Why do feminists date men?

[Anonymous]

I’m being serious.

Every form of feminism is based on faith in one or both of the following beliefs:

1. Men oppress women.

2. There is something inherently wrong with masculinity.

I therefore have two questions, which I hope you can answer:

A. In general, why would a feminist date men?

B. Why would a feminist date a man whom she knows to be an anti-feminist?

If I believed that a certain category of person (whether it be a specific sex, or a specific race, or some other category of person) were oppressing me, I wouldn’t date such persons. If I believed that there was something wrong with a fundamental quality of a certain category of person, I wouldn’t date such persons.

Before you say “You can’t change your sexual orientation”, I agree that’s true, but that doesn’t mean that you have to act on your sexual orientation; nor does it mean that you can’t be accused of hypocrisy for acting on your orientation. Why not stay celibate?

Updates

+1 y

Sorry, but feminists need to give up on men. It's sick, frankly, to want to date your alleged oppressor.

[Robbey]

I date men because I want to be in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship. Since I'm female, men seem the obvious choice.

While I appreciate that you're being serious, to state that every form of feminism is based on either of your two premises is abjectly false and are red herrings based upon caricature.

First, men do oppress women. One needn't be a feminist, anti-feminist, or either to see that. Have you ever heard of domestic violence, incest? (and yes, I know these things work both ways).

While, you might find someone somewhere who thinks that a priori all men oppress women, that is not a mainstream or commonplace feminist opinion. ,

Secondly, again while, I think that you might find someone somewhere who thinks that something is inherently wrong with masculinity, it's not going to be someone that anyone has heard about and nor would it be someone feminists would take seriously. Why, because the vast majority of feminists wouldn't argue something so silly as masculinity being a definable, universally applicable category that is inherently anything.

Truth be told, I have never seen, read, or heard anyone who'd describe themselves as feminist subscribe to either of your two premises. In fact, they sound more like rhetoric one would hear from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and AM radio.

Feminism is a complex body of various ideas stretching from the late 18th century to the present. The common denominator throughout is equality for women.

[Asker]

Show me a form of feminism that doesn't accept one or both of those statements. Why would it even be called 'feminism' if it didn't accept one or both of those premises?

I think you're being hypocritical. You shouldn't date men. You should control your sexual urges.

[Robbey]

You're the one who came up with the proposition that every form of feminism MUST ALWAYS believe apriori "A" and/or "B" without so much as offering a shred of proof or evidence to back up your claim but you seemingly expect from others. That's interesting (really, really lazy), but interesting.

However, since I'm feeling generous, I'll help you with the homework that you should have done before you started typing. You could try researching any of the following forms of feminism:

[Robbey]

To continue

Amazon, Analytical, Anarchist, Atheist, Black, Chicana, Christian, Conservative, Cultural, Cyber, Difference, Eco, Equality, Equity, Fat, French structuralist, Gender, Global, Individualist, Islamic, Jewish, Lesbian, Liberal, Lipstick, Marxist, Material, Neo, New, Postcolonial, Postmodern, Pro-life, Proto, Radical, Separatist, Sex-positive, Socialist, Standpoint, Third-world, Trans, Transnational, and Womanism.

Try any of those. You may find one that fits your assumptions, but I doubt very, very much you'll find that every one of them or most of them fits.

[Asker]

Amazon feminism: the idea that men oppress women, and that the way to achieve sexual equality is through emphasizing female physical strength. Analytical feminism: the idea that men oppress women, and that the way to achieve sexual equality is through logic and reason. Anarchist feminism: the idea that men oppress women, and that the way to end this is to end the state. Atheist feminism: the idea that men oppress women especially through religion. I could go on!

[Robbey]

Actually, none of them subscribe to the belief that "men oppress women" apriori without any further qualification. You claimed that they did and yet you have singularly failed to support your prepositions. Nor do any of them claim that masculinity is inherently wrong either as you claimed they did. So indeed, please go on.

[Asker]

Well, I've just given you the definitions of several varieties of feminism. And you yourself admit that you believe that "men do oppress women". Sorry, but you're a hypocrite. If I thought that women oppressed men, I would never date women. I would feel deep shame in even wanting to do so.

[xzinax2]

it's not ''men oppress women'',it's ''women and men still have a long way to go before they're equal throughout the world so we should work on that and fight the patriarchy''. there are feminist men link you know. do some women hate men and hide behind feminism yet still date men? sure,just like anti-feminists hate women yet date them.

[Asker]

Yes, of course I know that there are feminist men. I never said there weren't. The idea of patriarchy is the idea that men oppress women.

Sorry, but it's your opinion that anti-feminists hate women. Feminism is an ideology, not a sex. In fact, I never said feminists hate men. I said that every form of feminism is based on belief in one or both of the statements that I mentioned.

