

Feminism taught my hubby that women are a superior foe. Again, sounds great in theory. In practice-- do you want to live with someone who sees you as a powerful adversary?? What happens when it looks like the tables are turned and you might be vulnerable?? It ain't pretty. The upshot of what feminism taught my husband is that, in order to avoid emasculating him, I end up walking on eggshells more than a Titus 2:3-5 wife. It's turned me from a freak into a threat. It's worse to be a threat.

Feminism taught me that I didn't have to submit to a man, ever. So I picked a man I loved dearly, but could not submit to, on the premise that submission was a bad idea and unnecessary. Result?? We fought, and fought, and fought, and now I'm so tired of fighting (have been for almost 10 years now) that I'm a doormat. With PTSD.

Real fact?? Men-- at least, men that have been made insecure by feminist beat-down and verbally abusive parenting-- have a hard-wired need to be dominant. Feminism basically lies to women about human nature. And then we wonder why 50% of marriages end in divorce.

Feminism was supposed to be about choices. Having the option to be a career woman AND a wife and mother. Having options other than teacher, secretary, or nurse. Well, we have options now, and that's good. But there's still only one "socially correct" path. Thanks to feminism, for mainstream culture anyway, that path is trying to have it all. And if you can't have it all?? If you have to choose?? You're a failure. If you choose not to have it all?? You're lazy. OTOH, non-mainstream cultures have become even more vociferous about THEIR way being The One True Path. Feminism pretty much gave us the Mommy Wars. Thanks, feminism.

Feminism encourages parents, teachers, and everyone else to push kids toward androgyny. They tell me to teach my girls to act more like boys, and my boy to act more like a girl. I'm a fairly androgynous person who spent a lot of life getting pushed to be more feminine. I hated it. I want androgyny to be OK. But I DON'T want it to default to being The Way Everyone Should Be. That's just another rigid role, and it's going to suck for feminine girls and masculine boys just as much as being pushed to be a feminine girl sucked for me. More suckage for more people doesn't make a better world.

That's not an exhaustive list. I'm just out of time.

One more (and maybe it's the worst of them all). Radical third-wave feminism has become absurd enough, misandristic enough, and strident enough to make antifeminism sound reasonable by comparison.

I don't want to lose the things my foremothers fought for. I don't want to lose the right to work in whatever field I choose, the right to vote, the right to own property (instead of being property). I don't want to lose the ability to leave an abusive marriage, or the idea that beating a woman is abuse instead of good husbandry. I don't want to lose my legal personhood.

I don't want that for my daughters, either.

But the fact is that it looks, at least to me, as if between radical feminism and radical conservatism (think Shari'a), my daughters will see those things on the block even if I luck out and die first.

I'd date a male feminist if I enjoyed his company. His feminism wouldn't be a deal breaker even though I'm not a feminist.

Anyway, shouldn't this topic be in love and dating?

BB, just because your hubby's teacher claimed to be feminist doesn't mean they are representative of most feminists.

Ever feminist alive has their own definition that varies slightly to drastically.

And they all claim to follow the One True Feminism, happily denouncing feminists whose behaviour is incompatible with their version of One True Feminism and showing zero sympathy for the victims of heretical false feminists.

Concern trolls. Don't be them.

Exactly.

This is why women who genuinely want 'gender equality' should call themselves Gender Equality Activist.

I have to be cautious if I meet a woman who identifies as a Feminist because I have no idea if I'm getting one of the Feminazi extremist's or one who cares about both men's and women's rights.