Did you even read my myTake? I'm serious, I did cover all of that, and had you read it you would know the answer. Traditional etiquette is NOT what feminism is about. So please, read what I wrote in the second paragraph after my "Here's What I'm Not" bullet-points. I know it was a long myTake, and I have a habit of writing long pieces, but what you are about to get in to is NOT what this piece is about. Petty bullshit about which forms of etiquette favour women is in no way what the feminist movement really is. I'm talking serious stuff like Malala, abortion, safety in the home and workplace. Not about what I expect when I go on a dinner date!
no, the definition of feminism according to webster's dictionary is " the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" I am American and there is still technically a draft
With this logic, there are social norms that benefit men that I don't care about, so big deal. There's give and take when men and women go out, it's not all one-sided.
but do you split the bill? You may not care about it but like I said that is hypocritical. True feminism as defined by webster's dictionary is for social equality as well. It amazes me how women like you can fight for equality but then ask for traditional norms
I just said splitting the bill is FINE by me. I am not living in the dark ages. I am also not going on traditional first dates because nothing out there is traditional anymore to go to. There was a time when the guy had to call on the telephone, arrange a date, pick me up, I'd have to wear a special outfit, learn how to put a napkin on my lap and which eating utensils to use at what time, how to cross my ankles, when to get up or sit down, and what to say and not say. My god these times are just not like that. I have a traditional enough want in my femininity to want to look nice in a feminine way, make the guy feel important, and to invite him back for a drink or a second date to come to my home for a home-cooked meal. I'm not a hypocrite, so quit calling me that. I just said that equality in that case is fine, you're questioning how traditional my traditional is, and this is 2015 - so I do my best to be a soft, feminine, woman and not a hardcore, brash bitch. Make sense?
yea, would you prefer to pay for the date then? because you are using the word "fine" and in my experience women say this word when they really mean something else
I can and have paid for dates. I mentioned in a recent question that I actually preferred it that way because of there might be more feelings from one person toward another and it eliminates any feeling of expectation that buying the other person a meal means you accept them, and I never wanted a guy to feel used if things clearly didn't go the way we both hoped. I also know in etiquette that if you do the inviting - man or woman, you pay for the meal because it's you doing the inviting, asking for the pleasure of the person's company. To call someone and say, "I'd like to take you to dinner," is different from, "Do you wanna grab dinner?" These days things are so casual, and for a guy and girl to arrange a date to go Dutch is between them and their business. I personally, had no issue of paying my way for the reasons I mentioned, and I also had no issue with purchasing groceries if I invited him to dinner at my house. (Sometimes that's more expensive than paying for a date.)
I truly hope so. I also hope that you are not just agreeing to avoid confrontation because REAL feminists believe what you just said. Social equality is a concept that is rooted in feminism as well. We know because if it wasn't then you would still be cooking against your will because it was a social norm at the time.
If you're trying to trick me in to saying something, it won't work. I know who I am. I know I'm a fair person. I know I'm a loving, caring person and look after the man I love and I'm protective of the people I care about. Even in my marriage, I handle most of the money simply because I'm better at it. If my husband was better at it, then he would be doing it. We both do things in our marriage that we're good at to have the house run smoothly. I cook, he maintains. He tidies, I clean. He lifts the heavy stuff, I organize paperwork. We really run no unusual man-and-woman type of home. Our money is shared. We spend it as we need it and both don't take advantage of this.
When I dated, I wanted to be seen as a creature of beauty, but not a *delicate* creature of beauty. No man had to worry of how he might seem if he wanted to take me out but couldn't afford it, I would instead ease the pressure and suggest he come for dinner where the actual spending of money wasn't seen.
this is such a childish reaction, nitpicking and ignoring the huge human rights issues over who pays for a date. To be honest I probably pay for dates more often than my boyfriend does but I don't nitpick and throw a fit over it, it's not that big of a deal. If I suggest to go to a fancy restaurant it wouldn't be fair of me to say "hey we are going to this fancy place and guess what you have to pay!" going to a place with a higher price point was MY idea so I expect to be the one paying or to at least split the bill. I enjoy spoiling my boyfriend he bought me a brand new iPhone 6 for Christmas and I bought him an entire new wardrobe and videogames we don't complain like "ohh I spend TWELVE DOLLARS MORE on your present than you did on mine!! this isn't EXACTLY equal!" that's not what feminism is about! It's about everyone having the same opportunities and rights. It's about ending systematic gender based human rights violations.
