It's "Ask A Radical Feminist Anything" Day! What do you want to ask me?

[RomanticRealist]

This is probably such a bad idea on this site lolol

But let's do it 🕺

Try to actually ask genuine questions that you would like to ask a radical feminist, and not just go on an angry tirade of bitter nastiness.

I know that can be so hard, but let's try, friends 🥲

If I take longer to answer after a period of time, just consider that I'm a grown ass woman, who is avoiding some work, but will have to attend to things in life because I have friends, boyfriend, and money to make. Thanks for your patience. 😇

[msmissydc]

Two questions;
How do you deal or react to so called 'feminists' that only uses feminism as a way to do misandry?
I thing they are worth than most men with a neutral opinion as they at least dont destroy our reputation and give them food to hate feminists. Also I dont consider them feminists.

Second; not rarely do people use these as excamples how bad feminism is. I dont like to just say I dont consider them feminists or that not all of us are like like that, because both of this just seem like an excuse for something I have nothing to do with. How do you deal with those comments?

[RomanticRealist]

1. I don't really feel the need to, tbh. I don't think those are the reasons people have an issue with feminism. They have an issue with feminism for the same reasons people have always had an issue with even the most moderate forms of feminism - they don't respect women.

It's extremely rare to encounter any feminist that I think is actually "advocating misandry." In fact, I have yet to see it, tbh. Maybe in far distant memories from random things I'd hear, but in real life - incredibly, super extremely rare. I also don't think you can "do misandry" in a patriarchal system, kind of in the way I don't think "reverse racism" exists. So I also just don't think it's actually happening in real time, whatever fantasies an extreme minority of feminists may have.

I find it interesting that people defend religions like Christianity that have caused so much harm, but have more openly horrible denominations / sects - much larger percentages of their following that advocate extremely harmful things and ideas we should all be against in 2022. But people still support Christianity. Why? It's not because there isn't any small (or not so small...) group of people who could give it an ugly name. It's because it's respected, accepted, revered.

Feminism has been despised since women started any kind of toned-down feminist movements in the past. People don't like feminism because they love male supremacy / patriarchy. It has been documented consistently throughout history - they never wanted to give feminists anything. So in my opinion, it's not about some random person online "doing misandry" at all. That's just the excuse - the thing they can latch onto to try to prove a point that goes much deeper within themselves about how they view women, society, family.

[RomanticRealist]

But I guess what I do sometimes is just have conversations with people. I don't dismiss all of these "bad women" because, in my experience, they're usually being misquoted and intentionally misunderstood. So I just have a conversation, ask questions about what people think these women are saying and give my opinions on it. I can usually point out where I think these women are being misunderstood, if I think they are. Sometimes even just asking someone to explain what they think the feminists are saying kind of reveals that the person didn't actually hear the entirety of their comments or do any reading about a rumor of "misandry."

But that probably isn't what you want to hear, if you spend a lot of time trying to convince antifeminists. I am lucky to live in a very liberal city. It's not perfect, but I probably struggle less than feminists living in some other places.

[sage2021]

Did you get picked on a lot in school and that's why you are the way you are? People aren't born being a Radical Feminist" - something must have hurt you deeply to become a radicalized feminists. Come on, you can tell us.

NOTE TO GAG USER'S. THIS LADY CAN PUT YOU DOWN IN A HEARTBEAT AND DOESN'T EVEN CARE. SO, BUYER BEWARE.

[RomanticRealist]

Hmm I probably had a fairly normal childhood. By definition, everyone is the way they are because of their backgrounds, and especially their childhoods. I got picked on for a couple years in middle school, but I wasn't a radical feminist until high school when I got more into politics and history. Being picked on doesn't really make a difference. Plenty of the antifeminist men here probably got picked on. My mother got picked on a lot and still gets targeted at work and she's not a feminist. I have had a much easier time socially than she has, for example.

I was a nerd in school, no doubt - I loved to learn and my history classes and social studies classes stuck out to me as some of the most interesting (I liked everything though - nerdy nerd likes to learn - very guilty). Through my education, I discovered and embraced feminism. That's probably how most feminists become feminists. I do some political organizing and I always joke that our organization is full of nerds. My boyfriend is a nerd but on the other end of the spectrum - he's a data engineer.

So if you're asking if I was a nerdy little kid, the answer is definitely yes. I wasn't always picked on and when I was, I always defended myself so it decreased over time. In high school I was determined to be in the in-crowd, but I realized I couldn't do it without compromising my integrity and keeping my mouth shut when people said things I found racist, sexist, etc. So I decided that it wasn't worth it. Hardly anyone teased me in high school though.

[Jamie05rhs]

OK. Here is my question:

Your username includes the word "romantic.". And yet you also refer to yourself as a "radical feminist."
What do you actually want in a romantic relationship?
Can you name the bare minimum for how you would relate to a man -- and he to you -- in order for you to feel happy and fulfilled and have your personal life feel like it is compatible to your feminist goals?

[RomanticRealist]

Sure.

1. When I made the username, I meant romantic in the larger sense - the romantic wants to focus on ideals and their significance and the realist in me imposes constant analysis about everything and often a level of doubt and skepticism that can dampen the romantic ideals. I manage a balance of both, though, in many aspects of life. A dreamer, but she doubts everything and needs to research. My friends say it's the Capricorn in me, but I don't believe in astrology. (That's also apparently a very Capricorn thing to say! lol)

[RomanticRealist]

Cont. 2

As for romantic relationships specifically - that's very specific and a whole other answer. I'll try to keep it brief. My focus in my relationship is acceptance met with open communication and compromise on needs. I'm a giver and I like to know things. I think when I'm actually in the relationship, my first inclination is to provide a kind of constant care about what my partner is feeling and making him feel validated, appreciated, desired, etc. I guess I like to be a "safe space." We're both very physically affectionate - lots of kissing, cuddles, touching in different ways. I remember after our first date he told me he could tell I'm a very sensual person by the way I was holding his hands and touching him at the table. I'm very tactile. I want to know my partner on the deepest level possible, which can sometimes be overwhelming for the other person. I also like being silly and playful - I tease a lot. I guess I want us to be connected, playfully happy, thoughtful, aware and knowing of one another's struggles, insecurities, and traumas, so we can support one another and validate in a healthy way, while also having space and a level of independence in our lives. For example, I don't like to disappear on my friends or give up my interests just because I have a boyfriend. I think it's important to stay grounded in who I am, and I also think that sets the stage for me to appreciate his need for time with friends, which I encourage. Space is healthy.

[RomanticRealist]

Cont. 3

I want to build a life together, ultimately get married, and then possibly have a child. If I don't have a kid, it doesn't shatter my life, but I think it's a unique kind of love to experience. I told myself I'll give it the old good try in my 30s and then if it doesn't happen, move on and be happy with my time, love, friends, and money. I'd say I want fun and adventure too, but my partner is not as outgoing as I am, and I'm very much in a "your partner doesn't have to be everything and my focus is on accepting who is and finding a middle ground" head space. Sorry, I don't know if that's what you were asking lmao But that's what came to mind when you ask what I want in a romantic relationship. Actual romance is nice too haha

[Jamie05rhs]

Wow. You don't sound like much of a #nastywoman to me!

