Maybe it would match if you are an radfem, too. Feminism doesn’t mean you are a woman and support woman things.
Feminism is also about supporting equality in our society. That could be men, too.
I can’t imagine myself in a relationship with someone who identifies with any ideology so strongly they define themselves as that.
How radical are we talking? I might have an issue with “eliminating all men” radical, but I’m good with “Michelangelo is a party dude” kind of radical.
I have no clue with a radfem is. Don’t be a weirdo
Radical femminist
Nah. Never stick your dingdong in crazy. I did that 7 times already. I know I’d do it an 8th time as well.
Crazy is so good in bed though. You just need an escape plan and a go bag. And wrap that fucker up because you never ever ever want to breed crazy.
Well, maybe an 8th, but DEFINITELY NOT A 9TH!
Dingdong wants what dingdong wants. Don’t deny your primal instincts.
As a seperate top-level answer: no, would not pursue a romantic relationship with a woman who repeats sexist assertions about men. Because i am both a man and a feminist, and my several decades of happy married life have taught me that compatability of strongly held beliefs is a key to romantic happiness.
I would also not encourage the young men and women i know to either espouse sexist positoons or pursue potential partners who hold such beliefs. And i would probably also ramble for a bit about how all labels are imperfect and you should not necessarily dismiss someone just becsuse of a label.
If you want to date someone who describes themselves as a “radical feminist”, a date might be a good way to discern if they are an “all men are evil” feminist or a “men are awesome and also victims of the patriarchy” feminist.
You might not wanna hear this:
Depends on your definition of radfem and on how well we fit and how they are
- if we don’t match, nah
- if their vibe is completely off to the point I’m not sure I’ll be alive after that week, nah
- if their beliefs get in the way of a relationship, nah
Otherwise sure I guess? This a really vague question so if you are more specific, I could get you a better answer.
What definition of radfem are you referring to?
Radical femminist
You’re probably gonna have to be more specific.
Radical feminist can refer to:
A hardcore feminist who goes to every rally and protest, donates money to things like planned parenthood and so on. - probably a cool person, but might have their head up their ass. However, their heart is probably in the right place regardless of their personality.
A misandrist. Fake feminist who hates men and believes men are the source of the world’s problems. - almost certainly an asshole and should be avoided.
A terf, aka “trans-exclusionary radical feminist”. Also a fake feminist. They don’t believe trans women are women and seek to exclude them. - asshole, avoid at all costs; tend to call themselves “gender critical” because the real feminists got tired of their bullshit and started kicking them out.
Yes and what exactly is a radical feminist to you
The ones who say all men are potential rapists. Would you date one of that kind?
I think you’re misunderstanding what feminists mean when they say, “all men can be rapists”. It’s alright, I used to be in your shoes too, sometimes people are just bad at explaining themselves, so lemme try and explain my understanding of the statement.
They’re not saying that men are rapists, what they’re trying to say is that men have been trained to pursue relationships in a way that can be coercive and can lead to rape without the man realizing he’s doing anything wrong (I’ll go into how a man could “”“accidentally”“” rape someone near the end).
A good example of this is “Baby, it’s cold outside”. The song is about a man trying to convince a women to stay the night with him. The song takes the form of the woman finding reasons to leave, while the man finds reasons for her to stay. This was because, at the time, it was considered improper for a single lady to stay the night with a gentleman who’s also single; they might get up to something, the horror!
Now, the song portrays this coersion as being possibly consensual; that, in the context of the song, the woman might want to stay, but feels compelled to go through the list of reasons she should leave so it isn’t “improper”. However, if you’re engaging in roleplay like that, you need to set clear boundaries before you do, otherwise you risk someone getting hurt. Furthermore, standards have changed. It’s no longer improper (in most places) for a woman to spend the night at a man’s house, nor is it acceptable to try and convince a woman (or anyone for that matter) to sleep with you if they’ve said “no”. Again, it is coercive, and you cannot derive consent from coersion unless it was clearly defined beforehand as part of role-play (consent can also be revoked, if someone tells you “stop”, you stop).
Despite that, cultural momentum means that many young men are still taught that if a woman says “no”, that just means you need to give her a better excuse to say “yes” (“she’s just playing ‘hard-to-get’”).
You might be able to see how this is a bad thing, yes?
That is what I believe they’re referring to. It’s not that they think every man is a rapist just waiting to strike, it’s that most men have been trained to “just try harder” if their lady friend says “no”.
Edit: if I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.
My question it’s, if you would date someone like that? Not what it’s or not a true femminist or if men are rapists or not, this is a men question in the first place. You as a man would date someone like that?
I like your example with that song. If we interpret the scene as both acting out the behaviour the’ve been taught, they are both reinforcing each others behaviours. Assuming that both wanted to be together but there was an established “dance” around it. They can only work together. What if one (and only one) of them had not done their part? If he hadn’t, she would have left, possibly feeling that he didn’t really want her to stay. If she hadn’t, she risks being labeled “easy”. In both cases, again if we assume they both actually wanted to stay and feel good about it, they don’t both get what they want.
So… if we now, as a conscious effort from society, are trying to get away from this bad system, it seems to me that the only way is a gradual de-escalation from both sides. It also seems to me that if we only tell men to never “pursue”, but do nothing about the “hard to get”-behaviour, then men who follow the new instructions or script will be left with no chance to meet someone.
What I think is missing from the discourse today is that it’s a hard sell to young men to change their behaviour, if doing so is punished by the same people asking them to change. We’re caught in a stalemate where we need to help each other simultaneously, with mutual understanding, trust, and care. In that very sensitive process, trying to move it forward by telling someone they are a potential rapist is probably just making men dig deeper trenches and refuse to listen. Some people want this, I believe. The conflict that lets you feel righteous anger and resentment. But it’s not helping.Feminists dont say things like “all men are potential rapists”, save for those who also say “all women are potential rapists.”.
An actual (traditional) feminist would say something like “society encourages rapy behavior from men”, which is functionally the same but rhetorically a far different animal. Women and men who say that men are categoryly dangerous are also implicitly telling boys that they are bad just because they are boys.
Sexist statements about how women are good and men are bad isnt feminism, it’s just sexism in disguise.
I’m not a feminist (in the context of this discussion) and even I would say men are far more inclined biologically and culturally to engage in rapey behaviour. To the extent that rapey behaviour goes against our other human values (that men also hold and fight to protect) then that IS something you could say is “bad” about maleness. Same as aggression. It’s self evident the males of species are more inclined to physical violence. But such inclinations are overcome by good parenting and good society. But they very much exist. Look at pretty much every other mammal species to see how biology operates.
Except that it ISNT self-evident. There are plenty of mammals with no apparent bias as to which sex is more prone to violence, more if you exclude the minority of mammals where only one sex has a natural weapon.
You might have a slightly better case if we were just talking primates. But not by a lot.
There is nothing like right or wrong, everyone live their life in different ways, different stokes for different folks, I just want to know the opinion of the people here in Lemmy. If someone want to hang out with a radfem it’s none of my business.
Don’t stick your dick in crazy!
How very 2013 misogynist of you
Sure, why not?
deleted by creator
I don’t see any reason why not. What’s your issue?
I don’t have any issue, just want to know what men of Lemmy would do.
