Exh Feninism

I support Woman's Power and women’s liberation 

I am an Anarcha Feminist and supporter of Radical Feminism (I am critical of sexism, sex roles and sex stereotypes) and Postfeminism (including Third Wave Individual feminism/Libertarian Feminism and Eco feminism -The liberation of women is the liberation of Mother Earth). We need to destroy the sexist bourgeoisie 

I am also more than generally a Feminist ally for many other forms of feminism (especially in helping all forms of feminism combat Toxic Masculinity) including JK Rowling feminism

I am Anti Sexist/Anti Misogany/Anti Transmisogny. 

Men and women are both treated unequal under patriarchy . I want us to abolish the patriarchy/male patriarchy to give all sexes and genders true equality

Feminism seeks to maximize everyone's potential unconstrained by gender.

Feminism is the movement to liberate women (including Transgender women) from patriarchy.

Feminism also seeks to liberates others who are affected by patriarchy including Transgender men, cisgender men,  and nonbinary people

All types of feminism at their core should be the view that women are people 

The Feminist movement in general was hijacked many decades ago by Liberal 2.0ers . So in light of that, I would like to see the 19th century alliance between libertarian feminism and radical liberalism be recovered to shift the Feminist movement in general away from Liberalism 2.0. This article reflects my thoughts on this and I echo that article.  

I support using judicial reform to eliminate male patriarchy/patriarchy from the legal system.  

This allows for the true emancipation of women from traditional social inferiority and economic exploitation. This means society should collectively assume the roles that mothers and wives were traditionally assigned (via remove private property and a classless society)

The Patriarchy allows Capitalists to both keep women workers underpaid by threatening to replace them with men, as well as also more exploit male workers by threatening to replace them with "less demanding" women. 

So, by intentionally putting man and woman workers at odds with each other , the bourgeoisie are preventing the proletariat from uniting against them.

The regular Capitalist exploitation women workers are also additionally exploited by domestic work (i.e "kitchen slavery"). So, in order to reach a true gender equality,  the burden of housework and caretaking should be taken away from women to collective social services, such as kindergartens, public kitchens, and public laundries.

I am opposed to family unit as the norm and the institution of marriage in the ways I describe in this blog. 

The family was fundamentally created as a way to secure and reinforce private property rights, and marriage is a form of legalizing the woman's status as a property. 

Instead of me advocating for the family unit, I advocate for a sexual liberation and Free Love and the responsibility of raising children being left to the whole community as an equal if not better option to children being raised by individual parents.

I do not support the family unit being completely abolished by coercion or force nor do I support child rearing to be done collectively by coercion or force. But I would be ok if , after a long-term process the family unit was naturally completely abolished without coercion or force more than ideally if decentralized free association replaces it) . I hope that decentralized free association replaces the family unit as the norm . 

However, this is completely dependent on the material conditions that a left wing revolution will bring about.

One of the ways of achieving our goals is by the creation of the special state-backed "Women's Committees", that would be run by dedicated Marxist Feminists. 

Their role would be to directly promote and defend women's' rights on the local and national level; propose and prepare gender equality related laws; and also agitate, educate, organize, and generally help working class women all across the country.

This is good because it is a real organic change from within 

I also support this type of Marxism Leninism Feminism

Mao: "Women hold up half the sky”

Vladimir Lenin: “We must create a powerful international women’s movement, on a clear theoretical basis”

I do not care for Bourgeois Feminism at all, because women Capitalists are oppressing the working women just as much as the males do. I take issue with Radical Feminists idea that the social status of women is somehow linked to their innate biological qualities, since I believe it is the direct product of the class society.

If feminism doesn't overcome Neoliberalism and Capitalism and break down the patriarchal system, it is incomplete and futile. We need to change the model of our system for people of all sexes/genders instead of having institutional parity for women. Socialism liberates women just as much as feminism

That is much better than parity and liberal feminism which gives women a false sense of equality and cause feminists to get complacent. 