[RomanticRealist]

Cont. 4

2. “Can you name the bare minimum for how you would relate to a man -- and he to you -- in order for you to feel happy and fulfilled and have your personal life feel like it is compatible to your feminist goals?"

So, I'm not advocating anti-feminism in my personal life, nor would I date someone who was against feminism. I wouldn't be with someone who wouldn't be okay discussing politics and exchanging ideas. I need a level of transparency in that way, to understand who he is, especially on this topic. I wouldn't be with someone who wanted me to be a housewife or someone who was disrespectful toward women. (That doesn't mean being a homemaker is inherently antifeminist, of course.) Now, my boyfriend isn't completely perfect in this regard. He agrees with feminism mostly, but isn't very educated about it and has some concerns about certain ideas or messages being harmful. There was one thing he heard. We talked about this and it ended up that he hadn't done any research about it and just heard something and ran with it. He knows I identify as a radical feminist and he's comfortable with it because he knows me and we discuss these things. He also identifies as a socialist, so that helps a lot - that was actually a huge box checked when we first started dating + that he's an atheist. I think both of these can affect concepts of gender roles and expectations in that area / thoughts about women.

[RomanticRealist]

Cont. 5

I have told my boyfriend that I don't want to be expected to do all the cleaning, cooking, taking care of kid, if we get married and have a kid. He understands that and we talk about it sometimes. He pays for a cleaner now, so that would continue, as he doesn't like cleaning much. I may end up doing more of the cooking than he would, but there's a limit, of course. I am the one who enjoys cooking between the two of us. He cooks for me sometimes though because he knows I like it :) His dad was actually a stay at home dad (mom was a doctor), so he's not a stranger to alternative family structures, which is nice.

Things like this may be uncomfortable for the next feminist's personal preferences, but I don't think it threatens the goal of restructuring society and fighting patriarchy. I don't feel compelled to embody some kind of extreme caricature of opposition to everything wrong with society. That's a lot to ask when we're all just trying to get by. It's enough to do my best to challenge and continue discussing these ideas with other people and see all the different ways different people resist these norms and the power structures themselves.

And I do know some prefer to go even further and avoid marriage and monogamy. I respect that decision, it's just not mine. I understand and agree with the criticisms behind those decisions as well, even if we don't reach the same conclusions.

[RomanticRealist]

I have no idea if I'm a #nastywoman (probably, if that just means feminist)

I'm bad at keeping up with the tweets. I should get on twitter - I always feel left out of the drama and I want the tea 🥲

[Jamie05rhs]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing all of that.

It sounds to me like your feminism is mostly political. To us guys, you see, we are mostly just concerned when the feminism becomes personal. As in, man- hatred. Because we are men/ I am a man. So we definitely don't want to be a relationship with someone who hates us. That would be a life of misery and torment.

[Jamie05rhs]

So you want to restructure society and fight patriarchy. What is "patriarchy" to you?

And how would you want to restructure society?
In what ways?

[RomanticRealist]

"It sounds to me like your feminism is mostly political. To us guys, you see, we are mostly just concerned when the feminism becomes personal. As in, man- hatred. Because we are men/ I am a man. So we definitely don't want to be a relationship with someone who hates us. That would be a life of misery and torment."

Everything is political. :P It's social, economic, and political. And yes, I would never want to date anyone who believes that feminism = man hatred. That's an indication of a lot of differences that would be a lot to overcome in a relationship, and relationships are already so much work. Most feminists don't hate men just for being men - it's men who uphold and embody misogyny and patriarchy. And while I will say those men are trash, they are also really just people who need to be taught. The trouble is you can't teach people who don't want to learn. And so the wheel continues to turn.

Patriarchies are systems or social orders based on male supremacy - men dominate in leadership in governments and institutions, lead family structures, control money, establish laws, etc., and therefore, men have privileges socially, economically, and politically that allow this dominance to continue on its own. Systems are often designed to perpetuate themselves. You create a social order usually with an idea in mind of how things will continue. If you think women should be subordinate to men and have significantly less / no control in society, you condition these norms from childhood. Obviously, as feminists, we don't like this lolol

[RomanticRealist]

From a comment below:

I would agree with a surface level idea that feminism seeks equality, but "equality" itself is not as good a descriptor as "equity." I also think liberal feminists and radical feminists differ on the degree of equity vs mere equality pursued. The liberal feminists are a blend of both, but because they don't sufficiently address the economic structures that keep so many women oppressed under capitalism, radical feminists believe that they don't go far enough. We also don't love Hillary for that reason, for example. It's not enough that she's a woman - she's also problematic for leftists in so many ways. We would say, what good is it to just have more women represented at the top 1%, if the bottom majority of women are still struggling to survive? That's the difference in degree of how we pursue equity - we want a more radical restructuring of society through anti-capitalism - that's the radical part. A liberal feminist does not seek to overturn capitalism and impose what we leftists see as "economic democracy." The liberal feminist is fine with many women being poor, as long as we do more to help them and have more equal representation in different fields, economic groups, etc. I personally won't say that those are not important goals - within this capitalist structure, they are. I just disagree that this should be our end goal where we stop.

[Jamie05rhs]

"It sounds to me like your feminism is mostly political. To us guys, you see, we are mostly just concerned when the feminism becomes personal. As in, man- hatred. Because we are men/ I am a man. So we definitely don't want to be a relationship with someone who hates us. That would be a life of misery and torment."

"And yes, I would never want to date anyone who believes that feminism = man hatred."
Why not? All you would need to do is correct him. Explain why his perception is incorrect.

[Jamie05rhs]

"Most feminists don't hate men just for being men"
Most feminists. But not all. As you know.
Which is why it is natural to understand why a man would be wary.

[Jamie05rhs]

"Patriarchies are systems or social orders based on male supremacy - men dominate in leadership in governments and institutions, lead family structures, control money, establish laws, etc., and therefore, men have privileges socially, economically, and politically that allow this dominance to continue on its own. Systems are often designed to perpetuate themselves. You create a social order usually with an idea in mind of how things will continue. If you think women should be subordinate to men and have significantly less / no control in society, you condition these norms from childhood. Obviously, as feminists, we don't like this lolol"

Ok- what you said here actually makes sense. And I agree with you. I'm on your side.

[Jamie05rhs]

Okay, so the whole "equity" thing is what I DON'T agree with. Because it doesn't just raise up women; it pushes down men.
(And yes, I have studied the terms "equality" and "equity," and I know the difference.)

[RomanticRealist]

I never answered what kind of changes I'd like to see. This is a huge question, but I'll just give the summary. So basically, I'm a socialist feminist, which is a kind of radical feminist. I believe in changing from a patriarchal society to a more fundamentally egalitarian society, and the only way to do that effectively is to advocate for women's rights, challenge the conditioning that teaches us women should be subordinate in a variety of ways, and also to advocate for socialism. And it's also important to recognize other intersections and forms of oppression - racism, xenophobia, etc. I think a feminism that doesn't do that is incomplete, insufficient, and especially at this point, unacceptable.

