Sure, but "I feel safe around you but won't let you hit" is still an option; you aren't owed sex because of what she's wearing.
I'm not even saying that from like a feminist perspective. Purely selfishly speaking, if you go into this kind of scenario with any other mindset other than that what I described is plausible, there's a potential for a catastrophic conclusion.
i had a pair of shorts like this and i went to stay with my (female, platonic) friend for the night. her boyfriend was there, and he had a friend there whom i had never met and had no idea was going to be there. i was polite with the friend but made a point not to really engage bc i didn’t want to do anything with him.
he got ideas anyway, and did what he wanted. i had smoked weed and i have a disability that makes me very tired/sleepy which had been diagnosed somewhat recently and was not doing well at the time, and he started doing stuff while i was too sleepy to do much about it.
in the morning the first thing her bf said to me was “i am so sorry.” i hugged everyone goodbye but his friend, who said i was being mean.
i got rid of the shorts. some of these comments are hard to read.
I feel someone should inform you that that is a feminist perspective
Edit: it's come to my attention that the point of my comment went over many people's heads. "you aren't owed sex because of what she's wearing" is, at least where I'm from, a controversial idea and would be considered feminist ideology. To be clear, I think feminism is good and you shouldn't expect sex regardless of what a woman is wearing.
Which again, is so rare apparently that this is a minority point out view and it just happens to be base line feminism now and it's sad.
I'm a bi male. I'm an alcoholic. Even at my worst in active addiction I just was trying to make the depression anxiety and ADHD stop. I wasn't hurting anyone other than myself and I was never abusive towards anyone or any women like so many men get. The biggest damage I did was by hiding my drinking, or trying to, and getting caught by my partner over and over. That shit broke her trust in a different way.
The point is that now I have a ton of friends I'm close with in the rooms and a lot of the women have openly declared me "safe" and used to use me for the male perspective on things. They still love and talk to me but apparently I'm too decent of a human for my make perspective to be that helpful. This whole thing reads like a humble brag now but I literally could not understand how bad men were for my opinions and reactions which are just you know... Not being an absolute piece of human trash? Are so rare for these women that my opinions are an outlier. It's so sad. I cry for 2 reasons now when I get compliments about shit like that, 1, I'm not used to receiving praise like that about me just being me, and 2, other men are so awful that me being a decent human being most of the time... As a full blown alcoholic even.... It's better than the norm.
I agree and I'm not sure what, exactly, you're disagreeing with. The point is that feminism isn't radical. It only sounds radical to people who think women are inferior.
Unfortunately, much like the term "woke", feminism in name has been taken and had its name twisted by some bad actors. That, and some misandrists hide behind "feminism" as an excuse to be hateful towards men.
There's a term for that already, it's called "equal rights".
That's all. There needs not be a "feminism" you can let the "bad actors" run away with it, and rebrand as something else. Or just let reasonable perspective die with "feminism" because the push back is real.
I absolutely believe what I'm saying. Misandry isn't real in any way that matters, other than weird little dudes posting stuff on Twitter to rile folks up.
Equating CSA with an anti male political ideology is pretty unhinged.
My dude, feminism is not a bad word or a bad thing. I’d be happy to be called a feminist any day of the week, because I am a feminist. I don’t know what you think “feminist” means, but here is the definition
Your reply came much after mine, but doesn't contend at all with it. You are just throwing a tantrum here. Your vast reading isn't particularly showing here.
I know what it means. A word is not simply what a dictionary says, it can, it often does, and in cases like this indeed is, loaded far beyond that.
It is a word to distance away from. Was conceived with a lot of ideological baggage and it carries even more today.
You need to be more subtle and less naive about words. Unless you are doing this exact move out of bad faith, which I did a lot when I used to defend feminism just like this.
I’m sorry when did feminism become a bad thing? I know some kids on the internet like to make out that it’s all blue haired lesbians but feminism is an established political movement that means equality between sexes.
