Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

I believe Feminism as a movement was important in the past, but in a modern age, it is very silly to genderize certain groups and movements.

The term 'FEMinsism' implies a preference of favor of women over men.

I don't mean to say they want women to be superior, just that, in their pursuit of equality, they may focus only specifically on women's rights.

Many Feminist's claim to also care about 'some' men's rights as well, but that's just it - 'some'.

I think in 2016, the 'Gender Equality Movement' sounds more neutral and inclusive than simply Feminism, which is by definition 'the pursuit of making women equal to men' and not 'the pursuit of making all genders equal'.

I find a huge difference in interpretation in those two statements.

I make these comparisons all the time:

In the 1960's/70s, Martin Luther King referred to his movement as the 'Civil Rights Movement'. He did not call it 'Blackism' or 'Black rights Activism'.

Malcolm X did call his movement the 'Black Panther Movement', but that was because he genuinely wanted superiority.

Anyway, the term 'civil rights movement' is a neutral term that implies no favoritism based on race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

MLK said in his speeches that 'ALL' men were equal.

The words of most of his speeches could have been applied to black people as well as Asian immigrants, European immigrants, and Latinos - all victims of American racism at the time as well.

Finally, my second comparison is LGBT activism. LGBT activists do not refer to same-sex marriage as 'gay marriage', but the neutral, all-inclusive term of 'Marriage equality'.

I don't think it's silly to complain about feminist's simply because they refer to themselves as such.

A name is more than just a name, and just one word can imply an entire movements identity, goals, etc.

So, as a G.E.A (Gender Equality Activist), yes, I would still date a Feminist, but I would greatly prefer a G.E.A.

I've made this argument many, many times on other forums and such, and the Feminist's give me flack for it, and in the end, yet none of them still would not dare adopt the Egalitarianist or Equality or Gender Equality Activist.

Just goes to show their true intentions if most of them can't identify by a neutral term...

As an Aboriginal Australian, there is still a lot of racism and discrimination issues. I should call myself a Blackist and Black People Rights Activist, and fight for racial equality.

As a Blackist, I will fight for equality between all people of different races and ethnicities - white, black, Asian, European, etc.

See how silly that sounds?

It's the same as calling yourself a 'White people rights activist' but claiming you fight for equality for all races.

White people rights activist sounds like another way of saying 'White supremacist' to me...

Feminist =/= man-hater.

Never said that at all.

I said, by identifying as a Feminist, by default you identify with a movement that, for the last couple of centuries since it first existed, from first wave Feminism to Third, was purely about fighting for women's rights and women's rights only, because in the past women were not equal to men.

Now, I find in today's western societies there are some ways in which men may be disadvantaged, and some ways women may be.

Some modern Feminist's may claim to be for men's rights as well, but by giving yourself the name women who only cared about women's rights used, your claims are far more easy to be questioned.

Actions speak louder than words, but sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword.

Even if you as a Feminist fight for men and women's rights equally, I believe, why not just SAY so, by calling yourself a GEA, Egalitarianist, Equalist - loads of things you could call yourself to convey that, instead of just conforming and resorting to 'Feminism'.

In certain cases, feminism favours women based on their sex and not on reason. I can understand women in STEM jobs being paid an equal amount to their male counterparts but a woman that works less hours in HR complaining that men in STEM earn more than her is illogical.

There haven't been enough successful examples of feminism, that is why I believe that conservative and traditional values will always triumph over modern movements. Some women use feminism as a means to abandon all principle and engage in hedonism or to clear themselves from any wrongdoing.

Feminism is an analysis and critique of society and culture from the perspective of what is done to and expected of women qua women, on the understanding that women should not be treated as less than, or unequal to, men.

I think it is necessary but insufficient. Which is why I'm a socialist.

But, this isn't PPR.

There'll be loads of feminists I wouldn't want to be involved with, but I wouldn't be put off just because they were feminists. Whereas a woman who made a thing of not being a feminist is probably either going to be a contrarian hipster wazzock or conservative, neither of which I'm going to get on with.

I mean, I would assume that any woman in whom I had a reciprocated interest was a feminist until it turned out otherwise - she wouldn't have to be an activist or even be vocal about it or such.

King was assassinated in 1968.

Malcolm X was assassinated before the Black Panthers were founded. Malcolm X became a mainstream, rather than a Black, Muslim during the last year of his life. His rhetoric softened somewhat as a result. That could very well be why he was assassinated.

To me, Feminism in its broad sense espouses equality for women vis a vis men.