And the socialist part is because I don't believe a small group of people at the top should be allowed to hoard the wealth that we all create through our labor and I don't think they should be controlling society because they have more money. I believe in economic democracy and I don't think we can truly have democracy within capitalism. Of course any system can be anti-democratic, but capitalism is great and selling illusions to people who don't know any better. I think people can feel it though, even if they still believe in the illusion of capitalist meritocracy.

[RomanticRealist]

So the details of what that looks like would take forever, but here are some snap shots:
workers democratically decide how to divide the revenue from their labor, collectively owning their labor, opposed to a boss taking the vast majority of the cream for profit at the top. This helps women everywhere - without economic liberation, women are still struggling to survive and have children. We believe in abortion as a fundamental part of women's health, 100% - without it, we're in trouble. However, we also believe in making childbirth desirable in the first place. Free child care for women across the country - one the most back breaking expenses for families. Economic planning that takes motherhood seriously, provides compensation for domestic labor, and makes having children easy and desirable through quality healthcare for everyone, free or low cost resources that mothers need, high quality reproductive health education and resources, support for trans women, investing into education, maybe some kind of universal basic income, even more open confrontation of sexist narratives about women, changing the way we condition boys and girls to be different at a young age and giving more choices in gender expression, etc. Empower women as sexual beings, encourage self-esteem and self-confidence, changing representation of what women look like in media would probably help many young girls not hate themselves, etc. I mean there are a lot of things we will need to do far beyond my life time.

[RomanticRealist]

"Why not? All you would need to do is correct him. Explain why his perception is incorrect."

Eh, I think compatibility and having healthy relationships are important. I think romantic relationships are best when people share core values and beliefs, especially if you're thinking about marriage and maybe kid in the future. To raise a child with such different beliefs is not desirable to me. It would also affect my attraction to the person - I think politics are a direct link to values, psychology, world view, and education. While I don't mind talking to antifeminists as acquaintances and helping them gain familiarity with someone from our group, I couldn't see myself dating someone who usually has such a different way of viewing people in general, in my experience, especially women.

[RomanticRealist]

Also, it usually does't just stop at being corrected once. "Oh, feminists don't actually hate men? Okay." No, there would be a lot of tug of war because people don't just let their long-held beliefs and skepticisms go easily. It would probably be a long process of hearing all kinds of ideas that anti-feminists usually have about women, men, lgbt people, etc. Outside of a romantic relationship? I'm ready 💅 Inside the relationship? I want more harmony between who we are and our worldviews than that. It's so nice when you're with your people tbh. All relationships have challenges, but it feels so much more peaceful. And as a woman who is feminist and has self-respect, asking myself to date someone, to literally share my body, mind, and heart with someone, who doesn't know how to respect women in the way that I need my partner to would be emotionally traumatic. To have to spend months or years asking someone to value women and acknowledge our humanity and right to our own bodies, to explain why he shouldn't be okay with male supremacy... I just respect myself too much for that. Like, think about what that means from my perspective? It's how you feel about feminism! Why would you date someone who doesn't respect or value men in the way that you feel is important? As you've said yourself, you wouldn't. I feel the same.

[RomanticRealist]

If you don't believe in equity, then you don't really believe in solving the problem. You're okay with male supremacy through patriarchy. This is another core reason why I can't date antifeminists lol

Equity is the only thing focused on actually changing the outcomes. Otherwise, you're basically just saying "yeah it sucks, but this is what we're doing, okay, ladies? suck it up." lol As I tried to convey in my terrible bath tub analogy on another commenter's post - equal distribution of resources to groups at completely different starting points, who inherit centuries of discrimination, is not actually solving the problem. That just makes us feel better about our decision to maintain the problem. And this is against my personal values.

[Jamie05rhs]

How does socialism help women (theoretically)? Can you explain that one?
... Oh; okay. I see you explained your support of socialism there. (But it doesn't sound like it's something that is specifically tied to gender.)
... OHHH. So that helps women BECAUSE the majority of female workers are uneducated and working in menial jobs? I see... That is a valid point.
... However, why not just enable girls to go to college? ... I know we've been working on this goal for several years now; and we are making great strides, even though the work is not complete.

Okay, but I'm not an antifeminist. I'm just a skeptic.

(Although, I do personally disagree with a lot of the extra "laundry list" items that you tacked onto your comprehensive glorious manifesto.)

Yep; you're right. It would certainly be a process. I can't argue with you there.

No, that makes sense. I get it.

Okay. Well, we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

[RomanticRealist]

"How does socialism help women (theoretically)? Can you explain that one?
... Oh; okay. I see you explained your support of socialism there. (But it doesn't sound like it's something that is specifically tied to gender.)"

Yes, as I explained, I think economic restructuring is critical to any real liberation for women. Socialist feminists definitely feel that socialism is a part of our vision of how to achieve a more just society where women have the resources they need to survive and live comfortably. A lot of scholars have worked to make that link clearer than maybe Marx and Engels did themselves - but because what they propose affects the majority of women as well, there is a fundamental link. Does that mean a socialist society or organization can't struggle with sexism? Absolutely not, but these days most of the most well-known leftist organizations have a feminist presence within them and in my experience most socialists agree that socialism without feminism or acknowledgement of sexism/patriarchy is not what we're about.

[RomanticRealist]

"... OHHH. So that helps women BECAUSE the majority of female workers are uneducated and working in menial jobs? I see... That is a valid point."

It's more about power structures. Capitalism creates class disparity and workers are at the mercy of employers. The only reason we have things like the 40 hour work week and child labor laws is because leftist activists fought aggressively on the ground for those wins. Pure capitalism is profit-focused. We believe in a society that actually cares about people, and part of that is to remove the concentration of power from a top minority of people and to give workers control of the labor and revenue/product that they produce. Capitalism also requires a lower class of people, and the less regulated the financial industry, businesses, etc., the larger the disparity between classes often is. Capitalism is not a system that allows for everyone to have a similar income or opportunities.

[RomanticRealist]

So the workers in "menial jobs" with worse conditions aren't there just because of life choices - they're there because: 1. the work will have to be done by someone regardless, so the key is how the workers are treated - working a menial job shouldn't mean you struggle to survive and have shitty work conditions - at least not if you care about people - and 2. Class oppression is designed to reproduce itself by limiting the life outcomes of the people in the lower class. This includes legislation and economic design that excludes or denies rights based on race, sex and class, histories that allow some to inherit more wealth than others, education systems that are unequal so children who are poor kids don't have the same development and education than wealthier children, etc. Class segregation results in different levels of development for kids in different class groups - research even shows that students who grow up poor literally have more stress in their bodies and have a harder time developing some of the cognitive functions for productive decision making compared to children in safer, wealthier environments. If you do your research, the shit is absolutely horrible. Class mobility is an illusion statistically for the vast majority of people and their life outcomes. Growing up poor means you're most likely to stay poor and have less access to resources, role models, opportunities, basic things for survival, etc. Even going to college can be challenging, because of the shame from being less educated, the lack of belief that they can succeed, not being exposed to the social circles that influence our idea of what normal and attainable is, etc. Housing and costs of living get more expensive, but increases in wages for lower class workers aren't keeping pace with increased living costs or inflation. College debt on top of that is an enormous risk, if even attainable.