@Minxxie thank you that is exactly what I was trying to say to him too, and it seems almost every feminism post on this site resorts to someone getting bent out of shape over pulling a chair out, giving up a seat, opening a door, and paying for a date. My point about the serious issues and the rights for women do not belong with this debate. People should simply make etiquette topics and go run wild in them than compare them with Malala, abortion, and equal pay. It's insulting to the victims of all these things to compare them to etiquette skewed in women's favour when people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, and a common act of courtesy has to be questioned in order to get the message across that this isn't what feminism is about.
It is a serious issue because it is a microcosm that define masculinity. Men are seen as less masculine by the vast majority of women if they aren't chivalrous, you two are the exceptions.
I have never heard of such a thing. I've heard of people, men and women alike, be called jerks if they slam a door in someone's face.
Let's be honest.. these are uncertain times where money is a big deal for people more than ever. Unless you have established a good career, some very fine men out there, who are excellent people and would make wonderful partners would not be able to afford a date. Women get this today. If they don't, they're being idiots. If I didn't get this I wouldn't have married my husband who didn't have a dollar to his name when we met. Our expectations on who does what on dates is out the window. We don't question a guy's masculinity because of something beyond his control with his bank account! Masculinity is much much more than that. Women are being ignorant if they think this is what it means to be a man, being able to pay for a pizza and a movie.
I'm going to suggest this then, for you on GaG. Instead of posing a question on GaG that targets feminism, why not ask a question about "etiquette" and get input from people how they feel about men who truly do want to impress, but feel it would be fair and practical to split the cost of a date. You might have some women saying exactly what Minxxie did about the rule of thumb is asking, and being in a position to pay. But how about the actual approach of planning an outing without it coming across as having this expectation to pay? You might be surprised that more women would be easy going with that rather than being hung up on traditions.
Just a note, that wasn't me who downvoted this. Take away what you wish, or don't take away what you don't wish. It's a myTake which means I am simply expressing my "take" on feminism. I wasn't here to write an article for Huff. It's just me, it's just GaG, but if someone can take something good from it, then I'm glad. :)
I respectfully disagree. If the only way I can be taken seriously as a feminist is to rely on my good looks instead of my words or character, I want no part of that feminism. Thanks but no thanks.
It's the whole package. I never once said that it was to be one way or the other. And "good looks" is also never mentioned in this myTake, but rather "beautiful", and my examples of beautiful as I mention, ranged from how you feel when you put on your make up and do your hair to simply wearing a smile and putting your A game on with your personality. I don't think being taken seriously as a woman has to just stop at your good character and intelligence. We have a lot more to offer. If the whole package is not important to you, then I accept that we can respectfully disagree also.
Thanks :) We aren't owed as human beings to simply get what we want. Men too. If there is entitlement because of gender then I'd rather have it explained to me. If my boss decides to pay a man more money than me for the same job for the same tenureship, I'd like it explained why he felt it's justified. If it's just because I'm not as good as a worker, I want to be given the information I need to know how to improve to get that same pay. However, if a job is meant for someone else and not for me, I question this, why someone, man or woman would be excluded, and how an opportunity could fairly be given to someone else.
Truthfully, if it's such a struggle, I don't like conflict in the workplace and constantly going to work to feel bad even if I am working on finding fairness. I usually quit jobs that dig in to me like this and work with people I like even if I have to sacrifice pay in order to be happy.
With this logic, how do you explain the unwarranted entitlement men have had with extreme situations that left women prohibited from over centuries? If equality is something one does, then it gave people no right to persecute women who wanted the same opportunities that men did.
Because for centuries, keeping women protected and safe was more important than allowing them the same freedoms as men, because women are the limiting factor in any civilizations population growth or demise. One man can impregnate many women, but one woman can only get pregnant once. Thus, women's freedoms were limited in favor of safety and security. Why do you think men have always been the one dying in conflicts and wars for centuries while the women stay safe at home? Or doing any hard labor that brought risk to life and limb? Because they wanted to? No, it's because a population can survive a massive loss of male lives, but not the massive loss of female ones. Regardless of how you feel about previous societal gender norms, they obviously worked because they got us to where we are now. You should consider that next time you think about hopping back up on the soap box.
That's nice, now fast forward to modern times or even the last century or two when women weren't in caves anymore. The right to vote, the right to education, what possible way was learning about something or having a say in politics going to physically harm her? Women were not able to even work as school teachers until recent times - a career where they would be working with children, something in their biology would have otherwise seemed perfect if this was the case.