If we do not change the model of accumulation, generation of wealth, how we distribute wealth, the value of work and abolish the patriarchal system, we will not have justice and true equality for women. The oppression of women is directly caused and reinforced by Capitalism in order to increase the exploitation of the working class.  

I believe that patriarchy and traditional gender roles are evil manifestations of involuntary coercive hierarchy and that the struggle against patriarchy is an essential part of class conflict and the struggle against the state and capitalism

I want patriarchy to be abolished and replaced by decentralized free association

We must defeat Capitalism to end this. Women's liberation is about ending exploitation, not diversifying the oppressor class.

I oppose patriarchy and the way the law, (to quote Mikhail Bukinin) "subjected women to the absolute domination of the man"

”Equal rights must belong to men and women so that women could become independent and be free to forge their own way of life". Mikhail Bakunin 

“an end of "the authoritarian juridicial family" and "the sexual freedom of women". Mikhail Bakunin

As a Individualist Feminist/Libertarian Feminist, I support individualism, personal autonomy, choice, consent , freedom from state sanctioned discrimination, equality under the law for all women

As an Anarcha Feminist , I see a few issues with politicized feminism and gender feminism so we need to abolish hierarchies including the male patriarchy/patriarchy (using gender acceleration and economic egalitarianism) so we don’t get wrapped up in politicized feminism or gender feminism 

The patriarchy is a direct result of a hierarchy, so that dissolving authoritarianism comes abolishing the patriarchy. I support the absolute equality of the genders, races, and social status

I support free choice for women. Women (or men for that matter) shouldn’t follow hive mind thinking and should be free to express themselves without obstruction or harming others. Moreover we should support Women's rights because our mothers are (or were if they died) women and they gave birth to us.

The male patriarchy/patriarchy is a direct result of the hierarchies, so by dissolving authoritarianism we can dissolve the patriarchy, the hierarchies and thus have absolute equality of the genders, races, and social status. This is something we should be striving for sooner rather than later

Politics cannot be understood without its feminism. We should place a special emphasis on constructing feminist discourse and action to play a big role in our political parties.  We need to link with different leftist feminist movements 

I support autonomous feminist strikes to advance equality between women and men. I support overthrowing the male/female order of things in the US and an alternative future with a greater presence of a feminist agenda and inevitably with a greater presence of women in all areas of our society (once we overthrow the the male/female order of things)

I support fourth wave feminist things to ensure this including ending sexist/sexual violence, fixing the care system by committing to a feminist economy. 

I wouldn’t mind seeing students nudged to take Sixth Wave Feminism and Seventh Wave Feminism courses being taught in educational institutions as a safety net for this if these changes did not work

As a postfeminist, I want a society that is no longer defined by rigid gender roles and expressions. I feel that views that separate the sexes and genders rather than unite them are more sexist than they are feminist.

I critically seek to understand the changed relations between feminism, pop culture and femininity. 

As a Postfeminist, I support critiquing in a healthy way second wave feminism and third wave feminism by questioning the binary thinking and essentialism of those movements, the sexuality vision of those movements , and the perception within those movements of the relationships between femininity and feminism. This critique is due to the collectivist morality nature of second wave feminism and third wave feminism  

I politely disagree with postfeminists who deny entirely the notion that absolute gender equality is necessary, desirable or realistically achievable but in an agree to disagree sort of way. But I can see where are coming from when I view things through their prism 

I second Deirdre English’s Washington Post Book World review of the Who Stole Feminism? book by Christie Hoff Somers. 

Like Nina Auerbach in the New York Times Book World review, I highly critically believe that the John M. Olin Foundation (which paid for the book's publication) should have found "a less muddled writer" for the task of writing the book Who Stole Feminism? book by Christie Hoff Somers. 

I like criminologist Samuel Walker feel that Sommers ignores the underlying issues in her critiques of gender feminism in her book . 

I am not against equity feminism, I am after all a male and I agree with a few ideas from equity feminism (see my view on the Equal Rights Amendment in this section for example)  . 

For example, like equity feminists I support equal treatment of men and women, and I can at least understand the line of reasoning of making no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. 

