View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

[Opinions] Re: frankly ...
Eh, nevermind, I don't think you understand what I meant. We just don't agree.- mirfak

This message was edited 6/2/2018, 11:31 PM

Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

late to the party ...But wanted to say that from things I've seen, at least online, here included, a lot of so-called feminists seem to devalue stereotypically "feminine" things/traits ... unless a boy or man is displaying/espousing them. They hate it when a little girl likes pink dresses and dolls, but they're over the moon over the idea of a little boy insisting on wearing a dress to play house. The reverse is often true too, but seems less glaring. This is yet another reason I don't like to align myself with a lot of self-identified feminists, because I see some hypocrisy in a lot of the things they say, that they of all people ought to be aware of but don't seem to be.
vote up1
I agree with you about - when people move the boundary on boy-ness to include more feminine-associated things, in order to try to match the fairness of making "good" masculine things like strength gender-neutral ... yet they still accept that those are "feminine" things, when they are for girls. As if they want to bring girls "up" by showing that feminine things are good enough for boys, instead of just de-gendering "feminine" things.

This message was edited 6/4/2018, 2:35 PM

vote up1