I think that the the term “feminist” has a rather lax and incorrectly morphed connotation than it should have. Anyone can be a feminist. “Feminazi,” however, is a different term. One that, I believe, both sates the user’s assumed meaning-of-usage/understanding as well as the verbal-colloquial demand for a word that describes a woman of austere methods, beliefs and practices concerning the equality of women.
Quite often Feminazis can be quite rude to forward their own agendas. It's almost like they hate men. Misandry that is perpetrated by a female is no different than misogyny perpetrated by a male.
Since this is a sexual forum - I'll tie it to a sexual matter. There have been many movements against the sexual battery/rape (overall sexual molestation) of women. Obviously this is a good and needed cause. "No means no," as a result of these movements, has been a slogan for who not only strive to have equality in the work place and society; but also in more intimate moments. There's an underlying presumption that males always are ready for sex, wanting sex, and liking sex. I'd say that, for the most part, this seems to be true. But there are those out there who do not fit this mold. I was reading a woman's blog, unfortunately I don't have the link... and I'm not sure if it'd be okay to post it anyways, who is a dominatrix. She hails that "no means no" is her favorite slogan and that all males should abide by that. However, she doesn't seem to abide by her own adored slogan at all. She has written that the, paraphrasing here, "words of a weary man with no initial zeal to perform any sexual act will soon be quelled by my charm and my strap on." There were other entries that led me to think that she's a very "I don't take 'no' for an answer" type of dame. I'm appalled by this. I've never been a fan of gender roles or gender bias- so her being the aggressor/dominant figure is not the problem at all. It's the hypocritical dichotomy she has created. I'm sure that if I did this-or-that to a female that she would, eventually, respond to my sexual efforts in a "sexual" manner indicative of enjoyment (secreting lubricant, etc). But if it was premised that she didn't want to engage in any sexual activity- why should she have to go through the throes of adjusting to my sexual/physical advances? Why should anyone have to endure anyone's mal-timed advances?
You need to be logged in to comment