But I break with equity feminists on their indifference to inequalities perpetuated by employers, educational and religious institutions, and other elements of society as can be seen throughout this blog. 

However, some feminists feel that equity feminism is more connectable to the lives of typical American women (like getting typical American women to at least be a nuisance to the patriarchy) than the forms of feminism I support. 

Equity feminism brings together a diverse range of women, including feminists from Conservativism and Conservative feminism, Liberalism and Liberal feminism ,and Radical feminism 

I reject the claim advanced by critics that there is a rigid, monolithic feminist 'orthodoxy,

Like Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi , I criticize the obscurantism that is prevalent in academic feminist theorizing. I feel there is this sort of narrowing specialization and use of coded, elitist language of deconstruction or New Historicism and similar things that they're calling it these days, which to me is impenetrable and not really useful

I feel that academic feminism's love affair with deconstructionism is toothless, since I feel that it distracts from constructive engagement with the problems of the public world

Some of my favorite postfeminist works and movies include The Devil Wears Prada, Xena: Warrior Princess, The Princess Diaries, Bridget Jones Diary, Ally Mcbeal, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Sex and the City. I love the postfeminism message that those works and movies convey

I support the diversity of families, motherhood, the right to conciliation also from feminism or the need to point out how all of the essential care and social reproduction work fell invisibly on the shoulders of women. Feminism defending BIPOC and Transgender people is unavoidable and we need feminism to take an unequivocal path towards the power dispute

Feminism should be the main agenda in politics due to the majorities our political parties represent. We have to view our political future with purple glasses on

We need to promote the historical claim of all women of their full rights and at the same time, undertake the necessary construction of the society of the future. 

This is essential to incorporate men, since it also guarantees rights to them, with the belief that feminism and democracy, feminism and freedom, feminism and justice are always synonymous with each other. We need to end the disputes by the right of feminist democracy

We need to deepen the mainstreaming of feminism in the structure of our organizations, especially our political organizations. 

We need diplomatic and triangulation dialogue and practices to radliberally confront on the streets and in the institutions those who have made the rights of women, migrant ,BIPOC people and LGTBQ people in the community their enemy. 

We must also do this by paying special attention to the consequences that this above context has on the people within our political organizations who, as part of these above groups, fight on the front lines of politics

We need to recognize the task of feminism of our political organizations in constructing state leadership that defines challenges of the future

We need to put life at the center as to fight against all forms of sexist violence that women suffer. This is to articulate a response to the reactionary violence that is unleashed in the face of the struggle for justice, and it’s to defend the needed redistribution of wealth and to ensure along the way, that no one is left behind or denied their rights. Putting life at the center tells us about a feminism for the social majorities

We should support a feminism that has memory located from bodies , from the class, from desire, from borders etc We should support feminism that aspires to build itself up from margins but which also fundamentally that aspires to build the future of our country (the US) with clear constituent and constitutional vocation

I believe gender equality needs to improve in politics too. Unequal representation of women in politics is the cause of our democratic deficit. 

Gender equality must be a principal which guides political action which is why I endorse mechanisms which allow women and men to apply to internal political leadership positions and in popular election positions. 

Not only do I endorse more women in the representation of the political parties but also in forums, seminars, training schools, and similar instances which give concrete signals based on equality and non discrimination

I am against Women erasure.  Cisgender Women should always be called women and categorized as women/females and NOT be called or categorized as birthers or vagina havers. The word WOMEN being erased and especially being CALLED LABELS like birthers or vagina havers IS SEXIST AND DEHUMANIZING. Being a woman is not a feeling, there is more to that. 

I will always use the term woman. And nobody can stop me. It’s almost like Transgenderism is erasing women . The right restricts womens rights to have abortions and the Liberal 2.0ers and pro Transgender factions of the Left erase women. . See this for more

But let us not forget Simone de Beauvoir’s notable statement that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” On the “gender critical” worldview a person is born a woman in virtue of their reproductive capacities. On an actual gender critical worldview, we can acknowledge that a trans man is a man because of the identification processes that is critical to his authentic self-becoming. 