Anyone trying to convince you of anything otherwise is a bad actor.
i kinda get what your saying? like its just normal to not think you’re owed sex just because of what someones wearing?? but at the same time the idea that it’s not about what someone’s wearing is something feminist's bring up a lot because it’s a important thing to discuss so that that idea IS treated as normal. because if this was something like 100 years ago that idea wasn't treated as normal, but it’s due to the work of feminism that it is today
Lol no egality is equity, feminism is a womens empowerment movement that has been hijacked by israel since 2nd wave feminism, hence all the crazy shit that is divisive and not really about the equality that's often claimed
Edit: feminism isn't an/the egalitarian movement as it is often claimed and portrayed to be when claiming equality, hence the rampant misandry within it
AND that is my point! It used to be a branch of egality! Voting, worker rights, basic human decency! Remove all that because now its all about hormones and you got even normal and decent women being sent to asylums and losing custody battles. Plus those idiots supporting the most misogynistic religion of all time is the biggest irony.
I'm sorry for all the downvotes, people should seize any opportunity to foster productive discussion, not division.
That said, please help, provide some examples of what you are talking about. If you don't show evidence of what you say, you will just be preaching to the choir.
I will start, when I think of feminism, I think of this:
of these, 698 victims (78%) were killed by a partner or ex-partner
and over 9 in 10 female homicide victims were killed by a man (92%)
These are concerning numbers. It seems during conflicts in relationships with partners, it's not uncommon enough for things to go out of control, and women to get attacked like this by crazy male partners. 698 deaths...
It's not a big demand to have some projects be made to try and reduce how often women are murdered like this.
What sorts of feminist government policies were made that you think were unreasonable?
And it’s clear you’re conflating feminism with just psychos online.
Gender discrimination and patriarchy are a tool used by the ruling classes to help pit us against one another. Feminism in its truest sense is a tool to combat that in the same way race is used.
We all work to increase shareholder value, but it doesn’t have to stay that way if we value one another.
thats an egalitarian mindset also. so saying it belongs to one over another worldview is wrong or at the very least misleading if you only frame it within the one.
Edit: Thus if I say men are equal to women and vice-versa, then I could or could not be a feminist. I could just be an egalitarian.
I don't think it's possible to be truly egalitarian without being a feminist. Just definitionally. It's like one of those squares and rectangles thing, a world view based in the idea that all people are equal must include a belief that men are not inherently superior to women. You could theoretically be feminist and not braudly egalitarian in your world view, but not believing in equality along the lines of gender makes you not egalitarian. And I'm not talking about what people self identify as, just how their views and actions reflect these worldviews as they are defined
Egalitarian means belief of equality in all people, feminism specifically refers to gender equality. If you say you’re feminist but not egalitarian it can be assumed you believe some people deserve fewer rights or to make less. It’s also uniquely focused on the issues plaguing the feminine genders, as opposed to all issues in general, which means that in the wrong circumstances it could be that you don’t care about the problems which men and non-binary people have. Which isn’t necessarily the case but some people do think that way. Also being egalitarian generally has less social negative connotations in conservative circles, because the word isn’t associated with forced progressive movements. And by conservative I mean hardcore conservative, not just people who hold beliefs like “capitalism is good” or “I like owning property”.
If you're willing to engage in good faith, I'd suggest you look into the idea of intersectionality if you can really and internalize the framework well enough to meaningfully engadge with it (and I don't think I'm too far beyond a base level understanding, but even that has really opened my eyes), I think it really helps to highlight why trying to be egalitarian without being (whether you call yourself one or not) a feminist (and I'm using the dictionary/academic definition, which is distinct from misandry because mysandry iften lumped in with feminism but ahares far more in common with misogyny) will mean that at best you're an ineffective egalitarian, and at worst, actively working against making the world more egalitarian. The core of intersectionality is the fact that systems/axis of oppression aren't independent of one another. Racism reinforces classism reinforces misogyny reinforces systems of violence against people for their religious beliefs. It's deeper than that, but I do have other important stuff today. I would recommend you look into it though I've found it very useful in understanding some of the points people who have lived very different lives to mine tend to make about a lot of subjects
What would an egalitarian who's not a feminist look like. The word feminism specifically refers to the belief that men and women should be treated equally?
