Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh here we go. Getting into a debate over the way someone types online.

I just hope that silly 'P' word that is supposed to mean 'fake, sham' when sometimes the person is just being their genuine self, doesn't get thrown in here, then I know we've really gone off-course.

"lol there's no way you speak like that in public."

I, good sir, believe he very well may - Asperger's, and formalized language can go hand-in-hand.

I know I have a formalized way of speaking I revert to when in an argument or debate to clearly articulate what I'm trying to say. 'Lawyer mode'.

"Well, you've certainly got the nerdy/geeky part right, Outrider."

A better way of putting it - the males Feminist's tend to date have at least one of the three traits - nerdy/geeky, skinny, feminine (by millenials standards - 'normal').

I rest my case...I've never met one feminist's or heard of one that didn't date a male with at least one of the traits.

I lack all three, so maybe that's why I never get along with them.

"CommanderKeen, I'm not opposed to the idea of dating muscular men. My boyfriend is pretty fit, and I've had crushes on several distinctly muscular guys at various times.

I would never cheat on my boyfriend. Not sure why you assume that I would...?

I don't really I understand why you imply that I am somehow manipulating him. "Manipulation" is defined as " to manage or utilize skillfully" or "to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage" ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manipulate ). I am not doing any of these things."

Then you're a good person, and clearly different than the majority of Feminist's CommanderKeen and I have met.

Everyone/general statements:

What I've noticed about Feminist's I've dated or been around, is that it's their way go's.

They are liberal and progressive, to the point they don't accept non-liberal or 'traditionalism'.

Very ironic.

Freedom should be freedom to not follow traditional gender roles and social rules, but freedom to follow the rules as well.

It seems millenials of today are about 'liberal' and 'freedom' when people who follow traditional are ostracized.

This is hypocrisy in the textbook sense.

So, when I would go on dates with Feminist's, like I said, my method is 'whoever asks should pay' in the first three dates.

But no, they'd never accept that and want their 'freedom' and 'independence', which means every time they pay for themselves and I pay for myself, and there's no sort of compromise.

I would have been fine if, maybe, the first date we did things my way, and the second her way, and the third my way, and then every date from that point on her way, but this never happened.

This doesn't just apply to going on dates with her, but it applied to other aspects as well.

Even feminist's I was just friends with wanted their 'freedom' and 'independence' and to feel 'empowered', and to do that they feel the need to absolutely crush traditionally social rules and etiquette.

Not all tradition is oppression, but simple politeness and courtesy.

I'm not 'oppressing' or making a woman feel less 'empowered' because I held the door open for her, etc.

So, I am yet to meet a Feminist's that can date a more traditionally masculine male and compromise a little for his ideals as well as I compromise for her own. It's called 'equality' when you do that, something Feminist's claim to want. I went there!!

Well, if you consider encountering people online "meeting" them, then you have met at least two feminists in this thread who have dated guys without those three traits you list. The ex I spoke of above I don't think would ever call himself a feminist. He was very "traditional", and what they call in the UK a builder (aka construction worker). He was popular in high school and college and athletic (basketball, mostly). He was not geeky or effeminate in any way, and definitely not skinny by any stretch of the imagination (in fact, he tended to get a bit pudgy in winter because he wasn't outdoors as much working and he drank more in the winter). And I dated him for over 2 years and even considered marrying him.

Sweeping generalisations (like those made in this thread about feminists) are a sign of a lack of critical thinking and/or bias.

feminism equals your belief in equal opportunity, nothing more. you are a feminist, same as i am. i married a feminist.

"Well, if you consider encountering people online "meeting" them, then you have met at least two feminists in this thread who have dated guys without those three traits you list. The ex I spoke of above I don't think would ever call himself a feminist. He was very "traditional", and what they call in the UK a builder (aka construction worker). He was popular in high school and college and athletic (basketball, mostly). He was not geeky or effeminate in any way, and definitely not skinny by any stretch of the imagination (in fact, he tended to get a bit pudgy in winter because he wasn't outdoors as much working and he drank more in the winter). And I dated him for over 2 years and even considered marrying him.

Sweeping generalisations (like those made in this thread about feminists) are a sign of a lack of critical thinking and/or bias."

I just mean all the ones I have met in my own limited experiences. And, apparently, according to CommanderKeen, all the one's he has met in his own limited experiences as well.

Not a generalization, just a pattern/trend I've noticed within my life and no one else's.

As LydiaMarie and you have shown, there is plenty of evidence of the contrary of my beliefs of what some Feminist's may tend to be like.

I genuinely hope I can meet a Feminist who is more like you two, rather than all of the one's I have met in the real world so far.

I can see how my attitude may actually be driving Feminist's such as you and LydiaMarie in this forum away, but I've developed this attitude because of my negative experiences, and it's my own personal battle to overcome it.

No. I'm too old-fashioned.

In my humble opinion, if there's any form of behavior I dislike more than extremist feminist's, it's any person of any ideology who feels they have any right whatsoever to automatically slap a label onto someone else for their beliefs.

I am a gender equalist, but am by no means and never will be a Feminist, and it is also Nocturnus' personal choice whether he chooses to identify as 'Feminist' or not.

To automatically say to people that they ARE a feminist and can't argue against it, is inherently sexist and immoral as it implies your opinion is more credible and important than their own, and denying them the right to voice against your claims.