It is not about just “feeling” one way or another in the fast and loose sense that a person “feels” hungry or “feels” tired. It is a non reducible phenomenon that cannot be reduced to any specific set of “feelings” but encompasses a person’s complete mode of being.

Even though I do not support referring to cisgender mothers as ‘birthers’/birthing persons and I will never refer to a woman who is a parent as a birther/birthing person (since referring to mothers as birthers strips women away from a big part of what they do, and is basically an erasure), I will note that in mammals, "mother" is the label, first and foremost, for the organism which supplied the egg, gestated, and gave birth to an offspring. that is the LITERAL meaning of the word mother. 

All of the other uses of the term mother, whether it is figurative, metaphorical, or otherwise non-literal meanings of the word are built from that.

We have additional modifier words to show when the literal meaning is not in play, including surrogate, adoptive, step-, foster, -in-law, etc, for the exact reason in that the literal meaning of the word is, "one who gives birth."

Moreover the term “Birthing person" is at the very least logically consistent, even if it is annoying. "Fathers who give birth" sounds like nonsense, an empty set unless we are talking about seahorses.

They are attempting to create an underclass of surrogate "birthing people", so that the wealthy don't have to suffer the ‘indignity’ of birthing an infant. So that is accomplished by decoupling the act of giving birth from raising a child

If the government employees are going to be forced to use one of these terms, then it is worse for them to be forced to say something that most of them know to be false, instead of something which is merely annoying but accurate (birthing person or birther). You want to see dystopian, the government forcing people to lie is dystopian.

People can say whatever they want about themselves, but when it comes to compelling others to play along, and the goal here is to compel, beginning with government employees since they very easy to compel , we can grow more skeptical.

The bigger issue is that we have to find a different word for social gender and biological sex.

We do have different words for them, but the real issue is that some people believe it is possible to change from one gender to the other, other people do not believe that, and there is never going to be total agreement one way or the other. So no new terminology is going to satisfy both sides in the foreseeable future.

I always wonder about Natal women with Y chromosomes who gave birth, are they considered women to TERFs?

The word Woman means adult female human, and the word female means animal with large non-motile gametes, or the type of organs that are associated with large non-motile gametes like the Müllerian system (i.e. female genitalia). 

These are usually produced by XX chromosomes but not every time. All humans are technically animals, see this and this for more on ‘humans are technically animals’ point

Think about how women have always been seen for thousands of years in that you can observe a kid at birth and in almost every case know whether or not they are a boy or a girl. So if you know they are a girl then you know they will grow up to be a woman. The natural genitalia are what defines this; what you don't need to know are their chromosomes.

Any rational person can see that this behavior by this NYC medical official is simply due to the fact that (Liberal 2.0) whites are far likelier to buy into this birther or birthing person type of SJW nonsense language (that consists of slightly more than euphemisms for womanhood) than actual minorities would be.

The apologists for the term "birther/birthing people" say that "birther/birthing people" was coined so as to avoid offending the mothers who identify as fathers.

The NYC medical official in the linked article above’s biggest mistake is her applying the term haphazardly along with the term mother, treating those terms as synonyms, with no self awareness of why one term might be used instead of the other term.

Interdifferentialism is misguided and wrong. Interdifferentialism is part of the Male patriarchal system of sexism where men fully neutralize even the remotest of sexual differences which is just as prejudicial against women as traditional sexism

It is wrong because it means that women who are proud of and want to keep their femininity (or at least a little of that) are coerced or forced by men to shed their femininity so they can be more accepted into the arena of public life. Women should be fully accepted as they are in the arena of public life with and without their femininity and everywhere in between otherwise it is sexism. 

Universalist feminism falls into a trap by saying sex/gender is a social construct since that is playing into masculine values without allowing that there might be small differences between genders at least in some areas

I support feminism where even the remotest of sexual/gender difference plays a public domain role and upholds feminine rights

This is good because it recognizes both sexes by acknowledging the equal value of their distinct and unique traits no matter how small they are, regardless if they are a social construct or not. I touch on a similar and related point here

But in ways that are generally compatible with gender voluntaryism, postfeminism, Anarcha Feminism and the Queer Theory. 