Now you have women prevented from getting abortions in some place in the world including some US states, expecting that there is more harm than good to put her body through hell in a pregnancy she doesn't want rather than a safe procedure in a clinic now. Abortion has come a long way, but the attitudes have not. Today, women work in office jobs and struggle for equal pay for doing the same job with the same credentials immediately starting at entry level positions before a man or woman can prove themselves.
Alright good, let's talk about things that matter instead of the past centuries (which you brought up btw). Oh wait, you stopped talking about modern times, because you had to go and say "Women were not able to even work as school teachers until recent times". Didn't you just want to talk about recent times? Make up your mind and stop loop-holing your own arguments in order to try to push your agenda. I'm not falling for it.
"Now you have women prevented from getting abortions in some place in the world including some US states..." It should be noted that in some of the states where women can't get access to late term abortions, the majority of women voted in favor of banning said abortions, so you can't call that oppression. "women work in office jobs and struggle for equal pay for doing the same job with the same credentials " Because those women choose to work less hours in less demanding positions in favor of flexibility and personal freedom. That pays less. Again, not oppression.
Nice attempt at twisting things around. You talk about caveman years, I fast forward ahead a few thousand years, then I talk about careers of today and abortion - both problems in modern times *now*. I'm not here to play games with you on how we're having a conversation other than the matter at hand, okay? And thanks for completely ignoring the issue about women in the workplace. I myself was victim of unfair pay in broadcasting. Two junior broadcasters, me and one male - both of us the same age, same experience, same school. He was paid more. I proved myself to be the better employee. This happens all the time in other careers. This is the sort of thing I support when women are not even given a fair shake at earning an equal living. Let's go back to abortion. Your red states that have the issues that women support are influenced by religion - something that is male dominated and has always controlled what women could and couldn't do. Fear of god will do this. :)
Yea, you brought up past centuries. Not me, I just followed the conversation. You twist yourself up.
And I didn't ignore women in the work place. I stated a fact. Women chose freedom and flexibility over higher paying positions with longer hours and less time to yourself more than men do. And as for you getting passed up for promotion to a man, I've been passed up for promotion to employees that most find far lesser qualifying than myself as well. Am I oppressed now? Can we use one instance to generalize everything? I don't doubt that some bosses and employers are sexist, but know that is ILLEGAL. You have legal re-courses should you choose to pursue them.
And don't call them my red states. I'm pro-choice, but many women are pro-life just like many men like me are pro-choice. What influences those women is irrelevant. They aren't robots. They can think for themselves. Stop acting like women are mindless slaves to men. You're the misogynist here.
Well, I can see you lied about a lot of things in this original post. "Don't be angry" Fail. "Don't badmouth men" Fail. I gave you a chance and you let me down. Just more of the same feminist regurgitated misinformed, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and outright fabricated propaganda that I can get out of any other radfem post on this website. I was wrong. You wouldn't like Christina Hoff Sommers, and I don't like you. Oh well, live and learn.
As everyone reading will be able to notice: I haven't gotten angry, and I haven't bad-mouthed men.
Your implication that I am angry or bad-mouthed men that means you're baiting me, and as I mentioned in my piece, I'll be ending our communication now as it takes away from the issues that matter. If you don't respond, then I'll thank you now for the input you did give.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
39Opinion
So you agree that
women should split the bill on the first date?
that women should be required to register for the draft?
Did you even read my myTake? I'm serious, I did cover all of that, and had you read it you would know the answer. Traditional etiquette is NOT what feminism is about. So please, read what I wrote in the second paragraph after my "Here's What I'm Not" bullet-points. I know it was a long myTake, and I have a habit of writing long pieces, but what you are about to get in to is NOT what this piece is about. Petty bullshit about which forms of etiquette favour women is in no way what the feminist movement really is. I'm talking serious stuff like Malala, abortion, safety in the home and workplace. Not about what I expect when I go on a dinner date!
Sorry I forgot to mention that I will point out that equality for any draft should be equal, but are you not American? There is no draft anymore. :/
no, the definition of feminism according to webster's dictionary is " the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" I am American and there is still technically a draft
the key word is "social", so if an social norms benefits only women they are sexist, you are a hypocrite
@Take Owner
With this logic, there are social norms that benefit men that I don't care about, so big deal. There's give and take when men and women go out, it's not all one-sided.