[xzinax2]

no,feminism is simply ''The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men'',women who choose to go against that also oppress other women. anti--feminists may love sex-but not women. women are humans that deserve respect and equal protection under the law-denying them that can't be love

[Asker]

I repeat: the idea of patriarchy is the idea that men oppress women. Of course, some men are feminists. And of course some women allegedly collaborate with the alleged patriarchy, just as some Jews collaborated with the Nazis, some Africans collaborated with the Atlantic slave trade, etc.

[xzinax2]

which means that feminists don't hate all men,because not all men oppress women.

[Asker]

I never said that feminists hate men. I said that every form of feminism is based on the belief that men oppress women and/or the belief that there is something inherently wrong with masculinity. Hence I asked, why would a feminist date men? What would you think of a Jew who dates a Nazi?

[xzinax2]

feminist fight for equal rights-those who go against that,oppress women-are hated by feminists. it has never stood for masculinity being wrong. though,that depends on your definition of masculinity-is masculinity aggression towards those who are feminine? oppression? if that is what masculinity is-anyone who is sane thinks there is something wrong with it. feminists don't hate men,hey hate those who are oppressive.

[Asker]

For the last time, I never said feminists hate men.

As for just hating oppression, if they don't think men are the problem, then they shouldn't call themselves feminists. Most feminists do not share your view that men aren't especially problematic, hence the name of the ideology.

[xzinax2]

the reason you wouldn't date someone who oppresses you-is because you hate them. they're feminists because women are the ones who didn't have rights-hence,feminism.

[Asker]

So you do agree that feminism is based on the belief that men oppress women? OK then.

[xzinax2]

oh,yeah sure. I'm totally being oppressed by jeffree star. again,not all men. yes,in most cases it's men who are oppressing women,but that doesn't mean men in general do. would you say it's germans who are responsible for killing jews? no,it's the nazis. the nazis existed in other countries,and not all germans were nazis-so,no,germans didn't kill jews. men don't oppress women. it's misogynists who do.

[Asker]

Well, then, you're saying that there's something wrong with masculinity. After all, if there weren't, it wouldn't be the case that, as you put it, it's mostly men who are oppressors. There wouldn't be such a strong correlation.

I would say that every mentally and physically competent German adult living in that era was complicit, if he or she failed to resist. So pretty much every German adult was complicit.

[Asker]

Of course, not every capable German adult was DIRECTLY involved in the oppression of the Jews. In fact, not every Nazi Party member was. But, that doesn't make it right for a Jew to date a Nazi.

[xzinax2]

so,you're saying that oppressing women=masculinity? well,then there is something very wrong with it. if masculinity is defined as a need to express domination over women,yes,it's very wrong. does that mean being a man makes you a bad person? no,oppressing others does. of course there would be a strong correlation,humans do stupid things in groups,we always have.

again,it's not ''germans'',considering that they existed outside germany,and not all germans were part of it.

[Asker]

No, I didn't say that. You're the one who said that mostly men are oppressing women. I said that, IF that is true, that suggests there is something wrong with masculinity. And unfortunately, while being a Nazi isn't an intrinsic quality of being German, being masculine is an intrinsic quality of being a man. Therefore, in that sense, it's actually even more hypocritical for a feminist to date a man than it is for a Jew to date a German.

[xzinax2]

you're saying it's not mostly men oppressing women? well,lol to that sir. and again,if masculinity is oppression-it's wrong. but considering masculinity isn't really a thing as much as a social construct,just like the oppression of women-no,oppression isn't part of men.

[Asker]

Well, now you're saying it exists and yet it doesn't really exist.

If it's mostly men oppressing women, then yes that would suggest that being oppressive is a part of masculinity, hence my original point about the two beliefs central to feminism. In that case, why date men? I mean, I often hear complaints about how men can't keep their pants on. But, I guess feminists take that to a whole new level!

[xzinax2]

a lot of things exist yet they don't really exist.

so,you're saying that if a country did something bad,like the nazis and germans-that means that every person in that country no matter the point in time and the fact that that regime passes-it's still a part of every generation?

[Asker]

I didn't say that.

No, sorry, either a thing exists, or it doesn't. The post-modern claim that there is no truth is self-refuting.

[xzinax2]

actually,you did say that.

so,you're saying things like angels don't exist? well,they do,in minds,in literature,in art-yet we don't know if they ACTUALLY exist. ideas don't exist,yet they do.

[Asker]

Well, you'll have to pick out the quotation. Where did I say that every generation is guilty?

You're packaging two different ideas together fallaciously under the label 'exist'.

[xzinax2]

you compared men and germans,and then you said that oppressing women is a part of men. which by your logic means,that men,no matter the generation oppress women,which means germans are guilty of killing jews no matter what.

and under which ''exist'' does masculinity fall under? it's a social construct.