Women are oppressed due to biology, not identity

Anarchy newspaper (and other GA endeavors) not too long ago made an effort to integrate what could be called an "anarcha-feminist" or anti-patriarchy critique into the overarching anti-civilization perspective. 

This is a good because even giving lip service to patriarchy as a evil pillar of civilization actually goes a long way to opening up the anti-civ perspective 

This makes it feel more inclusive of the experiences and perceptions of women who are living in and resisting the patriarchal control

This integration is an real attempt to address what some feminists (anarchist feminists etc) have defined as a "male dominated" and an "irrelevant to women" green anarchist movement, in a way that does not compromise an anti-civ analysis. 

If we take this to another level, an anti-patriarchy critique is as relevant to men as to women (and relevant to all persons who identify as in between, like a lot of people have done throughout pre-history). 

I touch on this below in my Men’s Liberation part but Anti-patriarchy is not a woman’s issue. Women are not the only ones who suffer under the heavy hand of enforced sex roles, division of labor, emasculation of violence, etc. 

Conversely, the devaluation of the feminine archetype could be seen as a parallel to the mind/body split that have enabled so much of humanity to take a drastic turn in evolution toward domestication and civilization. This "totality" affects women and men in different ways. 

However they could not be compared in terms of quantity. 

Liberal feminism seeks to empower itself at the expense of men which is relate-able to me,  but has drawn criticism from some postfeminists (and I touch on this elsewhere). So nuance is always a good gauge

Feminism has to go beyond things like coercing men into deferring to women at all times, as reparations for thousands of years of patriarchal rule 

In Anarchism, idpol praxis gradually seem more and more simplistic and single-issue, and so Liberal feminism tactics start to feel authoritarian.

It is ok to still be pod about male behaviors that revealed a lifetime of male patriarchy and major advantages but you can eventually decide to interact with sexism in an entirely different way. 

I understand where the rage of some of the radical women in our feminist movements comes from, and I see it as potentially a step toward truer liberation for them. 

As for the male dominance of the Green Anarchism "movement", no doubt there is a dominance in pure numbers of men over women involved actively as self-defined green anarchists. 

This certainly doesn’t mean that the ideas behind a lot of Green Anarchist activity are not shared by many anarchist/radical women, in the same way that those ideas are shared by many people outside the militant anarchist sphere. 

Just like with issues of biotechnology and agriculture's threat to food security, when I write about issues of particular interest to women, like the loss of control over their health, childbirth, sexuality, body image, etc., I do that from an anti-industrial/anti-civ perspective, and I find that people truly agree with that perspective. 

It is good to identify with green anarchy, so that women etc could consider the relevance of anti-civ ideas. Green Anarchism speaks about the "totality" of civilization with a specifically woman's voice. 

Eco-feminism ideas are good at first glance because those ideas most closely resemble the anti- patriarchal, anti-civilization critique. However a lot of that critique is absolutely not compatible with anarchy. 

Glorification of Goddess-worshipping cultures as an indication that a matriarchal society is somehow more preferable to patriarchy, is a bit too much. 

This isn't much different from the pro-statist liberal feminist idea that a woman president would ‘save the world’. Some of that is even colonialist (in its co-optation of indigenous wisdom), or "essentialist" in the way that it defines womens' power in terms of their reproductive capacity. 

As an anarchist I would feel alienated from much of ecofeminism, but attracted to some of it also. 

Most self-identified male Green Anarchists don’t dismiss the institution of patriarchy as irrelevant to anarchism or primitivism. 

There has an opening of such an analysis, but that's actually not the same thing. The absence of such an analysis has in actuality been a product of living in a patriarchal world, as are so many things in all our movements, and I believe that many Green Anarchist men have come to recognize this .

This recognition has seemed to happen partly in response to the insistence of radical women, and while I don’t care for a lot of their tactics, 

I am actually really pleased to see that those on the receiving end (which is not all males, by the way) have not turned away from what I believe to be the issue at hand: the lack of an anti-patriarchy perspective. One of my concerns was that the questionable but rationalized, left wing authoritarian, Liberal 2.0 tactics of some women would cause a backlash against feminist critiques, and obscure the inherent feminism in anarchy. 