[RomanticRealist]

And this significantly affects women, of course, especially when they're most likely to be single parents and primary care givers and have to deal with sexism on top of all this. I believe in steps toward economic liberation as so critical to making any kind of real difference in women's lives.

"... However, why not just enable girls to go to college? ... I know we've been working on this goal for several years now; and we are making great strides, even though the work is not complete."

We should continue helping women overcome disparities in access and achievement, but I think at this point, women attend college more than men do.

www.pewresearch.org/.../

"Okay, but I'm not an antifeminist. I'm just a skeptic.

(Although, I do personally disagree with a lot of the extra "laundry list" items that you tacked onto your comprehensive glorious manifesto.)

Yep; you're right. It would certainly be a process. I can't argue with you there.

No, that makes sense. I get it.

Okay. Well, we'll just agree to disagree on that one."

I appreciate you acknowledging that. Compatibility in relationships is so important!

[Jamie05rhs]

Hey- thanks for the MHO! I really appreciate that. That's very kind of you.

[Jamie05rhs]

One quick note:

"So the workers in "menial jobs" with worse conditions aren't there just because of life choices - they're there because: 1. the work will have to be done by someone regardless"

The work doesn't HAVE to be done. One silver lining of capitalism is that all of this is still optional. Because the free market allows freedom of association, and both parties (employer and employee) have to agree to the work contract.
If the workers in a certain area (potential employees), don't see a job as being attractive, they have the right to refuse to work there. They cannot be legally forced to work for that company.
(That is one of the reasons why these companies try to bring in undocumented workers from impoverished countries and exploit them for cheap labor.)

[RomanticRealist]

Yeah, you were the least bitter, angry one and you actually had what seemed like a real question/ genuine curiosity! Thank you :)

I will have to agree to disagree again, of course. 🙃 The work literally does have to be done by someone. Like, literally. If no one does menial jobs, the system can't function and you have institutions that don't function ideally or at all.

And following that - if you have a system structured where there's a lower class with little to no resources for better options (Capitalism) then those people by and large will be taking those jobs. Capitalism has an illusion of choice, but anyone looking hard enough into the system knows that options are minimal, especially in earlier forms of capitalism without push back from leftists for civil rights. You have to work to live. If capitalism structures your life up without the same access to education, opportunities, safety, health care, housing, etc. then you quite literally (again) HAVE to take whatever work you can find to ensure some access to resources required to stay alive. There aren't many other options. Even welfare may not work, depending on your specific struggles. And even then, capitalist system has invested less and less into public housing communities over time, to the point that even life in those circumstances positions you at a significant disadvantage to accessing jobs that are not menial. Possibility vs probability.

[Jamie05rhs]

Thanks!

"If no one does menial jobs, the system can't function and you have institutions that don't function ideally or at all."
But isn't that the point?
Isn't it your goal as a socialist to bring down the system anyway? 🤷

[Jamie05rhs]

Yes, I agree with you that the people essentially have to take the jobs. BUT my point is that they aren't LEGALLY REQUIRED to take them. That is why wages can be increased through collective action by the workers. If more people sit down and say "NO," the employers have to do SOMETHING to bring in workers to fill the jobs.

[Berethor]

Why you see yourself romantic? what you think about TERFs? are all PIV is rape? :)

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

[RomanticRealist]

"Why you see yourself romantic?"

Deeply affectionate, caring, empathetic, and "lovey dovey" with my babe. Doing nice gestures for him, liking romantic scenarios for us to be in, wanting to share and build with him, make him feel validated, appreciated, etc.

Romantic in life - making space apart from my logical analysis to embrace sensuality, beauty around me in this world, trying to be more present, embracing ideology alongside my rationality, introspective thought and trying to be in touch with my emotions and understand myself better, an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics, etc.

"what you think about TERFs?"

TERFs are trash. I can kind of understand one line of thinking I've come across from TERFs, but I still think it's logically incomplete and I disagree with them totally. I support trans women.

"are all PIV is rape?"

No, and I don't know of any feminist who does. I have heard that anti-feminists fabricated this quote by a feminist public figure, and she said afterward that she never said that all penetrative sex is rape. Penetrative sex may be violent, and I think history is pretty clear about the lack of consent and value for womens right to their bodies throughout history in many, if not most, societies. I think patriarchy doesn't value consent inherently. However, no, all PIV sex is not rape.

[msc545]

Since feminists spend a lot of time talking about equality, I am wondering if you ever actually do anything to support men? You know, the soldiers, and husbands, and fathers that all basically get a raw deal from society and the courts? Other than paying lip service to the concept, do you ever do anything concrete at all in support of men? Maybe support men who are victims of false accusations and violence by women, or the boys that get raped by women? Anything about them?

[RomanticRealist]

Paying lip service to what? I talk about equity and dismantling patriarchy. Yes, I believe in an egalitarian society, but my strategy to get there is to correct oppression. That's not to say there aren't a variety of ways to help men specifically that are necessary, but I personally wouldn't be helping men in the ways that you're suggesting. (Sounds like "mens rights activism" cloaked in general language to me - definitely not my battle) Also, I can only do so much, so I focus on supporting oppressed people in any activism I do.

Where I support men mostly (through my own actions, I mean, not like in theory or beliefs) is through socialist organizing. Most of the people in the socialist organization I work with are men actually - we're trying to get more women involved! I've been a part of actions, movements to support men of color, who are battling racism, classism, police brutality or islamophobia. I work in the nonprofit sector and have worked in fundraising for a variety of missions that directly help men. I've worked for a transitionary employment program that employs recently incarcerated people who are trying to get their second chance at life and be productive members of their communities - most of the clients are men. I've worked for youth programs that directly serve young children in low-income areas to help them improve STEM exposure, literacy, arts education exposure, and develop socially and emotionally - a large portion of them are boys/young men. I'm not going on any crusade on "false accusations" of rape, but I have worked for a social services program that provided therapy/intervention for victims of domestic violence, rape, and assault - some of whom are men.

[RomanticRealist]

I do think men would benefit from dismantling patriarchy in different ways though. For example, not that I'm against child support, but if the government sponsored free child care programs (day care is extremely expensive), provided compensation for all the domestic labor women do in motherhood, if healthcare access for everyone was significantly better (and ideally free and collectively taxed, as it is in some other developed countries), and education was fair and equal, then single mothers would have less reason to chase down men for assistance after the men decide to leave them. In the work I've supported in therapy, its just so obvious how certain concepts of masculinity and vulnerability negatively impact men's mental health as well. I get upset when my family members (often men) use sexist language to little boys in our family - dismissing their emotions, calling them pussy or wimp, etc. I think that's literally emotional abuse but I think a lot of men view it as part of how "men are made" - again, sexism is a threat to men's actual mental health in some ways. I'm more anti-war than not usually and many men are sent to the frontlines to fight senseless wars based on greed, and I definitely oppose that shit. Less spending on military and sending so many men and women to die - more spending on the education and mental health support for everyone - including young men. I haven't done anything about it, but the way veterans are treated is disgusting, even though I'm not a huge fan of the military.

Things like this and so on.