Theres no such thing as static equality, you reap what you sow, if you want to get a job in a certain department then you become that job and do it to the best of your abillity. If that abillity is short of what is necessary then thats just how it is and has nothing to do with gender skin color or whatnot. Ofcourse sometimes demography can be against you, thats a chance not a weight to keep you down. You can uplift a whole community by giving the right example. Instead alot of people think that just screaming really loud gives right and they then act like everyone has what they have because of some kind of entitlement and that same entitlement can simply be given to them.. Thats a huge misconception and still thats what most radical feminists believe. That its 'time to take' something. That theres a patriarchy every man is part of against women, that this faction fears women in positions of power.. are you freaking joking? If anyone has THE position of power in every family its the woman/mother figure.

Sure theres ape-men that act like women are their personal entertainment, but those are equally rare as the radical feminists are percieved. You dont have to be a feminine or feminist man not to treat women like that, you need to be an intelligent person. All demographies have unintelligent people amongst them, and the more unintelligent the louder they get.

The assassination of Malcolm X had to do with him becoming more mainstream after his pilgrimage to Mecca. He became more of an orthodox muslim instead of following the creed of the Nation Of Islam(black supremacist). But many of the black militant leaders survived because people knew if they were killed there'd be retaliation by their followers.

But unlike blacktivism, feminism has never encountered the kind of brutal violent opposition that the black civil rights movement did. But from the 2nd wave onwards, feminism has drifted away from gender equality to women's self interests and moreover a form of female group identity.

Quite correct but this is an illness of our time, you can see lots of groups busy with 'self identification' and leading to some kind of 'brand'.

I would want to date someone who believes in gender equality.

Many feminists seem to strongly support gender equality as it relates to women, but are chillingly silent whenever men's issues are discredited, or whenever all men are held accountable for the actions of a minority, by others who identify as feminists. I've seen feminists on the internet (granted, it's internet) who are completely ignorant of the fact that there are gender-based discrepancies that disadvantage men.

I would not want to date someone who protests vigorously to fix women's issues, but refuses to acknowledge that there are ways in which men fall short of being equal to women.

I'm a feminist (man) and I would only date a feminist.

"Hey feminists!

Now you've got women's rights and inequality sorted out despite many of our best efforts, past and continued, could you please see to it to sort out matters of inequality that affect men?

Luv,

Men."

ffs

The fact that we Aspies don't have a self-identity, let alone kinship with one another and an organized coalition, is a big reason why we continue to be discriminated against and disrespected.

IMO, I wouldn't care about her political and/or social views regarding gender.

If this is in reference to my comment, you're completely butchering it.

Obviously women still face gender inequality that we should work to combat as swiftly and as effectively as possible, but that doesn't mean the issues that men face are any less important. You can't oppose the inequalities of one gender and stand indifferent to the inequalities of the other.

Your remark reminded me of one I've seen quite a few times. I believe I caught the absurd gist of it.



Actually, you can. Meninists (yeesh!) do. Feminism is interested in inequalites faced by women qua women. Which is why I've said it is necesary but not sufficient - on its own it has nothing to say on matters of class or race or sexuality etc. There are, of course, plenty of feminists who fight these fights. I believe the particular term is 'intersectionality', and one's feminism can be part of and steered by a larger political belief. The pejorative 'Social Justice Warrior' (and such an odd thing to make a pejorative of!), which seems often to be used interchangeable with 'feminist' refers to a particular sort of person whose feminism would be part of a nexus of political beliefs and ideals.

Feminists, traditionally and still, have been up against men in power wielding that power in favour of men qua men and the status quo. To expect feminists - the majority of whom would be women - to do something about things that affect men is absurd. If a man is concerned about what he takes to be a partcular injustice, he may petition his majority-male lawmakers and power-holders. He will find more sympathy there than would a feminist who took on his fight.

One of the problems some feminists and anti-feminists have is that that is the only lens they have, the only political analysis. The only way to look at an issue. The draft is a common one. There is some complaint that women are not included in the draft, that this is a matter of gender inequality (usually by the kind of person who would otherwise protest at the allowing of women into the armed forces).

Except that women do not benefit when they see their friends and lovers and husbands and fathers and sons called up and sent off to fight and kill and die. This is much more an issue of class than gender - The Powers That Be calling up the proles as cannon fodder. Still, the situation is used to 'refute' feminism, though some feminists have argued for the inclusion of women in the draft. Whereas the more sensible outcome would be to scrap the draft. If one gets caught up in working out just how equally s**t men and women are treated (that being some people's idea of 'equality'), one may miss the bigger picture where something can be done to stop people being treated like s**t.

That said, many feminists have a worldview that takes in matters concerning men, that men are also victims of the yoke of patriarchy and a particular sort of masculinity. Perhaps you could find some agreement there.