Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

Agreed, TGR!

Let me emphasize to everyone again, there's a difference between fighting for superiority and fighting for equality but focusing preferably or entirely on one group over another.

And I find both to be less than ideal.

And, you're right kraftiekortie, sir. My history is a little blurry, blame the Australian top-notch education system, its really not much better than the U.S. (which I have heard is absolutely disgraceful).

I'm aware MLK was assasinated, but find that a little irrelevant to my argument - that in his pursuit for racial equality, his beliefs and views didn't have to be applied entirely to black people wanting equal rights, but anyone of another race/ethnicity.

And, it's generally referred to as the African-American civil rights movement and did focus primarily on them, but much of their views could have been applied far less exclusively than the views of Feminism can be applied to men.

At least, that's my interpretation of it.

Honestly, find the term 'Feminism' to be far more ambigious.

They're so varied and diverse, I don't know what I'm getting, and this makes me uncomfortable.

Yes, the 'manhaters' are a minority, but what isn't a minority is the Feminist's who are fighting for equality but only focusing specifically on women's rights.

If anything, that's what a 'Feminist' is supposed to be.

When someone calls themselves a 'Gender Equality Activist', from the very beginning I feel far more at ease and feel like I know what I'm getting out of this person - it's all in the name.

As an analogy, the 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'guilty until proven innocent' is how I feel - when a woman tells me she is a Feminist, I assume she only focuses on women's rights until proven otherwise, and for those who simply call themselves fighting for Gender Equality - fighting for equality until proven otherwise.

And, yes I find Feminist's care about men's issues related to the problems men may also face under patriarchy.

But I find any other men's issues unrelated to the patriarchy aren't considered.

King believed in equal rights for all---but he felt like black people, especially in the US South, needed his immediate attention.

I don't see feminists fighting for superiority, and I always think it's an interesting and telling interpretation to assume so.

One of the issues in this discourse is that what is at stake is not something so abstract as 'equality', whatever that might mean, but worldviews and perspectives, stuff that hits closer to home.

Sometimes a political issue is one of identity, because that identity is politicised.

Isn't a Gender Rights Activist just, you know, a Human Rights Activist?

What issues would they be? What non-patriarchy issues do men qua men face that you think feminists should and could campaign on? An issue that is brought about and enforced by women for the benefit of women qua women.

Men very rarely get custody of kids in court. They do only if the mother's conduct in life is especially egregious.

Note: I understand why the rights of women need attention.

I respect that this discussion can be so polite and intellectual, but people don't typically date for those reasons.

If find that many people use no higher reasoning than animals, and only rationalize this, after the fact.

It applies to both sides of this discussion, equally.

How would either respective party be regarded in nature. Men's right's discussions call it SMV, or sexual market value.

The feminists, as well as non-feminists, know the answer, intuitively, when they evaluate men, and vice versa.

But they dont, individuals face inequality because they simply áre unequal in their respective fields of relevance.
There is no such thing of a predetermined inequality against women, and if a buisiness just doesnt want to function with women in it, then go work at another or start your own. You cant force people with some political misconstruction to change their autonomous personal practice. Thats tyranny.

For example, if i would demand a job at a buisiness that is a field of trade that i am absolutely undeniably an asset to i will not be turned down. If i would not have practical validity to function in that field i would be turned down, wether my skin is black green blue white or piggy pink, my gender be woman man cat narwhal or majestic urstag. Lets say a buisiness works well with the staff it has and a woman tried to get a job (typical scenario incoming) the buisiness assesses the profit to be had on hiring such and may decide that in its current state she might be a distraction.. (i bet this is going to be triggerquoted as sexism but ok, if you let a man work at a womans trade buisiness youd get the same, and yes im going there because the topic is always 'equality' meaning typical activist women want to get jobs at male trade buisinesses (except anything that makes you tear muscles/physical work) or atleast the right to(wich they already have, just not in general the biologically dictated strenght) so all in all only the leadership functions(wich sounds like some kind of baseless entitlement to me since you need experience in the field to lead its respective buisiness, not a diploma on 'contemporary abstract art')
This reason is completely legitimate as as i said before the buisiness assesses it on its requirements and potential affect. Ok so it will be rare for a woman to try to get a job at heavy machinery, they do exist and if they are qualified they will get the job, proven by countless outbackers who work as tree-cutters or rig operatives that are *gasp* women. And not the kind that will stand around protesting for a living the moment they crawled out of "contemporary school" exhausted.