Some liberal feminists, rightfully or wrongfully don’t care about effects of their justifiable feminist rage, and when it's aimed at certain sectors of the population, some of them still don't. 

But when that feminist rage is targeted at people striving for total liberation, however reactionary they may seem when confronted on their major advantages (aren't most of us?), 

I am pretty sure at this point that if we are serious about what we mean we are trying to break down and recreate, in terms of fighting patriarchy we should do so together. 

This is not to say that "seperatism" as a method of unlearning patriarchy can’t be useful for both men and women. I am a staunch believer in "men against sexism" type groups, and "women's safe spaces". I like the idea of women's' solidarity and "sisterhood" (although there is some power tripping there), and although the notion of "brotherhood" gives me pause , I am not closed to the potential for liberation there. 

Also, I am not talking here about confronting sexist violence, misogyny, or homophobia ~ as these were never issues of contention in terms of having tolerance for such behaviors. I'm virtually zero-compromise when it comes to that. 

As a negative pillar of civilization, the effects of patriarchy likely/probably won’t be dismantled or eradicated from our societies anytime soon. 

As with the lingering effects of domestication, some aspects of religion  agriculture, linear time, and symbolic thought, we are facing a big challenge in identifying, let alone unlearning the ways that patriarchy has alienated women from nature, each other, and their own internal wildness. 

Much has been written and said about the effects of patriarchal rule on women today, and I hope to see that discourse continue. Maybe we are ready to hear about that from men and talk about it with them. It's one thing for men to mention patriarchy in the list of institutions that comprise civilization. 

It's a whole other thing to define what effects that the patriarchy has had on the autonomy and social evolution of men in civilized societies, and to debate how we (men and women) can overcome it together, through our daily interactions, in addition to the ways that we fight the against the state, support one another when the state fights back, and develop collective projects that subvert the institutions that control women

Anti-patriarchy is not an "issue"to take up but instead is a consciousness that should really underline lives in the struggle against the forces of civilization to revive ancient ways, while realizing an entirely new way of being in a post-domesticated world. This photo is an example of patriarchy in action

I echo Lilith’s critiques in this link of Feral Faun/Wolfi Landstreicher’s critiques of feminism and I feel Lilith greatly countered every antifeminist point made by Feral Faun/Wolfi Landstreicher 

No socialistic movement can be successful without significant participation of women. In the on going people's wars, women form the bulk of the most dedicated and heroic fighters while men are more likely to be troubled and desert in face of repression.

In Nepal, women squad leaders rightfully encouraged other women to publicly beat and humiliate rapists, abusive and drunk husbands, adulterers, etc

In Peru, the ruling class was so afraid of women’s power that stories circulated about the so called cruelty and abusiveness of women guerrillas who, supposedly, killed men who cried or were cowards. See "Shining Path Women: So Many and So Ferocious" from The NY Times.

Long live proletarian feminism. Left Wing socioeconomics (i.e like the ones I support) are Feminism and they are one in the same

The the thing that sticks out like a sore thumb with non Marxist feminism (and any other idpol branch) is that non Marxist feminism is focused on what is undoubtedly an authentic issue on an interpersonal level and expands it to be the sole basis of a person’s political framework, which we see is a dead-end. 

Class is, at the end of the day a better than you would think and refreshing category to organize around due to the progress that such organization requires is material, instead of "make individual people not be prejudiced". The fact of the matter is there is no automatic or magical way to stop misogyny ever, so we best add being laser focused on leveling the playing field on a material level to our diverse feminist repertoire for womens liberation

I am an anti sexual abuse activist. I am also a lifelong fan of Law & Order SVU as it is a great guide to fighting against sexual abuse

I am a early seasons MWC Marcy (fellow feminist in Married with Children) like feminist. I am glad that Marcy put NO MA’AM in their place throughout the show’s run (especially in the early seasons)

I hope Marcy influenced NO MA'AM (from Married with Children) to become less and less bigoted and more and more feminist (to the point where I hope in the 2000s, her influence on NO MA’AM causes NO MA’AM to become a forth or fifth wave feminist group)

I echo Sheryl Sandberg “We need women at all levels, including the top, to change the dynamic, reshape the conversation, to make sure women's voices are heard and heeded, not overlooked and ignored”

I celebrate the choice of and have great respect for women and men who choose to be house spouses and parents (even though I believe that being a house wife is like being a kitchen slave, evil and wrong). 