[msc545]

So the only oppressed people you care about or want to help are women, correct? I don't think that the program you worked for provided any real services for men because those programs only provide services for women - but perhaps I am wrong. What is the name of the program and where is it located? If it really does help men, I want to refer men there.

[msc545]

I will add that I am certainly in agreement with you regarding veterans, greed, and war. As a Neuropsychologist, I diagnose and treat veterans with PTSD and TBI (brain injuries) and I get to hear all of the horror stories. I am also a Socialist, so there is that as well.

[msc545]

Moreover, I think your style of a combination of modified gish gal argument combined with a TL;DR evocation strategy is very clever and I wish I had thought of it myself. Did you create this style yourself, or did you learn it somewhere? Devastatingly effective!

[RomanticRealist]

"So the only oppressed people you care about or want to help are women, correct? I don't think that the program you worked for provided any real services for men because those programs only provide services for women - but perhaps I am wrong. What is the name of the program and where is it located? If it really does help men, I want to refer men there."

1. I already answered your original question on ways that I support men. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine too.

2. When we're talking about sex-based oppression, men are not an oppressed class, although, they do still suffer from the same patriarchal sexism in ways that are pushed aside by men themselves, as I mentioned before.

[RomanticRealist]

3. I won't be giving angry anti-feminists too much approximation of where I work or anything, sorry. However, yes, you are very wrong. The nonprofit industry serves a lot of men through a shit ton of missions across the United States. Advocating for "mens rights" priorities isn't something you'll find too much of, but plenty of our work helps a lot of men directly and indirectly. You also haven't specified any issues your specific friends have or where you live. The nonprofits I've worked for are not active in every state, so you can't just "refer men there." You'd have to find something specific to the men you allegedly want to help and where they specifically live. There are some national nonprofits, but I have focused my work on local nonprofits in my city. Not all men live the same lives - what are the specific men that you claim you know who need help looking for? Are they poor men looking for employment assistance and jobs training? Are they men without shelter/housing? Are they men with cancer who can't afford treatment? I mentioned youth programs that help a lot of young boys from low-income areas get into STEM, so "men" wouldn't even really be served by those programs, only boys. So it sounds like you don't have any specific help in mind, you just want to argue and pull random untrue statements out of your ass. If you really wanted to help your friends, the internet is big enough that you could find something.

[RomanticRealist]

I will give you one example, because I don't currently work with them. Legal Aid Society is one of the largest legal services providers in NYC and they help a loot of men (and women). They're a nonprofit and they focus on legal justice - they hire attorneys to work with clients, they do policy work focused on criminal justice reform (which affects a lot of men, maybe even more than women in some areas of crime), etc. They actually do help men with wrongful convictions, but probably wouldn't focus on rape cases.

https://legalaidnyc.org

I got a senior role with them, but then another job I worked for as a consultant wanted to hire me full-time, so I decided to choose some loyalty and work relationships over legal aid. But they're a great mission and I'd probably reapply one day. Kind of my dream mission tbh, but I digress.

[RomanticRealist]

"I will add that I am certainly in agreement with you regarding veterans, greed, and war. As a Neuropsychologist, I diagnose and treat veterans with PTSD and TBI (brain injuries) and I get to hear all of the horror stories. I am also a Socialist, so there is that as well."

You're a socialist who doesn't understand feminism?
You're a neuropsychologist who doesn't understand basic things about the nonprofit sector and resources to help men with mental health (which includes a lot of nonprofits)?

Something isn't adding up to me, or maybe you're just very... different.

[RomanticRealist]

"Moreover, I think your style of a combination of modified gish gal argument combined with a TL;DR evocation strategy is very clever and I wish I had thought of it myself. Did you create this style yourself, or did you learn it somewhere? Devastatingly effective!"

I mean, who knows where I learned my style of arguing my points. Probably influenced by any number of people or influences in my childhood, like anyone else. There's a reason people told me to be a lawyer as a kid though 🙃 It's not difficult when you know what you're talking about.

[msc545]

Also hostile and insulting I see. Fits your profession beautifully.

[msc545]

Additionally, I don't know what sort of law you practice but you probably should learn the difference between a psychologist a neuropsychologist and a social worker. I'm not a social worker. As for me needing to learn something about feminism because I'm a neuropsychologist those two things don't necessarily go together. I see a lot of men who have been damaged badly by feminists in biased courts over the years and who have lost their children their property and their reputations as a result.

[RomanticRealist]

Lmao You were rude and "hostile" toward me first and you're mad when I return your attitude? Hmm, okay. Also, I'm not a lawyer. I know the difference between psychologist and social worker. Still seems kind of odd for one to not be aware of where people gain access to mental health care, Maybe there are regional differences, who knows.

I believe I compared awareness of feminism with socialism, not neuropsychology. Although, I will say I'd think an awareness of how sexism affects men would make one a feminist. Maybe I'm assuming too much. A lot of things that seem obviously intertwined with psychology from a sociological/political science perspective aren't always understood by all psychologists I guess. It seems like they should be.

[RomanticRealist]

One weird thing I never get with the family courts example is the logic of blaming feminists for that. First, even conservative anti-feminist judges likely favor mothers as primary care givers, so it's interesting to be blaming feminists for decisions made by a very diverse group of people (judges) who are wielding the power for those decisions. A slight majority of judges are men also - I'm not sure how that breaks down in family courts specifically. I think there may be research implying that judges across the board have a bias toward mothers, not just women or feminists or liberals.

[RomanticRealist]

To take it a step further, it's weird to blame feminists for this, because a large part of the bias toward material primary custody comes from social norms that feminists (especially radical feminists) have been trying to challenge for decades. Men, as a rule, do not perform nearly as much domestic labor or child rearing as women do. This comes from family structures that place those burdens on women. Feminists have been in the corner screaming about changing this for a while. The primary way to change a cultural bias is to change behaviors, role models, (in this case) concepts of masculinity and femininity around family responsibility. From what I can tell, men have not responded to this favorably. Anecdotally, I know far more situations where men are not stepping up to the plate with a desire for equal shares of child rearing and domestic responsibilities than I do men who insists on cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the child as much as the mother. I've known far more women who haven't taken the fathers to court for custody, hoping for a positive relationship with the father, who have not experienced a desire to share these responsibilities equally. Even without the courts involved, women still end up being primary child caretakers. I'm curious if you have any access to credible resources that show a majority of men doing an equal share of these responsibilities. I have never come across research like this myself and my lived experience (even in liberal cities) usually shows overwhelmingly that men don't have an interest in sharing domestic and child rearing tasks equally.

[RomanticRealist]

So if men don't like feminism's challenge to that structure, and don't *want* to share tasks equally when it comes to raising children, how does the social bias that women and mothers are doing most of that work / most important for the development and care of the child going to change? There may also be science to this, but if men actually *wanted* to do what feminists have asked for years, then at the very least, you may be able to chip away at that bias. And again, that bias (that women are the primary caretakers of children and most important to child development ( is likely held strongly by conservatives as well, not just liberals and feminists.

So it seems like blaming feminists for a problem that could be solved by feminist agenda on changing social structures. Kind of an illogical conclusion to blame feminists for that, in my opinion.

