No. Advocating for EQUAL rights is not sexist, and that is the definition of feminism. Note that's the real definition of feminism, not the right wing "feminists are butch dykes who wear cargo pants, hate men and want unfair advantages over them" definition.
feminist ---------------masculinist woman's caucus-----men's caucus black caucus----------white caucus black power ---------white power are none of these sexist nor racist?
Bobby and Cindy are offered a pie. Bobby wants it all to himself, whereas Cindy wants to split it evenly between them. Is Cindy being selfish by insisting that she get her way? Substitute the word 'rights' for 'pie', and the word 'feminist' for 'selfish' and see if it works. sculptor, I see where you're going with the idea that feminists are defining people by their gender, but that's not what's happening. They are trying to vanquish defining people by their gender. In their truest form, they are personists.
Right. We don't call her 'selfish'. (Nor are those wishing for equity feminists) This: ...is a false dichotomy. (There are not only two choices) Ideal feminists wish to eliminate the unfair sexist dichotomy.
If you feel the need to choose.-------all dichotomies are false----they are just idealized extremes on a long murky grey area. .......... Maybe just maybe Y'all have met a different group of feminist than have I. Many are indeed egalitarians. Some ain't. Ergo; my preference for a different use of the language, a different identifier. Masculine and feminine are simple(ockham) delineating adjectives. Why disregard that simple truth in an attempt at political correctness? Maybe "egalitarian" is too broad a brush? Could it easily indicate a preference for economic parity? Does feminism indicate a shared goal of parity only for their sex, ignoring all other societal inequalities? or......... "A rose by any other name....." ............ Ah that all could live up to our ideals------------------(sigh) As a sculptor, I have sought the ideal female face and body---------years I spent staring at naked women-years upon decades, so many hours so many days, so many nights and still----------I ain't found one. Some, I like the nose, and not the knee... some the shoulder and not the ears... some the breasts and not the belly...some the nose and not the hairline...etc... I have begun to suspect that no real life human could match my ideal---------though many come close, in looks, knowledge, intellect, talent....etc....etc.. ............. I do not understand: How anyone can see the words feminist and feminism and not think they are necessarily associated with the female gender? ergo: "sexist"
No. Some dichotomies really are binary. Which is fine, until you asserted a definition - that feminism is sexist. It's as true as the other defintion I suggested: that insistence on one's own way (sharing) is selfish. Technically, yes. How anyone can see the words uterus and fallopian tubes and not think they are necessarily associated with the female gender? ergo: "sexist"? So: Simply using gender-associated terms doesn't make it sexism.
None of them are sexist or racist if they advocate equality. All of them are sexist (or racist) if they advocate one group having more rights/power than the other.
Agreed. That's true of any group. I am sure there are some egalitarians who think that only other egalitarians see the "real picture" and thus should have more say over government than the less-enlightened types. Yes. Feminists seek equality for women.
Among the more average looking men, the more intelligent ones know about this lacking, and will try to make up for the lack in the aspects that they can actually change easier - be extra nice, sympathetic, caring, also entertaining. You can still hit idiots. But among those who know about their looks to be lacking, you have a beter chance to find some who are willing to work harder for well-working relation, than among those who rely on their good looks (or wealth or social status) to attract women.
Unfortunately, that has not been my experience. My ex was very generous in comparison. The most attractive and giving. I could have anything i wanted or needed. He was also nicer or more genuine in his attraction. You would think the lesser attractive ones would be but they werent. It was as if they were pretending just to have someone. They were stingy and rude even. Inner beauty has no relation to outer beauty which would mean any combination thereof. Those who have inner but not outer, outer but not inner and even those who are ugly both in and out as well as those with both inner and outer beauty. Nature has no set formula. There is a neighbor who knows i am single now. He is an ugly little creep who has a girlfriend but was trying to hit on me anyways. Even more bizarre, his lack of respect was infuriating. He actually asked me if he could get me a valentines card 'as a friend.' Right. I asked what for? His lame answer was 'just because i am a female'. Stupid answer. I later told him i would sell him a necklace i never wore if he wanted for his girlfriend though. Before he asked me why i wouldnt go out with him just as a friend or why we couldnt be friends, why i wouldnt come over etc pretending this was all so innocent. He was so demanding, i felt accosted. Hes like a one while my ex was an eleven. His personality is a negative even if my ex was a jerk but this creep is just slimy. Any decent person would respect or pay attention when someone is not interested or get the hint. Real men do not insult your intelligence by pretending they are not making moves on you when they are. Thats how they respect your feelings and to know you are on the same page. Disgusting prick. I just wanted to punch this guy.
That is most certainly not true. (If they were, then everyone who fought to end slavery in the US would be defined as racist.)
Good counter-example. One can see that, technically, they are not fighting for a specific race*, they are fighting for freedom from racism. *obviously true: note we have not even defined what race(s) we might be talking about
That assumes every other woman is like you. That is unlikely. The people you find "hot" would surely disgust someone else - and vice versa. Sounds like he wasn't a jackpot, then. That's true for some women and some men. It is almost always a mistake to say "all men want . . . " and a great many women end up with mucked-up relationships because of such generalizations. (True for men as well.) If that makes you happy, OK. But it sounds like you want something and are going after the wrong target, if you are "pre-planning" to find someone who won't be faithful to you. If you want to find someone who will be faithful to you, then look for that. If you want to find someone who won't be, then look for that, and have an open relationship with them. It IS impossible to have what you want when you are going after something else entirely. So don't do that.
OK. So feminists are fighting for freedom from sexism, even though they advocate for women. (Just as abolitionists were fighting for freedom for slaves, even though they advocated for blacks in the US.)
(This is not to say lots of so-called feminists don't fight for superiority of women, just that the ideal of feminism is to empower women specifically, as much as men are already empowered.)
Maybe i am just a 'bad girl'. lol Never thought of myself that way because im not the cheating type or have cheated. Maybe it partially has to do with upbringing which was very volatile with no security. The negative consequences are obvious but it forged more inner self-reliance and desire for security not as important. I compared his upbringing with mine but he had a normal, stable one yet he was always more wild and independent so in his case completely genetic. I think even the lack of nurturing had the effect of me needing heavier 'hits' if you will, of emotion or emotional experience though i know i would always gravitate toward this as well. But the fact is, it is who i am and what i need is what i need. i was innately that way favoring intensity but probably not to the extent had my experiences been shaped differently. But then again, i wouldnt change my experiences because deep down i wanted extreme intensity; a participant and not merely a spectator in safety. Believe it or not, i was set for an fsu scholarship yet i played hooky for my entire senior year literally. Gpa plummeted from a 3.7 to a 2.0. Everything was so planned out, its like i could see my entire life without having lived it which is not living at all to me. It horrified me. I just did not want to have a set, safe route as if i would be manuevering around life boxed in. Thats how i perceived people in my family who were successful and stable; stuffy, suffocating, cold and only concerned with status. I wanted to get down in the dirt and experience life viscerally and absorb experiences away from stringent rules and social class barriers. Needless to say, i am the black sheep but i do not care what they think honestly. I am pretty damn different from my family or even most of my friends. I must admit i am pretty extreme and always was intense, even from a very young age. I could not stand anyone controlling me in any fashion or determining my destiny. I dont think most people would have perceived well-laid plans as shackles to the extent i did.
Also, if formative years were shaped by constant stress and andrenaline fight/flight, it widens both the pain/pleasure threshold. Still, no matter what my mind knows, seems to change nothing. Its set.
Excuse me ! I don't understand what kind of NATURE it is. Is it our universe or human nature ? And how do you know that ? Thanks.