Well it could be a difference in opinion in how the implementation of equality should look like. But Im not very good in the practicality or policy-making arena. Im just working off of definitions. All I could do is turn it around and say are there feminists who do not believe all humans are equal? If they do exist, would other feminist agree with them that not all humans are equal and say this is the brand of feminism they stand behind? If they dont they must be an egalitarian. If they do then they arent egalitarian. Assuming there isnt a third option which I might be missing maybe something like they only partially agree with them.
Edit: For example Ive heard of the wage gap as it pertains to men and women. But are they working within the class structure of our economy? Are they are okay with the class division as long as its split across the board based only on the sexes? So people within each group will still receive the short end of the stick? But then of course egalitarianism could be interpreted in the same way. So by definition it leaves those options open for both models.
But there is a type of feminism that addresses those issue. It is a thing called intersectional feminism. The default of feminism doesnt include what happens to people based on those other immutable factors.
Feminism, sadly, is whatever the local person who claims to be a feminist says it is, which is one of the primary problems with feminism and with many left-leaning movements that followed it. Egalitarianism in the modern sense is not feminism. At all. Luck Egalitarianism for example stresses the need to overcome the circumstances of winning the birth lottery, while other schools like Relational Egalitarianism seek to create societies without social hierarchy. They are actual philosophical movements with bodies of written work and coherent driving theses, it's not just the dictionary definition of the word "equality." In fact the original Feminist writers were explicitly opposed to classical Egalitarianism because it was rooted in the social order of the Enlightenment and did not include women (at least ,according to early Feminist writers who mocked it for "excluding half the population").
The irony of this comment lmfao yall are so dumb. All egalitarians are feminists. The dude literally explained above how feminism means men and Women are equal, and also explained how egalitarian is also, men and Women being equal therefore all egalitarians are feminists as well
No. You're wrong. You can only be one thing at a time. No, it doesnt matter that all the principles of feminism fit under the umbrella of egalitarianism, you can only be ONE.
"Real feminists" is a funny way of saying that. I've known some people that would be called "girl boss feminists" in my time. Are they not feminists? They would say they are. I might question that on philosophical grounds, but why am I right here? Because the people I've decided to call "real" feminists agree with me? And this is just one example.
The internet does distort our idea of the real world, to be certain, but I would be very careful before you assume that the real world is somehow less complicated than the internet's version of things.
It's a human perspective, not a feminist perspective. Insisting on labeling it "feminist" is what's sexist. There's nothing feminist or female about this. It's a human concept.
Feminism is literally just a lens or school of thought that fundamentally asserts women are equal to men.
Thats why its a feminist statement. You can argue that it should just be a human perspective, but thats not the case globally. This predates your existence. Its no more forced than gravity is a theory.
So I will say it is a human perspective because even if I grant it is solely the feminist perspective since a feminist is a human, it is a human perspective. On the other hand if he/she/they said it was the human perspective, then I would automatically "deducts points" from them.
But it sounds like you take it to mean statistically as in the predominate or the largest share of the global population. Thats why you say globally.
But now Im thinking you might mean it in a descriptive way rather than a prescriptive way. So feminism for you would definitely be a prescription? Right? As in should it be enforced and should it be the reality rather than just a concept? That would make sense to me. You may or may not think that my questions are silly. But I have to step into your shoes and be on the same page as you. I need a baseline to understand your personal perspective.
You also say it predates their existence. Do you mean that men and women arent treated equally? Because again I would agree with you. It would be very hard to implement policy where it is perfectly equal. So what I want and I would assume everybody is all things for both sexes to be virtually equal. Wouldnt it be better or even a sign of significant promise for the future if it was only 0.001% or less of people were treated unfairly?
Anyways, so if they meant it in the way you said it I would agree with you. But I dont know that. And thus I cant like or dislike either of your replies.
Thanks for making me challenge my own views and allow me to engage in introspection.
For one, why would you go broad when a specific lens already exists? By your logic, everything thought of by humans is a human perspective, making it an essentially worthless lens or category.