[msc545]

TL;DR

[RomanticRealist]

lol That's cool. Thanks for participating! Have a good one.

[Anonymous]

Nothing can be learned from asking a radical feminist questions because she will not be truthful if it shines anything but a positive light on modern feminism, which of course is unrealistic and pointless

The fact is we know all we need to know about modern feminism simply by observing the behavior of feminists and what they have been doing in recent decades.

[RomanticRealist]

Eh, okay then.

One less question to answer, that's fine by me 🙃

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

How does it feel to know that 2/3 of women and most men hate radical feminism because the objective reality of the matter is that radical feminism is harmful to both genders..

by the way to me, a radical feminist is the kind that believes that the male population must be reduced to 10% or less either by castration or selective abortion.. And the 10% that remains be used as breeding stock only.. The radicals are evil..

[RomanticRealist]

1. I don't think 2/3 of women and most men actually know what radical feminism is. So I mostly just think they're misinformed and haven't been educated. To be honest, I live in a very liberal city. Now, I won't go as far as to say that most men and women here like the idea of "radical feminism" and what they think they know about it. But I do think most people would actually support the ideas we propose if you subtract the name "radical feminism" from it and sat them down and actually talked to them about it. That's how these things often work - people misunderstand something and then when they actually hear it explained in a different context, it becomes "oh, well yeah, I obviously agree with that."

But how do I feel? I suppose I do feel sad. It saddens me to see what I view as actual "evil" succeeding in many ways. I feel sad thinking about how people will suffer from different policies and I also feel compelled to keep being involved in politics. Sadness and anger can be mobilizing and useful tools for creating hope and inspiration.

& Thank you for sharing your thoughts. This is another example of how most people have no idea what they're talking about when they speak of "radical feminism." Thanks for providing Exhibit A.

[Opinion Owner]

But I do know what I'm talking about. Based on what I read of your other responses, you don't fit the definition of a radical, what most of society defines as a radical feminist.

This lady is a radical feminist..

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/

[Opinion Owner]

by the way radical feminism is not defined by you its defined by society.

Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical re-ordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts, while recognizing that women's experiences are also affected by other social divisions such as in race, class, and sexual orientation. The ideology and movement emerged in the 1960..

Radical feminism is also deeply rooted in lesbianism.

Radical feminists are distinguished from other feminists through their ideological roots in political lesbianism. Radical feminists see lesbianism as an act of resistance against the political institution of heterosexuality, which they view as violent and oppressive towards women. Julie Bindel has written that her lesbianism is "intrinsically bound up" with her feminism.

[Opinion Owner]

So I do indeed know what I'm talking about.

[RomanticRealist]

Radical feminism is not defined by society - it's defined by the movements that created it lol

But yes this quote you listed below is accurate - I bet you just looked this up, because it's significantly different from what you posted in your original opinion :)

"Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical re-ordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts, while recognizing that women's experiences are also affected by other social divisions such as in race, class, and sexual orientation. The ideology and movement emerged in the 1960.."

Yes, this is correct. We don't believe in white male supremacy and want to eradicate that from society in all ways. 100% true.

Radical feminism also has a significant link with socialism. That's what many of us mean when we talk about restructuring society economically. I'm a radical feminist specifically because I believe in economic democracy and anti-capitalism, alongside the belief that white male supremacy and patriarchy need to be destroyed.

[Opinion Owner]

Reading your other comment... You're one of those equity feminists aren't you? Sorry I will take equality over equity any day. Equity = Marxism or communism.. Everyone is the same no matter how hard one works. So me being an I highly technical field, suddenly a burger flipper would be making just as much as me.. Which means I would either take a gigantic pay cut, or the burger flipper would get such a huge pay raise that it would make that burger he is flipping cost 80 dollars or more.. Not interested in that kind of society

[Opinion Owner]

Your kind Also see men as the enemy and demonize the opposite sex. I have zero respect for that.

[Anonymous]

Sure, I'll bite.

You say below that you call for "a radical re-ordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts". What male supremacy are you referring to, specifically? And how exactly would you propose it be eliminated? Please be very specific.

And like all feminists, you talk about fighting the "patriarchy". Again, please be very specific.

[RomanticRealist]

I'll copy from another comment - my general summary of what a patriarchy is:

Patriarchies are systems or social orders based on male supremacy - men dominate in leadership in governments and institutions, lead family structures, control money, establish laws, etc., and therefore, men have privileges socially, economically, and politically that allow this dominance to continue on its own. Systems are often designed to perpetuate themselves. You create a social order usually with an idea in mind of how things will continue. If you think women should be subordinate to men and have significantly less / no control in society, you condition these norms from childhood. Obviously, as feminists, we don't like this lolol

[RomanticRealist]

Examples of how patriarchy plays out:
Most legislators being men
Women not being compensating for domestic labor or childbirth while relying on men for financial survival
Cost of childcare not being subsidized by the state, leaving single mothers extremely burdened as most will be the primary caretakers
Having families where women are expected to be the primary caretakers of home life and children in both scenarios : 1. while men go about doing other things that lead to more control in society : making money, becoming leaders in institutions at much higher rates, building political power, etc. and 2. while women have been given some rights, thought outcomes are still not equitable, and can do all kinds of jobs full-time, but still have to do most of the domestic labor related to home and children, which is like having multiple jobs.
Conditioning young girls to play with toys that won't encourage interests in math, science, and problem solving at disproportionate rates, which partly contributes to women not pursuing STEM careers as much as men
The "boys club" culture that is still pervasive in many work places
Overturning Roe v. Wade to specifically attack abortion (I mean, that has been going on for a while)
Man as head of household ideals in family structures
Men not being conditioned to understand their emotions because men don't do that - this has an impact on women as well
Rape culture - blaming victims for sexual assault and rape based on what they wear or promiscuity, stereotyping some women as sluts, shaming women for sexuality in general, excusing men when they verbally or physically harass women, "boys will be boys" nonsense, viewing masculinity as inherently aggressive and dominant, focusing on young girls and what they wear instead of focusing way more on teaching boys that their behavior is unacceptable and how to interact with girls with respect, etc.

The list is as extensive as the day is long. I think you get the gist from this though

[FriendlyDrugDealer]

The radical part, what separates a feminist and a radical feminist in today’s culture?


Please take your time and respond in your leisure. I’m doing the same things as you so I get it 🤣

[RomanticRealist]

radical feminists differ from liberal feminists in the extent to which we think society needs to be changed to fix the problem of patriarchy. Liberal feminists may propose some specific actions, but are not necessarily trying to change the structure of society. For me, I'm specifically a socialist feminist (which is a kind of radical feminism), in that I don't think women are free just by giving them equal shares of a deeply unjust system. I believe in socialism over capitalism, which is the only way I see to improve the lives of women, to make motherhood more desirable in the first place, and to improve the lives of all oppressed people really. The radical part also is about recognizing patriarchy as the source of sex oppression and discrimination in its many forms throughout the social, economic, and political spheres. Actions are not just actions - they're the result of social conditioning, biases, and concepts of womanhood/femininity and this all steps from the overarching patriarchal structure. So I think our goal should be to restructure society to challenge and eventually demolish male supremacy as a driving force in, well, everything. Liberal feminism doesn't seem logical to me because I tend to focus on patterns, logical reasoning, what leads to what, etc. However, I do think liberal feminism was likely an important building block and that it's difficult to get people to even accept the basics that women are treated differently, never mind that you want to change the society they know. Resistance against even the most moderate forms of feminism has always been strong in the US. Even just getting the right to vote took bodily sacrifice and suffering. Power isn't designed to loosen its grip easily, so here we still are. C'est la vie.

