Ask Your Question today
Not all feminist women, obviously, because there are some I think are a bit too much for me. But aside from them, a lot of feminist women are very intelligent, sophisticated, self-empowered, passionate, strong women and I find all those traits attractive. Is it normal?
It's normal to find those traits attractive.
I'd say most women in 'The West' are feminists, whether they realise it or not. You only really need to be an egalitarian to also qualify as a feminist, and I think culturally the idea of women having equal rights is ingrained - at least in the modern generation.
I'm assuming you're talking about those self-declared, politically active feminists, though.
"Feminism" is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". "Feminist" is a word describing someone who supports feminism (as defined by the previous definition). So feminist is a descriptive word, and if that word describes you then you are feminist whether you like it or not. Feminism is a wide label, and if you fit anywhere under that wide label you are a type of feminist.
What feminism claims it is and what it is are two different things. A group isn't determined by the words that explain them, they are determined by the actions the group makes.
Once again, I explain. Just because both groups claim to be about equality does not mean they agree about the issues that need to be talked about or addressed to achieve equality.
It's the same reasoning as the word "fag", once used to describe a bundle of sticks, it is now a vulgar word for homosexuals. Words change, and it is getting even more known that feminism is not the definition from sources you took the definition from.
The definition of feminism is in black and white terms from your source, it doesn't go in to depth of what it is completely about, so the definition is pretty much pointless. It's like saying being Christian and being Muslim are the same because they worship something and have that one similarity of worshiping something.
So, as I said, feminists have no right to brand someone with the label feminism, because they may believe in equal rights, but that doesn't mean they agree with the measures feminists takes or believe in feminist theory in any shape or form.
I gave you a dictionary definition, not "what feminism claims to be". I thought you loved the dictionary, since you use it all the time to support your own arguments.
"That doesn't mean they agree with the measures feminists takes or believe in feminist theory in any shape or form."
Feminism is a broad church. Not all feminists have to think the same way, just as not all Christians and Muslims have to think the same way. It's deliberately a vague and general term used to encompass a wide range of related but different ideas. Perhaps it isn't a very useful definition in describing much specifically, but it isn't intended to be used to describe specifics.
Definitions of things that do not have capability over its own presentation are different from definitions of groups that does have the capability to change its own presentation.
Not sure what the last part is for. Yes, there are feminists that don't think the same way, that doesn't exactly show what I said wrong.
I was brought up to where Dad goes to work and does his job while Mom stays home and takes care of the house and kids and has dinner ready when their husband gets home, considering that's what I'm used to, that's what I want when I get a wife but, to each their own I guess :)
Woman like that can be very attractive, I'm attracted to a bit those traits as well.
If I'm interested in a woman and she tells me she's a feminist, I instantly lose all attraction to her and I'm out of there as soon as possible. My experience with feminists in the past has been nothing but grief. I can't stand to listen to them constantly bleet about how this is sexist, that is sexist, life is so unfair, men are all pigs, it's just fucking tiresome. If someone's political views are important enough for them to call themselves a word and it to come up in conversation, they're not for me. I'm completely unpolitical and any talk of it drives me insane.
I have never met an"independent" woman in my life,independence does not mean having enough money to pay someone,usually a man, to fix what goes wrong in life,it isn't being hot enough to get a man to do it for for free..it is being able to do it yourself....that is independence
I would suggest that you try a tomboy. They have all the qualities you mentioned but do not try to subjugate men.
They make great partners on great adventures but are not interested in competing with men, only partnering with men.
Feminists by definition consider themselves superior to men and are going to destroy any relationship with that philosophy.
Not if they are trying to wear my trousers. but there is something extremely sexy about a woman wearing my halo t-shirt.
I knew you'd like this one.
You can hardly compare normal feminists with an academic like Richard Dawkins. You're not comparing like with like. If you look at feminist academics, I think you'd be hard-pressed to say they weren't intelligent.
There are thousands of peaceful feminist protests, and if you don't believe so you are being willfully ignorant and I'm disappointed in you. There are peaceful pro-choice protests, for example, which is a issue not separate from feminism. The protests to keep a non-royal woman on UK currency were completely peaceful. I could go on all day.
If you want to take the view that feminism isn't empowering, by all means take it. I think a doctrine which suggests women deserve rights equivalent to men is very much empowering, and the idea point that women "just want the government to do it for them" is ridiculous. For a start, many feminists seem to support the government removing laws which discriminate against women (laws against women in parts of the military, for example), which actually means they want the government to give them more independence from it, not reliance on it.
