He’s got a girlfriend, 1 kid and twins on the way. He hit his pregnant GF after she hit him and smacked his kid for being naughty.
He cheats on his GF every weekend with other women, stays out for long weekends after getting drunk all night on a friday and not coming back till Sunday. He’s always been a womanizer.
Anyway, he considered himself a feminist as he beleives in equality for men and woman. I said he’s not a feminist; it’s like saying if I ahve mashed potato with my steak dinner then I’m a vegetarian.
Can you be a feminist, even though you’re a cheating wife beater?
from your comment, and in the most simplistic interpretation of what feminism is, he is a feminist. he hit her after she hit him. Equality.
He’s still an asshole and a shitty person that doesn’t respect their partner enough to not cheat on them or hit them. I’ve known guys like this and i just keep my distance. I think it’s better to not have friends at all than to have friends like that.
I’m a huge fan of Bill Burr, and one of his routines is all about domestic violence. Talking about how ‘there’s no reason to hit a woman’. It’s gold
side bar: i have a wacky anti-gov friend what was telling me that he read this whole bit about how the rothchild’s invented the feminist movement in the 60s for the sole purpose of having women join the workforce. the motive behind that was to collect more income taxes. I’ll have to do some more research, but it makes you question all the ‘problems’ we see on mainstream media.
So the conversation I have with him will go along the obtuse lines of what is feminism and if he’s a feminist.
Sure it sounds like justice to hit ur woman back, but it doesn’t sound like equality…? What about cheating and not respecting your partner and mother of your children… does that contrevenve feminist attitudes?
you first have to ask - what are feminist attitudes? does it even matter? Your friend interpreted it as the simple way in which i described it.
im not saying what he did was right. quite the contrary; it was abuse. A terrible thing, especially since his wife was pregnant.
What I’m saying is that it doesnt have to be lumped under being feminist or non-feminist. That’s the wrong way to look at it because it can be argued in either direction. Feminism is a facbricated concept that has been argued and interpreted a million times over since its invention.
This was different. It was an absolute wrongdoing on his part. He’s an asshole and i don’t know why you have him as a friend. If he can’t respect his wife and doesn’t care about his future children, what makes you think he values you more than that?
If my friend told me he beat/hit his pregnant wife and then said that he was a feminist i would beat the shit out of him. i wouldn’t be arguing whether or not he’s a feminst.
feminism shouldnt be lumped in with physical violence. it’s about jobs, rights equal pay and all that other stuff - not this
The logic that he can’t be a femist because he hit his GF and cheats on her is flawed. Would you say the same about a lesbian who hits her GF and cheats on her? Conversely, is a straight woman who cheats on her BF and throws pots at him when she’s angry automatically a feminist?
The guy’s behavior diminishes, but does not eliminate the possibility that he is a feminist. Feminism is the movement to make women equal to men in social and economic categories. By hitting the girlfriend, he is using the superior physical condition of men to assert a dominant role. The feminist implication of his cheating is less obvious. For instance, if he is using status as a sole breadwinner to eliminate any objection to his behavior, that might be anti feminist. However, it could just be that he is a douche (a gay guy cheating on his partner would not be “anti gay”).
If feminism is defined by treating women as equals to men, then hitting her would strengthen his case as a feminist. The cheating just makes him a bad person. I don’t see how that fits into the feminism conversation.
either you have a very different definition of feminism, or your definition of feminism across the pond is very different from the north american definition.
I’m with STL on this one. Don’t see the intercept here.
Yes, most likely that is the case. I just put a “maybe” in there, because there are unlikely conditions that would invalidate this conclusion. For instance, if the woman is stronger than him (like she is a MMA fighter), or if she is the primary breadwinner in the household.
You’re confusing feminism (promoting women’s rights and equality) with generally being a good person, respecting relationships and not treating people poorly. You’re totally confusing the concepts. Promoting women’s rights has nothing to do with not being an asshole (whether it be to women or men).
Basically I can think you deserve equal rights and treatment but still be an asshole to you without jeapardizing my stance.
But general bad behavior can still give rise to anti feminist situations. Let’s say, for instance, that domestic violence becomes accepted as a social norm. This will most likely lead to men dominating households, since men are physically stronger than women.
Domestic violence is and should be illegal. That being said, I’m trying not to read into Pokhim’s comments about him smacking her too much as I don’t have full information. All I do know is that he said she hit him and the kid and he responded by smacking her back. Would I have done the same? No. But I think you could argue that since it was retalitory the simple answer is for her to not hit him (which is also domestic violence… technically although questionably). Obviously nobody should be smacking anybody but it’s hard to really know if we’re talking about a blown out of proportion incident or a full blown problem (my brother’s wife busted his eardrum once and he’s a big guy).
That would be pretty interesting… “Your rhododendrons are perfectly pruned and I must compliment your arrangement in this area of the garden.” Suddenly some guy shows up “shut your mouth b***!!”
Sounds like he’s a feminist in the abstract, but either an asshole or a hypocrite in practice (your choice).
It’s a bit like people who say that free markets are best for everyone, then vote to eliminate the social safety net and then fire their workers so they can automate. (sorry, that analogy was too fun not to make).