This is because I am a Left Libertarian and I celebrate the freedom of choice of everyone even when they make choices that I majorly disagree with (like women being a housewives)

When we abolish the family unit as the norm (which may very well lead to the family unit being completely abolished naturally and I would be ok with that more than ideally if decentralized free association replaces it) they will be free from having to decide whether to be house spouses or successful career people. I hope that decentralized free association replaces the family unit as the norm

Some women in my immediate family chose to be housewives and mothers and I celebrate the choice for and have great respect for that choice they made. 

I lavishly celebrate the choice of and have infinite respect for women and men who choose to become successful career people.  Some women in my immediate family were/are chose to be successful career women and I lavishly celebrate that choice for them too.

I do not claim that there are only one valid choice for women or men . Both of those choices are equally allowed by freedom of choice

It is not feminism for stay at home women/moms to leech off their husbands or boyfriends while just getting paid

If women want to pursue higher education to find a husband then they should be allowed to do so for those reasons

I am fine with Masculine Feminism.

While I am against regressiveness and I want everyone, especially women to get a higher education for genuine and non regressive reasons, I realize that it’s their choice to use higher education to get a husband if they choice to do so. 

Moreover that higher education will help empower them career wise even if they got that education for the wrong reasons.   Freedom of choice

Margaret Thatcher said it best “If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman. Women are as good if not better than men at working because women bring sensitivity, compassion, their own unique brand of creativeness and similar qualities to jobs they do. Margaret Thatcher said it best “If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.

Self defense how to guide for women can be found here (credit BLOODLUST: A feminist journal against civilization)

I support aspects of Postcolonial feminism. As a Postcolonial feminism I try to account for the way that racism and the long lasting political, economic, and cultural effects of colonialism affect non-white, non-Western women in the postcolonial world. 

Postcolonial feminism incorporates antiracism , black feminism and indigenous movements into the mainstream western feminist movements

I critique the universalizing tendencies of mainstream feminist ideas since I feel that women living in non-Western countries are misrepresented.

I feel that by using the term "woman" as a universal group, women are subsequently only defined by their gender and not defined by their social class, race, ethnicity, or sexual preference.

I seek to incorporate the ideas of indigenous and other Third World feminist movements into mainstream Western feminism. 

I believe that feminism in Third World countries isn’t imported from the First World, but that it originates from internal ideologies and socio-cultural factors.

I concern myself with evaluating how the different colonial and imperial relations throughout the 19th century have impacted the way in which particular cultures view themselves.

I sort of critique both Western feminism and postcolonial theory, but I also want to address the key issues within both fields.

Unlike mainstream postcolonial theory, which focuses on the lingering impacts that colonialism has wrought on modern economic and political institutions of countries, I am interested in analyzing why the postcolonial theory does not address issues of gender. 

We have to illuminate the tendency of Western feminist thought applying its claims to women around the world since the scope of feminist theory has limits

 So we should account for the perceived weaknesses within both the postcolonial theory and within Western feminism. Colonization occupies many different spheres within the postcolonial feminist theory; it might refer to the literal act of acquiring lands or it might refer to forms of social, discursive, political, and economic enslavement in a society.

The metaphor of "the master's tools" and "the master's house" can explain that western feminism is failing to make positive change for third world women since it uses the same tools that are used by the patriarchy to oppress women. 

Western feminist literature denied the differences between women and also discouraged embracing them. The differences between women should be used as the strengths to create a community in which women use their different strengths to support each other.

Western feminists write about Third World women as a composite, singular construction which is arbitrary and limiting. 