[RomanticRealist]

I also think radical feminism (and maybe socialist feminism specifically) provides a good place for men and women to work together for a common goal, as the economic liberation for women and men in the working class is a priority for us. But we emphasize feminism in leftist spaces and it could be a more comfortable entry way into building relationships with radical feminists and the concept itself. Having said that, most likely the kinds of men who come to political orgs trying to learn about socialism and help push that agenda are probably already feminists by the time they join us. Still though!

[DCooper]

Which brand of kitty litter is the cheapest?

[RomanticRealist]

I don't have a cat, but I'm tempted to get a kitty from all these instagram cat videos I watch and send to friends 😂 I think of myself as more of a dog person, but cats are so stinking cute. But part of me feels like I need to milk this "working from home most days" situation before it runs out. Like I could have been raising a little puppy this whole time.

[RomanticRealist]

I was training my old roommate's kitten with snacks and trimmed her claws. So sweet, such a cutie

[joeldalton]

Lmao. As a radical feminist, does that make you uniquely qualified to recognize an angry tirade of bitter nastiness?

[RomanticRealist]

Hardy har har -.-

[_Just_A_girl_]

You want to kill all men but needed one to be sitting at your screen today?

[RomanticRealist]

Is this a question? I'm confused.

[findacure4wokeness]

What sort of man dates you? Does worship you the ground you walk on? Do you discipline him with a whip? Are you the dominate partner?

[RomanticRealist]

I think I've dated a variety of guys, but generally I definitely prefer leftists and men mostly or completely comfortable with feminism.

After that, it varies. My current boyfriend is very sweet and supportive. I wouldn't say he worships the ground I walk on, but I don't know what that means to you. What does worshipping the ground I walk on look like to you?

He does feel lucky to have me and doesn't want to lose me, but I personally don't feel that he worships me.

I have experimented with being sexually dominant in the past, and I'm a switch. I tend to be more sexually submissive with men, or some combination of the two. My boyfriend is definitely not into being whipped but I playfully spank him sometimes since he always spanks me. Sexually? He's more dominant most of the time, but isn't closed to me switching it up in a light way. Whipping him? no. Blindfolding him and having my way with him? Yes.

[RomanticRealist]

Outside of sex? I don't think either of us is dominating. He may be more laid back and introverted, but if he doesn't want to do something and it's not a notably important thing to me, he won't do it. He can be a little stubborn sometimes actually. I'm probably the more flexible and giving partner, but he does try to meet my needs and I appreciate that and acknowledge it. He plans dates and things to do sometimes, even though I'm more likely to be looking for things to do. He was very assertive about planning our first date, which was a turn on for me. I know I will naturally plan things, so it was something I noted because it did make him seem more take charge. I just wanted some indication that I wouldn't be carrying all the planning. I think my personality comes across as more naturally dominant, because I'm more extroverted, talkative, and assertive, whereas he is more quiet and introverted, but he's kind of sensitive about being bossed around. He had an issue with that with his ex I think. I'm also not really bossy, just very opinionated. I prefer collaboration, if possible. I think we have a give and take vibe. We don't live together and we aren't married yet, and I expect more of the decision making happens in that context.

[RomanticRealist]

We've talked about this a little bit and I think he'd probably like to be more dominant on overseeing finances. His dad was a stay at home dad but controlled the finances, whereas my mom oversees the money in my parents' home. I'm really clear with him on why I wouldn't be okay with that at an extreme level and where I would be okay with him leading the process of financial management. He understood what I was saying and we agreed. Transparency and communication above anything else, basically. It kind of depends on who is better with money really. I'd say that we both need to feel respected and leading different areas. He cooks for me sometimes because he knows I like it. He likes when I cook for him. Etc. I do think he likes little dominant gestures, but overall I think it's pretty equal. It's more that he likes when I make him feel dominant, even if he's not "the dominant person controlling the relationship and making important decisions on his own," if that makes sense. Sex is a big part of that, but I'm sure it happens in other ways. Sometimes it's not even about feeling dominant, so much as it is just about feeling adored or desired, appreciated and safe.

[Anonymous]

Why do some people think I'm being chauvinist because I say I married my wife because she gave me a house and I get to keep it when I'll divorce her

[Googlemyahoo]

Are you radical because you can do kick flips in a skateboard?

[RomanticRealist]

lol I'm not this cool, sadly. And I like my face too much to try this

[Rangers]

If I told you that most people with life threatening chronic illnesses were conservative, would that make you call for their Healthcare to be terminated?

[MiseriaCantareAFI]

probably not a good idea to do this, on this particular site

Full of rightists on here, who HATE women

[RomanticRealist]

Well, yeah - there are a lot - it's kind of interesting how so many are on this website

[KrakenAttackin]

When did you first realize you are mentally ill?

[RomanticRealist]

I love that you couldn't help yourself. The irony. 😂

[KrakenAttackin]

@RomanticRealist. Does equality mean we need more female brick layers or only more females in cherry-picked occupations?

[Pohjolan]

Why are feminists so sympathetic to Islam despite of it being misogynistic?

[RomanticRealist]

If you're asking why I specifically am sympathetic toward Islam, I would say that I'm not - I just think a lot of people are uneducated about what's really going or how history has unfolded. People are really great at not actually doing basic research into politics or history, and instead running with the simplest explanations that thrive on confirmation bias. I am sympathetic/empathetic toward *people who are Muslim* (not Islam) because many face discrimination and racism / xenophobia. I don't stand for that at all.

I would also say that, as someone who grew up in a religious family and in christian schools, I'm decently well-versed on how inherently misogynistic / sexist Christianity is as well. So there is no moral high ground that Christians have based on faith alone - Abrahamic religions are similar enough and all have a common root. It usually ends up being more xenophobia and racism.

Now, I do think culturally, many Arab societies are more openly sexist, but that's partly because of their current stage of development, the open role religion plays in society/government (Christian nations have been there too in the past) and the role that colonists played in supporting these norms and creating a resistance to mirroring the west (which is hugely overlooked and ironic)

[RomanticRealist]

There's a good article from the Atlantic on this : www.theatlantic.com/.../

"Some of the most important architects of institutionalized Arab misogyny weren't actually Arab. They were Turkish -- or, as they called themselves at the time, Ottoman -- British, and French. These foreigners ruled Arabs for centuries, twisting the cultures to accommodate their dominance. One of their favorite tricks was to buy the submission of men by offering them absolute power over women. The foreign overlords ruled the public sphere, local men ruled the private sphere, and women got nothing; academic Deniz Kandiyoti called this the "patriarchal bargain." Colonial powers employed it in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and in South Asia, promoting misogynist ideas and misogynist men who might have otherwise stayed on the margins, slowly but surely ingraining these ideas into the societies."

