Barnard17

Mostly with you on this. I think the main problem stems from two things. Firstly the fact that Feminism contains such a broad scope of ideology that you get real whacknuts lumped in with perfectly reasonable people. Secondly that the term Equalist would be better to define people who want to see women on an equal footing to men (and it would also remove the gender bias from the name of the ideology) and mean the term Feminist is freed up to be used as a derogatory term for the broad shouldered, Adam's appled women supremacists without also being an attack on people with genuine, real world concerns.

If you want to grow your armpit hair, burn your bra's and run around the streets naked revelling of the glory that is the female form I whole heartedly encourage it. With the exception of bra burning (because I own none) I may even be tempted to join in, though my revelling at the glory of the female form will prove to be more a spectator sport.

If you think women should have equal pay (for equal work) and equal job opportunities, that where possible the Government should work to achieve this and enforce that companies can't deny work to a woman purely because they're a woman I whole heartedly agree. These are noble ideals that we should all work towards.

If you think it should be enforced through magic means that 50% plus of Government, company CEOs and other high end jobs should see female representation. If you think women should be career people (and don't mistake me for saying that they shouldn't be either) and that men should be (and don't mistake me for saying that men shouldn't be either) the ones wearing the pinnies and raising the children then I think you've gone off the deep end.

Everybody is different and everybody's situation alters based on so many factors. While I'm not against women in high powered job positions in the slightest it should be based on their skills and their merits entirely and nothing to do with what they have between their legs. The more qualified and competent person should work the job and the selection shouldn't be biased based on gender in either direction (my stance is the same for affirmative action and ethnic minorities). Some women want to be career people who work for a living, and they find and marry men who are perfectly happy taking on the role of house husband and I say good for them. Some women want to stay at home and raise the kids and find husbands who want well paid high powered careers to bring in the money and again I say good for them. Radical feminists make the same mistake that chauvinists do in decided that there are roles that anybody should be expected to conform to, instead of accepting that everybody is an individual with individual needs and wants.

__________________