Everyone/general comments:

And, I do believe a reasonable amount of Feminist's may or may not be against traditional patriarchy, as traditional patriarchy is precisely what Feminism is traditionally against and was the basis of its creation in the first place.

To be a Feminist yet want to live a 1950's housewife lifestyle and relationship dynamic, but without the sexism and oppression, is still going directly against the exact things first, second and most of third-wave Feminism stands against.

I'd be very interested in meeting a Feminist who likes the idea of patriarchy and living in a patriarchal household, purely out of curiosity to know if they exist or not.

I'm sure plenty do, but have I met any? No. Has Nocturnus? Not yet.

So I'm wondering if you, wilburforce, or LydiaMarie, being Feminist's yourselves, met Feminist's who enjoy patriarchal relationship dynamics?

A quick google search comes up with absolutely nothing relevant on the topic.

Maybe it's another 'sweeping generalization', but I find it a little unreasonable to assume at least a moderate amount of members of an ideology opposed to patriarchy would, in fact, actually like to live in a patriarchal household.



Kind of like assuming a fair amount of white supremacist's aren't actually racist against black people, when this is almost what the entire ideology is built-on. Another unfair, stereotyping, discriminatory 'generalization'?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Patriarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy

Patriarchy means by definition that men have more authority than women, that men have the power and are "head of the family". So no, I would not date anyone who thought they had more authority in the relationship than I do. I want an equal partner, not a "Daddy" or authority figure. I don't want to submit to anyone or be dependent on anyone in a way they don't submit to me or are dependent on me in the same way--it has to be a two-way street for me or I'm just not interested.

^ Patriarchy will persist if there are no social changes jn many things, and it will remain as long the women are the only ones who have the two choices of being either housewife or working wife.

Even in many advanced countries, there are still high % of mothers who are housewives.

The truth is that a housewive can never be the head of authority of the couple because...money talks and money is a power that she lacks.

For a true death of patriarchy to happen, the role of housewivery must die - or - the househusbandry must become as common as housewivery - but it still ridicoulsly low even in western countries.

In dating, men should refuse to date unemployed women as commonly how women often refuse to date unemployed men -

Or

Women should equally accept dating unemployed men as commonly men do (accepting to date non working women) and accept that they'll have to afford them.

So:
1- Either Unemployment should be equally penalized in dating in order to end patriarchy, othetwise there will be always way more housewives than househubbies ==> leading to a patriarchal society.

or

2- Both gender should be equally tolerant toward unemployed dates; therefore leading to a more equal numbers of housewives/househusbands.

This housewife/househusband imbalance is also a social reason for the wage gap, in the psych of employers, whom most of them are men, while dividing the salary budget, would always assume in their psych that a married man would need more money than a married woman because thr latter would definetely have a working husband who is earing as much as her or more (always 2 incomes), while it's way more possible for a married man to be with a housewife partner (so it may be 1 income).
There are studies on that, so I am not inventing from my head.
--> It is aslo for the same reason why married men are more paid than single men, btw.

Sorry, I don't buy that for one minute. Women are often much better than men at psychological and emotional manipulation so even if he is the breadwinner and she depends on him financially, the fact that he cannot legally compel her to stay married with her nor have sex with her means that she can withhold sex and intimacy from him if she doesn't get her way.

Plenty of breadwinner husbands get pussy-whipped by their stay-at-home housewives.

Right now, the unemployment rate for men is higher in the US than it is for women. And so women have less of a financial incentive to marry or to stay in an unhappy marriage.

So a complete reversal of gender roles isn't really necessary for matriarchy.

^ Oh wait, I wasn't promoting matriarchy nor a complete reversal of gender roles.

F*** that! LOL As a male it would be too stupid to accept matriarchy (yes ladies, call me selfish).

I was rather talking about a more balanced society, not reversal of anything.

I was talking about how patriarchy can be ended (which doesn't necessary lead to a matriarchy but to an egalitarian society).

Patriarchy won't be ended without a whole self re-engineering of whole society as I have described in my post, the attitudes toward househusbandry , dating customs need to be changed, men/women's attitudes toward dating and certain standards (common attitudes like "I would feel weird if I earn more than my man" or "I am an old fashioned man, and I shall pay everything." fuel patriarchy...a lot.), employers' mentalities, books like The Rules must be burned....etc.

It will not go overnight, and probably ....I am not sure if it will ever go extinct.

I am a girl and I believe in equal rights. However, man-hating women who blame men for everything drive me mad. I mean, sure maybe women are a bit worse off than men, but men have their own problems and it's really society as a whole that's the problem. There are plenty of men who treat women equally and respect women, so going around saying you hate all men because they are misogynists doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I would totally date a guy who makes less than me. I don't really care, and it's fun to be able to treat a date to dinner.

Why are women like yourself so unusual these days?

^ They were always so unusual.

"Hating all men is pointless/not all men are misogynists" is the consensus of the many women on this forum so far as I can see, so how unusual of an opinion can it really be? And I don't think it's because we are on the spectrum; I think it's a common opinion you would find among many NT women, too. Where are all these man-haters that you guys are so sure are out there all over the place? Maybe it's because I don't follow social media--are they all on Facebook or Instagram or whatever? That might explain why I haven't seen them.

tumblr