Secondly, government makes the law so targeting government is the most pro-active way to force laws, including laws believed to discriminate against women, to change. If you want a law changed, you *have* to go through the government, and that means feminists who believe the law discriminates against them have to go through the government. That's the way our society works, I don't need to teach you that.
Simone de Beauvoir.
Kate Chopin.
Friedrich Engels.
I'm not going to bother telling you about what these people believed, but if you don't believe them to be intelligent I believe you to be a fool.
"Pro-choice protests are not feminist issues"
Feminism, as we have already discussed, is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". Abortion is an issue primarily related to women's rights, and issues surrounding it can be related to equality (women having to pay higher health insurance than men because of issues such as abortion). Therefore, a feminist issue and people who support it almost unavoidably agree with some aspects of feminism.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/05/women-bank-notes-fancy-dress-protest?CMP=twt_gu Note that there is no mention of any violence, unruliness etc.
On our paper money, we have the Queen on one side and we use the other side to celebrate a particularly important historical Briton. Since the Queen doesn't get on the note due to any special achievement, she isn't seen to count.
"Once again, trying to find issues to convince everyone you are a victim is not empowering. "You need us, you need feminism, to defend you from these evils of the world that target you! (that don't exist)"...Very empowering."
That sounds like circular logic. Your point relies its own conclusion (that feminism is a lie and therefore unempowering because feminism is a lie and therefore unempowering).
"Surprisingly, they haven't fought to be able to be drafted like men, though, have they?"
There's a long tradition of women dressing as men in order to be allowed to fight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wartime_cross-dressers Note that many feminists don't support conscription anyway, and would not support conscription for men any more than they would for women.
I'm going out of my way to look them up, as I stated before. Anyway, ofcourse not "all" feminists are idiots entirely, I was speaking from the majority.
The pro-choice thing. If feminism is about what you quoted it is about, then again, it is not a feminist issue, as it is about giving women rights in those aspects to the same level as men. Men cannot have abortions. So by the definition you quoted, even by that, it is not a feminist issue.
"Therefore, a feminist issue and people who support it almost unavoidably agree with some aspects of feminism."
Agreeing with one aspect in which feminism also agrees on does not mean you are going to agree with what feminism agrees with simply for agreeing with "one" issue.
Come to think of it, whenever I have brought up the idea of financial abortion for men (which would not conflict with women's rights over her body, yet will give men as much choice in the aspect of parenthood), they always go against it. Again, these are the same people that claim they are for equality (Feminists).
They are arguing over nothing. It's a note. I find it amazing why they are arguing that every note will have a male, and yet are not against the idea of a woman being on every coin. Again, there's that hypocrisy.
The reasons behind this protest is just plain stupid, that somehow women not being on the note will somehow effect their feelings upon society. Again, "this" is the type of thing feminists argue against now. They are making nothing but problems out of thin air.
Would having no males on any of the coins make men feel out of place in society?
The exact same reasoning, however feminists won't address the coin part, and why? Well because it's a woman on all the coins, and they're all good with that, even if it's a clear indication of hypocrisy.
Just because there was no violence (which is not proven, as articles can leave out such things like they do with the western ones from feminists), I never said "violence" was the only part that is wrong about them, in this case it is just stupidity.
"On our paper money, we have the Queen on one side and we use the other side to celebrate a particularly important historical Briton. Since the Queen doesn't get on the note due to any special achievement, she isn't seen to count."
Why don't they count? Because it wouldn't be benfitial to the feminist agenda? The woman is on the side of the note for all notes, on every one side of a coin, which means a woman is on the face of "all" of the currency for the UK, and yet not having a man on one side of every note, in which there is a woman on one side of every note, is still sexism against women? Utter nonsense, there is no logic in there, there is no rational reason to protest against it.
Your reason is "she hasn't done anything significant to be on there"...Why this was used to strengthen "your" point I do not know, as it only weakens it.
You have a woman that has not earned her place on the currency, yet she is on all of it, so men have to earn their place on the currency to even be on it, where as women don't.
So yes, she does count, it not working in the feminist favor does not make it "not" count. She's on one side of all currency of the UK, so she counts, she takes up a space in which another that does count takes, thus she is taking the same...Space, so it does count.
This is something I notice feminists do alot. Even when they know there is something to point out the idiocy of something, they will resort to just saying "oh, that doesn't count", as if people will just think "oh, a feminist said it, it must be true".
It is circular logic? Isn't that how anything is determined? You make your point, then make a conclusion in which your points show? In which the conclusion is why you made your point, as the conclusion is what has been witnessed, the point is what brings it out in the open.