[Asker]

No, I said that, IF it's mostly men oppressing women, then that would suggest that being oppressive is a part of masculinity. I asked, why would someone want to date his or her alleged oppressor? I gave the example of a Jew and a Nazi. You then raised the issue of Germans in general. I never said that modern Germans oppress Jews. In fact, I said that it's not intrinsic to Germans to be Nazis.

[xzinax2]

considering it's a well known fact that the oppressors of women through history were men,that means you're implying it's a part of masculinity that doesn't change no matter the time period or individual,and then you drew the parallel with nazis which are usually linked to germans just like misogyny is to men-which would mean that if you think being oppressive is always part of men,then germans are always nazis.

[Asker]

You're the one who raised the issue of Germans in general. I said Nazis. Your attempt at logic is severely illogical. If all Nazis are Germans (not true anyway), then that doesn't mean all Germans are Nazis.

For the last time, I never said being oppressive is a part of men. I said, IF it's mostly men oppressing women, then that would suggest that being oppressive is a part of men.

[Asker]

If Germans were the only oppressors of Jews in all of history, and if the oppression had not lasted merely twelve years, then you might have a point.

[xzinax2]

aaand again,the reason I brought up germans was to explain why your comparison to the nazis makes no sense. because just like not all men oppress women and not all misogynists are men,not all germans are nazis and not all nazis are german. therefore,you can't say it's not okay for a feminist to date a man,just like you can't say it's not okay for a jew to date a german.

[Asker]

But I never said it's not OK for a Jew to date a German. I said a Jew and a Nazi.

You're the one who said that it's mostly men oppressing women, which suggests that it's a part of masculinity to oppress women. I explicitly said it's not an intrinsic part of being German to be Nazi.

[Asker]

In fact, you were the one who implied that all Germans, even the post-war generations, might be to blame. I never said that.

[xzinax2]

and again,i brought up germans because it makes no sense to compare men and nazis in the context-the comparison should be nazis and misogynists because misogyny is an idea just like the nazis were,men and germans are just natural groups that happened to be under those ideas.

[Asker]

Since we all accept that not every Nazi played a major role in the oppression of the Jews, would you say it would have been morally acceptable for a Jew to date a Nazi? I say no. Most people would, I think, say no.

[Asker]

No, it does make sense in the context of feminist ideology. In fact, men are really worse than Nazis relatively in the feminist context, because as you say, allegedly, it's mostly men oppressing women. Historically, persecution of the Jews wasn't as specifically German as feminism claims that oppression of women is specifically male.

[Asker]

Germany was no worse than many other countries for the Jews, except during the twelve-year period of Nazi rule, and as you imply, there were many collaborators in any countries.

[xzinax2]

HOW does that make sense? again,men are the germans here. if it's mostly Europeans that kill jews-does that mean all Europeans are bad? no,the ones killing jews are.

[Asker]

Therefore historical study doesn't bear out the idea that anti-Jewish hatred is specifically or mostly German, whereas you're saying that it's mostly men oppressing women.

[Asker]

No I said that a feminist, if she's being sincere, would view a man as a Jew would view a Nazi. In fact, I said worse than a Nazi in a relative manner of speaking.

[xzinax2]

you don't get what I'm saying-misogynists like nazis,exist through nurture,social construct. they come and go. most misogynists happen to be men because most women want to have rights. men and women not being equal is the work of misogynists,just like the killing of jews is work of the nazis or any other jew killing group. misogyny isn't an intrinsic thing that is part of men,men just happen to be more likely to be misogynists because they think it helps them

[Asker]

"Misogyny isn't an intrinsic thing that is part of men,men just happen to be more likely to be misogynists". You're contradicting yourself there.

[Asker]

You're essentially saying that masculinity is the problem, hence my original question. Why date men?

[xzinax2]

intrinsic-Belonging naturally; essential. no,i'm not.

[Asker]

Yes, you are contradicting yourself.

[xzinax2]

*sigh* I've explained everything already,if you have questions,just read my previous answers,i'm done,bye.

[Asker]

You might as well say, "It's not intrinsic to cheetahs to run fast. They just happen to be more likely to be able to do so than sloths".

[Asker]

Would you jump into a pool of pirahnas in the belief that one of them might not attack you?

[Asker]

Well, the courteous thing to do is to admit that you're wrong. Seriously, I would give up on men, if I were you. By dating the oppressive sex, you're really degrading yourself.

[Anonymous]

Because even if they don't like men as people, they are still straight. They would rather have sex with a man than remain celibate. Women are even more attracted to strong men. An anti-feminist is a man that is strong enough to not cave to social pressures.

[aMuse]

Because even if they don't like men, they like free dinners.

[yaddayaddayadda02]

Because feminism is the ultimate sh*t test.

[Anonymous]

Because every woman craves d*ck