If you want something, you earn it by hard work, you dont demand it because 100 years ago women couldnt work, something that is in no way still so. Every institution is manned by people, and just demanding something means it will be taken away from those who work for it. It breeds incompetence, it creates institutions that have no expertise and with it are no institutions at all anylonger, it smashes the pillars of society away and lets it all fall in shambles.

Inequality is not an idea, it is a biological absolute. Not everyone is born equal, not everyone will develope themselves to some kind of standard and would everyone it would be just as i have said before; a tyranny.

ASD is used as a pejorative, because it is assumed that we bring nothing of value to the bargaining table.

NS people tolerate all sorts of ironies, based on whether you're providing a material need for them.

One discussion, involving feminism, assumes that the govt is playing the role of provider, so is respected, accordingly.

When the women assumes this role, over the man, she is presumably dominant.

This isn't mentioned in polite conversation, but it is most certainly mentioned, at every argument.



This discussion pertains to labor. For instance, how does working heavy machinery qualify someone to be a mother or lover, particularly assuming that Aspies are averse to harsh people.

But, one of the situations you discuss is schooling and a work environment, which does not provide a living. So, the applicant is unmotivated.

This is like the marriage which, cannot provide a stable living situation.

Or, there is an air of authority, as from a unitary executive, towards a supplicant.

The workplace is like a household, imho.

Well i do not beleive in government anylonger, its authority has been an illusion since it has been infiltrated by lobbyists. Even on the small scale you see international lobbying taking away every and all selfgoverning.

And lobbyists are never in it for either demographic but soley for monetary profit, the only correct response to that would be to ignore such institutions and create your own and with it selfsufficiency. Because do not forget institutions moved around by a stranglehold of lobbyists are still manned with the populace. The whole women against men's rights thing in this is a huge distraction, a divide and conquer that is being empowered by fools and uneducated (as in mis-educated) masses. Rise above that. There is no male priviledge, there is no female privilidge to be had. There is only common ground that we need to realise, and on it live together. Whoever fits a glove can wear it, housewife, working woman, houseman, working man.

Don't believe in government? Move to Somalia. Were it not for the existence of GOVERNMENT the information infrastructure would not exist(twas a government funded project spearheaded by DARPA back in the 1970s). It is because of government that there are roads that are maintained, and that there is a power grid which allows people in the most remote areas to get electricity.

Dont cut out the context i said 'anymore'. Government is not a static deity, it has been infiltrated by lobbyists. What made you ignore that part of my post?

One of these people who try to redefine feminism as an anti-man philosophy is Professor Christina Hoff Sommers. She wrote a book about it. Would you describe her as a weak, frightened man? My girlfriend absolutely hates feminism. Do you think my girlfriend is a weak, frightened man? Think of all the women who speak out against feminism. Do you think they're all weak, frightened men?

I have no problem with Feminism in general.

I don't care for the ideology of some of the "radical" Feminists, though.

First, for the argument about feminism and what it's meant to mean, there's this.


(can't link so will have to cut and paste)

I would say that the only feminists im attracted to are the women that embody feminism without actually needing the movement. Genuinely strong women. Not women that are still trying to be strong and need a crutch. Which is how i see self described feminists. So no, i wouldn't date a feminist because they're idiots, but i would definitely date the kind of women that feminists are trying and failing to be.

I would date a feminist if only to play head games with her and say things to deliberately piss her off. Like "Why is it that if a woman doesn't have sex, she's pure, but if a man doesn't have sex, he's a loser?" Or "If female breasts are not sexual, then why is touching them considered sexual assault?" You know, playing on feminist hypocrisy.