Even then, it would be incorrect. Point: Feminism is filled with lies. proof: Numerous subjects in which feminist talks about, Conclusion, feminism is filled with lies, as evidence shows.
Theory
Evidence
Conclusion.
"Women". Stop trying to pass it off as if anything "women" do reflects what "feminism" stands for or does.
This doesn't change the fact that "feminism" has not tried to make this so, this just shows that individual "women" have. What a woman has done does not reflect on feminism.
If they were about equality and bringing women to the same levels of men, then they would be obligated, by the definition you showed, to do this whether or not it benefits women or not, otherwise they are trying to gain the benefits of men while rejecting the responsibilities (in terms of law), which means they are looking for superiority, to have more choice and less responsibility.
Which even then, if they did not want to do this, given that they are claiming to be for equality, if they did not intend on making it possible for women to get drafted, aim to make it so men cannot, as it then still makes them equal.
Rather than make it equal in something like that which matters, where lives and disposibility which complies with the "patriarchy" which they believe it, they would rather make an issue out of pound notes and a woman's drawing on a note in which a woman is already on "every" UK piece of currency.
Why? Because feminists don't care about the "patriarchy" as a whole, they only care about the parts that may not suit their liking, otherwise they would try make the genders equal in drafting matters, on either side (make them both capable of being drafted or none).
Like I said, they make issues out of nothing to strengthen their victim complex. They see a woman's face on a note (which I keep saying, a woman is on every piece of currency) rather than say "well, this part in which human lives are concerned that is surely not equal should be sorted".
Feminism is filled with liars claiming to be about equality, when in fact they are all about strengthening their victim complex.
"They are arguing over nothing. It's a note."
Honestly, I agree. It's purely symbolic and I don't know why it got so much media attention.
"ofcourse not "all" feminists are idiots entirely, I was speaking from the majority."
Why did you ask for examples, then?
"Feminists won't address the coin part, and why? Well because it's a woman on all the coins, and they're all good with that, even if it's a clear indication of hypocrisy."
Lol. Coins aren't used to celebrate excellence in the same way notes are so it isn't the same issue at all. Your insistence on making a point out of something you also insist is trivial indicates your bias. The non-royal side of the note is about celebrating excellence, and some believe that only having excellence of men celebrated implies excellence of women is less worth celebrating. It isn't about having a face on the note, it's about the celebration of excellence the note represents.
"if they did not intend on making it possible for women to get drafted, aim to make it so men cannot, as it then still makes them equal."
I assure it was not only men who supported measures to remove compulsory military service in most countries.
"proof: Numerous subjects in which feminist talks about"
Look, just saying that some people who identify as feminists talk bollocks sometimes doesn't really prove anything at all. Throwing anomalous data points around and passing them off as "proof" isn't accurate, yet it's all you ever do.
Many feminists in western countries are exactly how you're describing, arguing against attacks that aren't there and protesting nothing.
However, most feminists I've met (not exactly the strongest argument) seemed to be about feminism throughout the world, not just in western countries where feminism is close to running its course. Feminists in many Islamic countries I think would have to fit OP's description as they risk death at most every turn.
The western countries seem to have two groups of feminists with any visibility now. The type that argue for equal wages and to not be treated solely as sexual objects, and then those that will call you a misogynist for holding a door for them.
What's annoying about feminism is that they use the mistreatment of females in other countries to support their own country, then use the high moral they gain from claiming to be about helping women in other areas, to support their protesting in western society.
Kind of like "Hey, we are about helping women that need it in other countries! That means our movement is about helping people! So here is an issue about how trolls on Twitter only target women and hate women"...They use the whole "helping women in other countries" to try establish the image they are fighting for women that really need it, then turn around and focus on every small or non-issue in western society...One being about "Twitter", which is just insulting, is it not? A group claiming they are about helping women that need it spend time focusing on something as trivial as Twitter...
In all honesty, both of those types of feminists are wrong.
The wage gap has been proven to be a result of choices between the genders, not discrimination. Men do more risky jobs and go in to fields that have higher pay with less comfort, where as women are not likely to do that, and so on.
Being seen as sexual objects is another problem. They have this idea that finding a woman sexually attractive means you are turning her in to a sexual object rather than a sexually attractive person. Regardless of this, they tend to go against "lad mags" for these reasons, saying it objectifies women, that it is harmful content to children, all while they go on something called a slut walk where they dress in barely anything and walk in public where children would be around, wearing the same amount of clothing the women in the magazines wore.
The movement is just filled with hypocrites.