I’m a humanist. And so I suppose I am a feminist and an andrist, but promoting the latter doesn’t take up my time, because of the rather imbalanced status quo out there!
If civilization were a boat, I know which side I should row on if I don’t want us to go in the same tired circles anymore.
I believe that women (and trans people, especially if perceived as women or presenting as women) are discriminated against; but this is like believing that water is wet. Their salaries are lower, they are underrepresented in government, unequally represented in media, face harsher social expectations about behavior and appearance, are given fewer opportunities and less respect, their health issues are not treated as seriously, they have less physical safety and autonomy over their own bodies, and until recent history (and still in some places in the world) they weren’t granted the full rights of male citizens. And I’ve probably forgotten some things.
I also believe that everyone deserves the same rights, opportunities, compensation for labor, etc. regardless of gender; that preserving male/masculine privelege is not beneficial to anyone (including men).
I invite anyone who says that’s not “feminist” because I don’t happen to be a woman to come up with a damn good reason why not, as well as a more appropriate term for it.
Look, I think people like Meghan Murphy are terrible people, but I’d hardly call them fake. (And before you call me out for that, look up Meghan’s stance on transwomen…or don’t, it’s pretty gross.)
Maybe I should be more clear: the view, to some, is that we can be supportive, we can even play a role, but we can’t use that label. And I don’t think it’s my place to say whether or not that’s right. It’s sort of funny that you’re lumping them not just into the fauxmanist camp, but right into the Fake News camp.
And I even talked about how dudebros use the worst of the worst terfy radfems as straw feminists, jeez, Brainspore.
Trans exclusionary radical feminists exist, but I as I’m a cissy, that doesn’t impact me directly.
Yes, I think I’ll have the spaghetti. Thanks.
all chauvinists are equivalent. They all feel justified, they all have their reasons, they all feel aggrieved when they are called on their behaviour. They all serve themselves rather than justice.
If a group of chauvinists existed that genuinely were justified, and faultless themselves in their own behaviour and standards and beliefs, they also wouldn’t want to define themselves with an ism that excluded others, they wouldn’t expect others to be “for us or against us”.
As I mentioned recently in another thread there were a lot of abolitionists who disagreed with John Brown’s violent revolutionary tactics in the fight against slavery. Brown had open contempt for pacifists who sought to end slavery through purely peaceful and legal means. That doesn’t mean anyone who didn’t share Brown’s views had no right to call themselves an “abolitionist,” it just means that there was a wide range of viewpoints within the abolitionist movement.
It’s worth remembering that Annie Sprinkle and Andrea Dworkin both get to call themselves feminist. And trying to filter one of them out with a “no true Scotsman” fallacy, will just cause more trouble than it solves. Being a feminist doesn’t mean you’re right, it just means you care.
Huh. I didn’t realize that “feminist” is a judgement of “success” or “virtue.”
I sort of thought it was more the declaration of a political position (i.e., support for the ideals of feminism) than some sort of self-applied badge of virtue.
(Of course, the modern approach to politics — especially the politics of voting — as nothing but a means of ‘virtue signalling’, where demonstrating one’s ideological purity seems to be the paramount concern, always puzzles me.)
(When it doesn’t enrage me, that is.)
And if he also carries around an acoustic guitar, oh boy - watch out!
My approach is to talk as little as possible, get moderately drunk, and then leave alone.
It has worked out so far.
I’m 29 now. If I decide to just not play the game do you think I’d regret it later?
Probably, but try not to think of it as a game. She’s looking for a compatible partner who will treat her with respect and not bludgeon her to death at some point for no good reason.
Anyhoo, you just have to not be that guy in the video. All you have to do is cultivate a sense of respect and look for a rewarding partnership, and not lie a whole lot. Excelsior! Also you don’t have to be a doormat. If she wants you to be a doormat, feel free to DTMFA, and look for a more reasonable person.
Maybe I’m alone in thinking this, but I believe that our internal dialogue and the thoughts we think about a given subject have an effect on the way that subject plays out in our lives.
If you aren’t predator, then stop beating yourself up, you deserve better. Has anyone actually ever accused you of predatory behavior?
Edit: a word.
Sounds like you are loads of fun at parties.
Seems like a game from my outside perspective. Playing your best cards and trying to hide your bad ones. Trying to accomplish a goal while playing by a bunch of different rules. And it’s more than just not being a fauxminist. Do guys still have to pay the bill or is that an anachronism? How do you reach out after a good date/bad date? Is eHarmony still a thing or is some other site the place to go now? If you’re tall do you show it in your profile picture or is that bad form? Can a guy lean in for a first kiss or does the girl have to initiate that these days?
This shit is stupid complex.
Well, yeah - Arizona.
I think that’s been happening for, oh, let’s see, a few million years?
Or _trump_et as the case may be.