These women are depicted in western feminist writings as victims of masculine control and of traditional culture without information being incorporated into it about historical context and cultural differences with the Third World. 

This creates a dynamic where Western feminism serves as the norm against which the situation in the developing world is analyzed.

Our primary initiative should be to allow Third World women to have agency and a voice within the feminist realm.

Western feminism is lacking when it is applied to non-western societies. Western feminists can be accused of theoretical reductionism in terms of Third World women. 

My issue with western feminism is that western feminism spends a lot of time in ideological "nit-picking" instead of it formulating strategies to redress the highlighted problems. 

Ethnography can be vital to solving problems, and freedom does not mean the same thing to all the women of the world.

I do not go as far as other Postcolonial feminists in rejecting the idea of a global sisterhood but I do take postcolonialism feminism into account when liberating women in third world countries

The examination of what truly binds women together is needed in order to understand the goals of the feminist movements along with the similarities and differences within the struggles of women worldwide.

I am a postcolonial feminist critique to traditional Western feminism in order to strive to understand the simultaneous engagement in multiple yet distinct but intertwined emancipatory battle.

There are a very few feminist views that I am against 

I am against that Lego complaint years ago by feminists (they used feminists in a focus group who approved of that ‘offensive’ ad so feminists okayed that Lego ad they later retracted)

I do not believe all men are rapists. That is a hurtful smear and stereotype and not true at all. Saying any identity is more likely to commit a crime than other identities is bigotry and needs toend

I do not think that video game designer from Puerto Rico was misogynist or should have been fired for his gamer gate comments

I am against feminists downplaying the extremism of Valerie Solanas 

I do not see the sexism in Jurassic World that sone feminists see 

I do not believe that urinals are sexist and we should not get rid of urinals to appease feminists

The difference between sex and gender can be found here

I support women’s suffrage

I do not condone the erasure of females and female-only spaces, sex-based oppression , or critical thinking being silenced.

Denying the legitimacy of trans people’s identities is a denial of phenomenological reality, including of the primacy of identity in self determining how people come to understand their own genders. 

We are required to recognize how cis normativity operates in society to link gender to a rigid biological determinism that tells you that how you were born dictates what your gender is instead of recognizing the plasticity of human behavior to be liberated of these rigid rules of how we must identify depending on how we were born.

To be truly critical of gender leads us to decouple gender from reductive physiological systems such as the question of whether or not people can get pregnant. 

Patriarchal gender invokes rules and norms that in an authoritarian way tells you that the genitals one has at birth determine what gender a person can have and how they can express their gender. Any legit criticism of gender needs to recognize that this is a biological essentialism that has no room for it in modern society.

Recognizing the reality of trans identities doesn’t include a denial that people with certain reproductive systems are targeted in certain types of oppression. Yet criticizing gender in a systematic fashion also requires us to recognize that trans people are also oppressed by a cis-normative system of power that tries to deny they are who they say they are.

If we must use equity in our current patriarchal/male patriarchal system until we a abolish the patriarchy/male patriarchy, then until that abolishment, women should get paid $10 for every dollar men get paid. 

But realistically I’ll settle for women always get paid equally to men. I support income equality 

I do not agree with things in the Wikipedia article about Gender Bias on Wikipedia. No one is stopping women from becoming Wikipedia editors and writing articles about women or other subjects. Wikipediocracy proves this. 

It is just as easy for women to jump in and become regular Wikipedia editors as it is for men to do so and saying otherwise is an insult to women users

I was a Wikipedia user and part of Women in Red, Gender Gap Task Force for over a year where I helped improve coverage of women in articles and helped all users out when they asked me to help them

I am against the punchaterf hashtags and calls for violence against TERFs. Those hashtags are woman hating , evil and disgusting and should be deleted on site . Twitter is wrong to let them stay up and proves they are hypocrites

There is nothing wrong with a husband or wife kissing their spouse or child on the head while they are sleeping.

MeToo should adopt the innocent til proven guilty guideline along with forgiving sexual abusers. MeToo also is filled with hypocrisy which is an issue