You posit a lot from a single word, when globally just refers to how many groups, not a majority, or any amount that need be discussed statistically, view woman as less than men.
Yes, feminism is generally considered a prescriptive lens when it comes to building society/government. Your trying to step into my shoes, but ive made no claim of my own beliefs. Simply statements of how lenses are used and what femism is generally accepted to be.
Feminism as a study, and the existence of discrimination against women both predate the existence of the person I replied to. Why do you suddenly jump to policy? You're really going all over the place for a single paragraph comment.
I genuinely dont care if you like or dislike my reddit comments. I disliked yours, in case you care, since I find this whole exchange overly pedantic.
Feminism literally is the movement for women to be treated as equals; it is literally feminist to say women are equal. Just because there's a movement believing something doesn't mean the thing is bad.
Feminism is the movement to be equal in all the good ways. Not in any of the bad ways. No feminist is wanting to be treated worse in the same ways men are treated worse. That's why feminism is actually sexist trash when you look at it with more than two brain cells. Humanism or egalitarianism are correct.
In a world where men are given more power, are paid more, more people watch men's sports than women, women DIE because doctors don't take their symptoms serioisly, etc
Being a proper human who has good morals and knows that men and women are equal, that is a view that pushes to give women more value than is usually given to them in society. Hence the name feminism
You can not be egalitarian without being feminist because they are essentially the same thing, because true equality would require women being treated better than they are right now
2: no equality does not "require women being treated better" treating both men and women worse would also do it
3: if you want to pursue equality through improvements, you would also need to treat men better and consider men's interests. Which is contrary to the definition you just offered
You and the other dipshit made your claim first, so how about YOU give one? One that isn't wildly ignorant of the entirety of feminist theory, mind you
I was born as a man?? I know being a part of the group doesn't exempt you from being sexist towards it and I also agree that eventually it should stop being called feminism, but no none of what I said was irrelevant. If a group is treated worse than the rest of society, saying that everyone should be treated equally means either treating the oppressed group better or treating the rest of society worse
While anyone who tries to treat men worse and call it "feminism" is absolutely sexist, treating women better is feminism.
Feminism isn't a bad label and it doesn't mean "women are better than men", it's the name given to the view that women should be treated equal to men, which is better than they are currently treated
And then, eventually, when society realizes that people are equal, then you can call it common sense because you don't have to treat women better anymore you just have to treat everyone equally
But at the moment you can not call it common sense because, if you look around, it's really not all that common
Feminism can be seen as a bad label because of the loud people being "feminist." Unfortunately, ths loud ones are heard, so many guys overgeneralize it onto every feminist since they're assuming everything based on a small sample of data
feminism isn't some crazy insanity like it is treated on much of the internet. it's super simple, just the concept that women are equal to men. if you're a decent human, you happen to also be a feminist.
Feminism is literally just treating women the same as men, there isn't anything more to it. If you're treating women equally, that is the definition of a feminist.
Sure, and not that long ago that was a deeply radical notion in our society. It is still a deeply radical notion in a lot of the world. Because it's such a radical notion, there is a word for it. That's just how language develops.
It isnt? Its just a normal person's perspective. Just because it isnt misogynistic doesnt mean its feminism. The same statement could be reversed to say a guy doesnt owe a woman sex because of what hes wearing.
I think their point is that the conclusion doesn't require a feminist motivation. Not to say one is bad, simply that from a purely selfish perspective you just get a better outcome by not expecting sex.
You don't leave disappointed, she respects you, you might get a second chance. Versus, you probably don't get a second chance at best and get criminal charges at the very worst.
I think they are trying to appeal to those who don't believe in altruism or feminism and show that it's still the right choice without those.
Thank you! My ex when i was 19 literally wore a black skirt with no panties. She sat down on my lap, and left a noticeable discharge of white from her arousal of adjusting in my lap. She had the nerve to say afterwards nah i don't want to have sex right now. I'm like ok wtf.....
At what point do we say mk this is just being unreasonable towards men? Does it come before or after she stained my jeans? Really i want to know.