And if it means that much to you, I'll answer: Yes, splitting the bill is acceptable on dates. Okay?
but do you split the bill? You may not care about it but like I said that is hypocritical. True feminism as defined by webster's dictionary is for social equality as well. It amazes me how women like you can fight for equality but then ask for traditional norms
I just said splitting the bill is FINE by me. I am not living in the dark ages. I am also not going on traditional first dates because nothing out there is traditional anymore to go to. There was a time when the guy had to call on the telephone, arrange a date, pick me up, I'd have to wear a special outfit, learn how to put a napkin on my lap and which eating utensils to use at what time, how to cross my ankles, when to get up or sit down, and what to say and not say. My god these times are just not like that. I have a traditional enough want in my femininity to want to look nice in a feminine way, make the guy feel important, and to invite him back for a drink or a second date to come to my home for a home-cooked meal. I'm not a hypocrite, so quit calling me that. I just said that equality in that case is fine, you're questioning how traditional my traditional is, and this is 2015 - so I do my best to be a soft, feminine, woman and not a hardcore, brash bitch. Make sense?
yea, would you prefer to pay for the date then? because you are using the word "fine" and in my experience women say this word when they really mean something else
I can and have paid for dates. I mentioned in a recent question that I actually preferred it that way because of there might be more feelings from one person toward another and it eliminates any feeling of expectation that buying the other person a meal means you accept them, and I never wanted a guy to feel used if things clearly didn't go the way we both hoped. I also know in etiquette that if you do the inviting - man or woman, you pay for the meal because it's you doing the inviting, asking for the pleasure of the person's company. To call someone and say, "I'd like to take you to dinner," is different from, "Do you wanna grab dinner?" These days things are so casual, and for a guy and girl to arrange a date to go Dutch is between them and their business. I personally, had no issue of paying my way for the reasons I mentioned, and I also had no issue with purchasing groceries if I invited him to dinner at my house. (Sometimes that's more expensive than paying for a date.)
I truly hope so. I also hope that you are not just agreeing to avoid confrontation because REAL feminists believe what you just said. Social equality is a concept that is rooted in feminism as well. We know because if it wasn't then you would still be cooking against your will because it was a social norm at the time.
If you're trying to trick me in to saying something, it won't work. I know who I am. I know I'm a fair person. I know I'm a loving, caring person and look after the man I love and I'm protective of the people I care about. Even in my marriage, I handle most of the money simply because I'm better at it. If my husband was better at it, then he would be doing it. We both do things in our marriage that we're good at to have the house run smoothly. I cook, he maintains. He tidies, I clean. He lifts the heavy stuff, I organize paperwork. We really run no unusual man-and-woman type of home. Our money is shared. We spend it as we need it and both don't take advantage of this.
When I dated, I wanted to be seen as a creature of beauty, but not a *delicate* creature of beauty. No man had to worry of how he might seem if he wanted to take me out but couldn't afford it, I would instead ease the pressure and suggest he come for dinner where the actual spending of money wasn't seen.
So then you do cook for him? I remember back when that was expected.
Yes, of course I cook for him. I love cooking.
this is such a childish reaction, nitpicking and ignoring the huge human rights issues over who pays for a date. To be honest I probably pay for dates more often than my boyfriend does but I don't nitpick and throw a fit over it, it's not that big of a deal. If I suggest to go to a fancy restaurant it wouldn't be fair of me to say "hey we are going to this fancy place and guess what you have to pay!" going to a place with a higher price point was MY idea so I expect to be the one paying or to at least split the bill. I enjoy spoiling my boyfriend he bought me a brand new iPhone 6 for Christmas and I bought him an entire new wardrobe and videogames we don't complain like "ohh I spend TWELVE DOLLARS MORE on your present than you did on mine!! this isn't EXACTLY equal!" that's not what feminism is about! It's about everyone having the same opportunities and rights. It's about ending systematic gender based human rights violations.
@Minxxie Men are required to register for the draft, how is that not a huge human right issue?
it is and I never said it wasn't.
@Minxxie thank you that is exactly what I was trying to say to him too, and it seems almost every feminism post on this site resorts to someone getting bent out of shape over pulling a chair out, giving up a seat, opening a door, and paying for a date. My point about the serious issues and the rights for women do not belong with this debate. People should simply make etiquette topics and go run wild in them than compare them with Malala, abortion, and equal pay. It's insulting to the victims of all these things to compare them to etiquette skewed in women's favour when people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, and a common act of courtesy has to be questioned in order to get the message across that this isn't what feminism is about.
