OP: There are two kinds of feminism.
Gender feminism, which is what 99% of what you hear in the media. This is actually a small number of highly dysfunctional and often rabid activists
who appear to have significant psychological problems with their father or other male figures and authority figures. There is a fairly massive overlap
of political socialism in that sector, and a breeding nest in modern colleges of this cult-like combined paradigm.
Equity feminism, which is what nearly any sane woman would qualify for, meaning they simply believe that humans should be treated as humans and it is
injust to treat someone doing the same thing differently solely because of their gender. By its nature, the people in this group tend to be more sane
and more moderate, so are seldom found evangelizing to the world, and since they're not making noise in the media, are often literally unknown.
There is a sort of analogy in religion, where the first group is more like the evil-everywhere everyone is going to hell there's wicked plots all
over, while the second group is more like the churches of people that mostly just are very kind to each other and help the community where they
I once read a book called "Who Stole Feminism?" At first I was a little bored but it ended up being really fascinating. I had never heard of the
difference in the two 'kinds' of feminism before that. I grew up having zero respect for 'feminists' which is too bad because it seemed like the women
who made things like voting and birth control possible were awesome, but clearly I had "bad role models" for it in my generation. My daughter is 17
and she has the same view I had at her age, despite we'd never even spoken about it until recently.
There are plenty of unequal, injustice elements in our culture toward men, too, and it is as much the responsibility of women to improve those as it
is the responsibility of men to improve the situation for women: these genders are designed to work together and the culture is about all of us.
I might add that the screenwriting for media is so bad that I am prone to think that drug-addicted depraved cretins are doing most of it, and this
gives the impression that all people but especially women are the most horrifically malicious mercenary fickle hyenas ever -- it's like a character
assassination even worse than the 1970s when most the women on TV shows were pretty blondes who would stand there wailing while some man did all the
fighting to try and save them. At least then, women were just stupid, useless and weak. Now in media they are very often walking evil instead, and
those are the heroines of the shows -- I can't tell you how many movies I literally stop watching because the main character is a woman who I utterly
despise 20 minutes in.
When we start pushing human rights rather than niche-segment rights, nearly everyone will be on the same side and we're likely to get a lot more
PS: I think a man with an interest in swords is plenty cool. I'm in the middle of writing a fiction novel all about that actually. I also think that
people should be honest on profiles. I think if someone posted something like, "I'm kind of a loner, I don't really like living on top of someone most
the time, but I do like to have someone around sometimes, and I really miss having regular sex, and I'd be willing to ignore a woman being
fat/homely/poverty stricken if she were just a decent person I could live with and talk to intelligently and have sex with at least weekly if not
more" -- that would be a great profile nobody would write, but how big a % of the single male population would that actually be uncannily accurate
edit on 18-9-2013 by RedCairo because: added a PS