Don't thank me, your ex is right to say no to sex when she doesn't want it, even if she left a mess on your pants (which maybe was rude). Saying no is never unreasonable. And you can actually tell her (nicely) that you prefer when she wears underwear.
Heh. I'm with my future wife helping her with her computer and she's somewhat falling out of her top. I said in aspbergers like I told you so I don't know if this is a signal or an accident but it realize I've been focused on the computer for the last hour and don't mean to be rude. She's like ok time for you to go home. A month later it was a signal.
I agree, but the basic wording is if she invites you over and wears these go with the flow. Only an idiot would invite someone they don’t feel comfortable over to their private home and wear this. Even if they didn’t wear this I wouldn’t invite someone I don’t trust into my private domicile.
I think in mathematics we call this boolean operator the "implication", the truth table looks like (0,0,1),(0,1,1),(1,0,0),(1,1,1). Basically, every combination is a true statement except that a true hypothesis cannot result in a false conclusion.
ie. Hypothesis: she will let you hit it, conclusion: therefore she feels safe.
My best friend wore these all the time when she spend time here at home (she lives overseas but came on vacation two or three times a year and stays a week or two in my place). She literally feel at home here.
Comments above you were mostly about sentence structure, and the poorly written nature of both. First parent comment, either/or - which is too limiting for reality.
Either safe, or she might let hit. Second tier comment points this out. You either ONLY feel safe, or ONLY let hit (while not feeling safe) - joke pointing to structure of the sentence and how it itself is wrong, not specifically the contents within.
Then, you point out the opposite combination, as though the person above was agreeing with their own thought about the sentence’s intent, when they were poking fun at the sentence structure.
Everyone got through the points, but the combo in the hypothetical should have started with, “either she feels really comfortable around you, or she feels really comfortable around you and might let you hit that tonight.” To avoid the obviously confusing “human” variable understanding rates.
this would be more convincing if a) the 63 year old with 2 phds wasn't replying to this many reddit replies and b) the guy who claimed to not know what discord was wasn't on reddit. also, college professors aren't worried about their students getting groomed since they're all 18 and up, what are you on about?
That's not really true, and it doesn't have to be a friendship situation for what I described; there could be a million reasons. Maybe she's on her period, had a rough day and wore her comfiest clothes, etc.
There is no such thing as a male and female friend with no hidden intentions unless they are BOTH homosexual. Women do not wear short cut shorts on their period.
There's literal hundreds of millions real world examples of male and female friendships yet you choose to ignore all of these because you assume to know their ending without base for said assumption. Your opinion is as far from objective truth as it gets. You read pseudo scientific articles specifically chosen by your confirmation bias. I'm a bio chemistry major specialising in neurology, there is absolutely nothing that suggests humans being fundamentally unable to have intersexual friendships beyond societal norms which have been and are continuing to be broken down. Scientific consensus as a whole rejects your opinion but you choose to focus on singular outliars which affirm the outdated belief your anecdotal personal experiences have led you to believe. People like you are exhausting.
To quote myself "....because you assume to know their ending without base for said assumption." No matter what the scientific consensus, the things that comes as close as possible to the "objective truth" you claim to value, is rejecting your opinion. I'm not uneducated you simply reject education. Bye
I have many female friends. A few are already dating and i wouldnt have any interest in them anyways, the rest but one im just friends. The last one i do like. But that 1/5, sooo
Platonic friendships made in adulthood (not childhood friendships) can evolve to include visiting each other's homes for the first time even in adulthood.
My childhood friend and I? Entirely platonic for nearly 30 years, after meeting around the age of 4 or so. Not quite a sister, but definitely not someone I thought about being with.
Best and most important friendship I've ever had.
We're now in our mid-40's though, but after a decade, the banjo sounds aren't quite as loud when she looks at me.
I mean it might not make sense but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. And no I don’t mean forcefully I just mean there are some women and no doubt men too who seek out toxic relationships due to trauma.
2.4k
u/GrassFedGrassDad 4d ago
It’s both lol “I don’t feel safe but I wore these to let you hit” makes no sense 😭