It is a serious issue because it is a microcosm that define masculinity. Men are seen as less masculine by the vast majority of women if they aren't chivalrous, you two are the exceptions.
I have never heard of such a thing. I've heard of people, men and women alike, be called jerks if they slam a door in someone's face.
Let's be honest.. these are uncertain times where money is a big deal for people more than ever. Unless you have established a good career, some very fine men out there, who are excellent people and would make wonderful partners would not be able to afford a date. Women get this today. If they don't, they're being idiots. If I didn't get this I wouldn't have married my husband who didn't have a dollar to his name when we met. Our expectations on who does what on dates is out the window. We don't question a guy's masculinity because of something beyond his control with his bank account! Masculinity is much much more than that. Women are being ignorant if they think this is what it means to be a man, being able to pay for a pizza and a movie.
Yet, so many women do
I'm going to suggest this then, for you on GaG. Instead of posing a question on GaG that targets feminism, why not ask a question about "etiquette" and get input from people how they feel about men who truly do want to impress, but feel it would be fair and practical to split the cost of a date. You might have some women saying exactly what Minxxie did about the rule of thumb is asking, and being in a position to pay. But how about the actual approach of planning an outing without it coming across as having this expectation to pay? You might be surprised that more women would be easy going with that rather than being hung up on traditions.
Beautiful Piece Ozanne, a true feminist you are!!:)
No such thing as a sexy feminist. Face reality sister. You might not like it... but its true.
Well, we'll disagree then, and if you read my article then thank you for taking the time to read it.
Hate isn't sexy.
Is there a summary statement? What exactly am I supposed to be taking away from this?
Just a note, that wasn't me who downvoted this. Take away what you wish, or don't take away what you don't wish. It's a myTake which means I am simply expressing my "take" on feminism. I wasn't here to write an article for Huff. It's just me, it's just GaG, but if someone can take something good from it, then I'm glad. :)
Seems like you're trying to salvage feminism from being a dirty word. It seems so much easier and more sensible to just go with egalitarianism.
Feminists are sexy! good MyTake Ozanne :)
Danke, mein Schatz :)
I respectfully disagree. If the only way I can be taken seriously as a feminist is to rely on my good looks instead of my words or character, I want no part of that feminism. Thanks but no thanks.
It's the whole package. I never once said that it was to be one way or the other. And "good looks" is also never mentioned in this myTake, but rather "beautiful", and my examples of beautiful as I mention, ranged from how you feel when you put on your make up and do your hair to simply wearing a smile and putting your A game on with your personality. I don't think being taken seriously as a woman has to just stop at your good character and intelligence. We have a lot more to offer. If the whole package is not important to you, then I accept that we can respectfully disagree also.
I value my character and personality far more than outer beauty, which is of course in the eye of the beholder.
well said and specially the no 5
Thanks :) We aren't owed as human beings to simply get what we want. Men too. If there is entitlement because of gender then I'd rather have it explained to me. If my boss decides to pay a man more money than me for the same job for the same tenureship, I'd like it explained why he felt it's justified. If it's just because I'm not as good as a worker, I want to be given the information I need to know how to improve to get that same pay. However, if a job is meant for someone else and not for me, I question this, why someone, man or woman would be excluded, and how an opportunity could fairly be given to someone else.
Truthfully, if it's such a struggle, I don't like conflict in the workplace and constantly going to work to feel bad even if I am working on finding fairness. I usually quit jobs that dig in to me like this and work with people I like even if I have to sacrifice pay in order to be happy.
This is a great take! Thanks for writing it. :)
Thanks Hannah! Means a lot coming from you :)
Aw, thank-you. You'll take my crown soon enough!
Good take :)
Thank you! :)
"Be the example" ~ Most important aspect.
This is what feminists don't understand: Equality is something you do, not something you're entitled to.
If you can understand that, then you might like Christina Hoff Sommers and I might like you. If not, go burn with the rest of them.
With this logic, how do you explain the unwarranted entitlement men have had with extreme situations that left women prohibited from over centuries? If equality is something one does, then it gave people no right to persecute women who wanted the same opportunities that men did.