"Spend some time in the Middle East or North Africa talking about gender and you might hear the expression, "My Arab brother before my Western sister," a warning to be quiet about injustice so as not to give the West any more excuses to condescend and dictate. The fact that feminism is broadly (and wrongly) considered a Western idea has made it tougher for proponents. After centuries of Western colonialism, bombings, invasions, and occupation, Arab men can dismiss the calls for gender equality as just another form of imposition, insisting that Arab culture does it differently. The louder our calls for gender equality get, the easier they are to wave away."

[RomanticRealist]

"But is it really that simple? If that misogyny is so innately Arab, why is there such wide variance between Arab societies? Why did Egypt's hateful "they" elect only 2 percent women to its post-revolutionary legislature, while Tunisia's hateful "they" elected 27 percent, far short of half but still significantly more than America's 17 percent? Why are so many misogynist Arab practices as or more common in the non-Arab societies of sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia? After all, nearly every society in history has struggled with sexism, and maybe still is. Just in the U. S., for example, women could not vote until 1920; even today, their access to basic reproductive health care is backsliding. We don't think about this as an issue of American men, white men, or Christian men innately and irreducibly hating women. Why, then, should we be so ready to believe it about Arab Muslims?"

[Dinosaursandanime65]

Why must something be something for something that’s wants to be something?

[RomanticRealist]

O. o

[Dinosaursandanime65]

E. Very relatable

[AviatorTom]

How often do you have meaningful sex?

[RomanticRealist]

This seems oddly personal and weird, but I will answer. I'd say my sex with my boyfriend is meaningful to me, so very often.

[RomanticRealist]

"my sex" 😂

[Dargil]

When will feminism die out forever?

[RomanticRealist]

Never! *muhahahaha* 😈

[Iron_Man]

What is your idea of a feminist?

[RomanticRealist]

"Feminist" is actually pretty wide open to include so many different iterations of feminism throughout history and even today. I'd say most of us don't accept people who follow more old fashioned ideas of feminism as feminists in 2022. For example, there are women who are pro-life and think of themselves as feminists. I and probably most feminists absolutely do not want them at the table under any misconception that we feel unity with them.

But I'd say the most basic idea of what I think a feminist is today - someone who acknowledges a history of sexist oppression / patriarchy, resulting in a lack of equality in how people are treated, based on sex, and in the resources and opportunities they're able to access socially, economically, and politically. A feminist seeks to correct that imbalance of sex-based privilege that significantly favors men, by advancing women's rights as well as exposing the ways sexism harms men. That's the most basic concept of feminist I could provide, though, I could say more.

[RomanticRealist]

Cont 2.

I would agree with a surface level idea that feminism seeks equality, but "equality" itself is not as good a descriptor as "equity." I also think liberal feminists and radical feminists differ on the degree of equity vs mere equality pursued. The liberal feminists are a blend of both, but because they don't sufficiently address the economic structures that keep so many women oppressed under capitalism, radical feminists believe that they don't go far enough. We also don't love Hillary for that reason, for example. It's not enough that she's a woman - she's also problematic for leftists in so many ways. We would say, what good is it to just have more women represented at the top 1%, if the bottom majority of women are still struggling to survive? That's the difference in degree of how we pursue equity - we want a more radical restructuring of society through anti-capitalism - that's the radical part. A liberal feminist does not seek to overturn capitalism and impose what we leftists see as "economic democracy." The liberal feminist is fine with many women being poor, as long as we do more to help them and have more equal representation in different fields, economic groups, etc. I personally won't say that those are not important goals - within this capitalist structure, they are. I just disagree that this should be our end goal where we stop. I would also say that radical feminism may offer more unifying opportunities between men and women, because it may be easier for working class men to see themselves as allies in overturning capitalism. I mean, I think men should recognize how sexism hurts them too regardless, but yeah.

[RomanticRealist]

Cont. 3

My favorite lame analogy that I think of to describe equality vs equity is a bathtub of running water. Let's say you have two tubs of running water. One has much higher water pressure, causing more water to flow into the tub, while the other has lower water pressure. They started on empty at the same time and have been running for the same amount of time. Let's say you realize, oh damn, this other tub doesn't have nearly as much water in it - I'm going to fix the water pressure so that they both have the same amount of water flowing out of the faucet into each tub. (Equality) So you fix the water pressure - whether you increase the weak one or decrease the strong one, the result is the same - you have adjusted the faucets, so that they both have equal water pressure. You're ready for the equality to begin! So you run the water for a period of time and then you come back to stop it, expecting that * more equal outcomes* have been attained. Then you realize that one tub still has significantly less water than the next, and that you haven't changed that much, in terms of making the outcomes equal. (Equity) In order to make the water levels equal, you will have to treat each tub differently, so that the tub with less water can catch up - there is no other way. (Equity) That's the difference between equity and equality. Feminists are aiming for equity really, not merely equality. Equality alone (as in treat everyone exactly the same without recognizing where different groups need help/attention) won't actually achieve the correction of any imbalance caused by sexist oppression/patriarchy. You have to target the root of the problem and address groups according to need as well. (Equity)

[Iron_Man]

Wow you put a lot of work in thank you so much For all that work

[CloudMassacre]

What makes you Radical in your Feminismness?

[RomanticRealist]

My feminismness! I like that 😎

radical feminists differ from liberal feminists in the extent to which we think society needs to be changed to fix the problem of patriarchy. Liberal feminists may propose some specific actions, but are not necessarily trying to change the structure of society. For me, I'm specifically a socialist feminist (which is a kind of radical feminism), in that I don't think women are free just by giving them equal shares of a deeply unjust system. I believe in socialism over capitalism, which is the only way I see to improve the lives of women, to make motherhood more desirable in the first place, and to improve the lives of all oppressed people really. The radical part also is about recognizing patriarchy as the source of sex oppression and discrimination in its many forms throughout the social, economic, and political spheres. Actions are not just actions - they're the result of social conditioning, biases, and concepts of womanhood/femininity and this all steps from the overarching patriarchal structure. So I think our goal should be to restructure society to challenge and eventually demolish male supremacy as a driving force in, well, everything. Liberal feminism doesn't seem logical to me because I tend to focus on patterns, logical reasoning, what leads to what, etc. However, I do think liberal feminism was likely an important building block and that it's difficult to get people to even accept the basics that women are treated differently, never mind that you want to change the society they know. Resistance against even the most moderate forms of feminism has always been strong in the US. Even just getting the right to vote took bodily sacrifice and suffering. Power isn't designed to loosen its grip easily, so here we still are. C'est la vie.

[RomanticRealist]

I also think radical feminism (and maybe socialist feminism specifically) provides a good place for men and women to work together for a common goal, as the economic liberation for women and men in the working class is a priority for us. But we emphasize feminism in leftist spaces and it could be a more comfortable entry way into building relationships with radical feminists and the concept itself. Having said that, most likely the kinds of men who come to political orgs trying to learn about socialism and help push that agenda are probably already feminists by the time they join us. Still though!

[CloudMassacre]

Thank you for thoroughly explaining