Because for centuries, keeping women protected and safe was more important than allowing them the same freedoms as men, because women are the limiting factor in any civilizations population growth or demise. One man can impregnate many women, but one woman can only get pregnant once. Thus, women's freedoms were limited in favor of safety and security. Why do you think men have always been the one dying in conflicts and wars for centuries while the women stay safe at home? Or doing any hard labor that brought risk to life and limb? Because they wanted to? No, it's because a population can survive a massive loss of male lives, but not the massive loss of female ones. Regardless of how you feel about previous societal gender norms, they obviously worked because they got us to where we are now. You should consider that next time you think about hopping back up on the soap box.
That's nice, now fast forward to modern times or even the last century or two when women weren't in caves anymore. The right to vote, the right to education, what possible way was learning about something or having a say in politics going to physically harm her? Women were not able to even work as school teachers until recent times - a career where they would be working with children, something in their biology would have otherwise seemed perfect if this was the case.
Now you have women prevented from getting abortions in some place in the world including some US states, expecting that there is more harm than good to put her body through hell in a pregnancy she doesn't want rather than a safe procedure in a clinic now. Abortion has come a long way, but the attitudes have not. Today, women work in office jobs and struggle for equal pay for doing the same job with the same credentials immediately starting at entry level positions before a man or woman can prove themselves.
Alright good, let's talk about things that matter instead of the past centuries (which you brought up btw). Oh wait, you stopped talking about modern times, because you had to go and say "Women were not able to even work as school teachers until recent times". Didn't you just want to talk about recent times? Make up your mind and stop loop-holing your own arguments in order to try to push your agenda. I'm not falling for it.
"Now you have women prevented from getting abortions in some place in the world including some US states..." It should be noted that in some of the states where women can't get access to late term abortions, the majority of women voted in favor of banning said abortions, so you can't call that oppression. "women work in office jobs and struggle for equal pay for doing the same job with the same credentials " Because those women choose to work less hours in less demanding positions in favor of flexibility and personal freedom. That pays less. Again, not oppression.
Nice attempt at twisting things around. You talk about caveman years, I fast forward ahead a few thousand years, then I talk about careers of today and abortion - both problems in modern times *now*. I'm not here to play games with you on how we're having a conversation other than the matter at hand, okay? And thanks for completely ignoring the issue about women in the workplace. I myself was victim of unfair pay in broadcasting. Two junior broadcasters, me and one male - both of us the same age, same experience, same school. He was paid more. I proved myself to be the better employee. This happens all the time in other careers. This is the sort of thing I support when women are not even given a fair shake at earning an equal living. Let's go back to abortion. Your red states that have the issues that women support are influenced by religion - something that is male dominated and has always controlled what women could and couldn't do. Fear of god will do this. :)
Yea, you brought up past centuries. Not me, I just followed the conversation. You twist yourself up.
And I didn't ignore women in the work place. I stated a fact. Women chose freedom and flexibility over higher paying positions with longer hours and less time to yourself more than men do. And as for you getting passed up for promotion to a man, I've been passed up for promotion to employees that most find far lesser qualifying than myself as well. Am I oppressed now? Can we use one instance to generalize everything? I don't doubt that some bosses and employers are sexist, but know that is ILLEGAL. You have legal re-courses should you choose to pursue them.
And don't call them my red states. I'm pro-choice, but many women are pro-life just like many men like me are pro-choice. What influences those women is irrelevant. They aren't robots. They can think for themselves. Stop acting like women are mindless slaves to men. You're the misogynist here.
Well, I can see you lied about a lot of things in this original post. "Don't be angry" Fail. "Don't badmouth men" Fail. I gave you a chance and you let me down. Just more of the same feminist regurgitated misinformed, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and outright fabricated propaganda that I can get out of any other radfem post on this website. I was wrong. You wouldn't like Christina Hoff Sommers, and I don't like you. Oh well, live and learn.
As everyone reading will be able to notice: I haven't gotten angry, and I haven't bad-mouthed men.
Your implication that I am angry or bad-mouthed men that means you're baiting me, and as I mentioned in my piece, I'll be ending our communication now as it takes away from the issues that matter. If you don't respond, then I'll thank you now for the input you did give.
Not bad, but this seems too good to be true.
Thanks :)
The Sexy Feminist does not exist.
Jate oant secy
I find the contrast of upvotes to downvotes hilarious. Sorry ladies, nobody with a backbone finds your hatemonger ideology attractive.
Feminists are the greatest threat to humanity.
How many of these have you written?
How many what? Mytakes? About 12 or so. This is the only one about feminism though.
Oh boy, Not getting into this one.
>feminist
>beautiful
Choose one, or neither.
Still choosing both. :)