Listen I'm a feminist as much as the next guy (especially if that guy is Bill O'Reilly) but I'm sick of this "all women have to have each others backs" rhetoric. I'm aware there are plenty of injustices that happen all the time to women. I just don't think lumping yourselves into one big group is helpful. Sure you'll get your Jackie O's and your Betty White's but that also means Aileen Wuornos, Casey Anthony and Amy Schumer. Right now you're probably thinking "This guy's trying to mansplain feminism and apparently my own thoughts to me?" but "mansplaining" and "The Patriarchy" are almost contradictory ideas. If men are so much more of a dominant gender than women maybe take some advice from us once in awhile. If Tina Fey walked into the room that I'm writing this in right now and gave me tips I would at least hear her out (before I proposed), I wouldn't be like "What? You think you're doing so much better than me?" because I think we can all agree that's accurate. So here's why I think the lumping is a bad thing. During the Women's March that happened after President Trump's inauguration a particular group of women were asked to leave. The reason they were asked to leave is this group of women were against abortion (I refuse to call someone "pro life" simply based one murder principal they hold) also keep in mind several men attended this march and none were asked to leave. Now this wasn't called the "People with a Certain set of Ideals March" or the "Women Who Agree with this Group of Women's March" it was just the "Women's March". Now as much as it might sound like it I'm not trying to criticize the march I'm not just this one particular action. Now I understand the reasoning behind it but abortion ultimately comes down to one prime issue which is religion. Now there are religious people that are okay with abortion and vice versa but my point is during the Million Man March no men were removed for having a different religion than any other man there. The reason his distinction is important is because your pitting yourself against a group that your also fighting for, they might be wrong but do the people trying to help you deserve to silenced? Now I don't agree with these women but a man contributes 50% of the genetic material into making a fetus. Shouldn't those men get 50% of the say in whether or not that becomes a baby? Now a lot of you are screaming "My body my choice!" in whatever coffee shop you're in but you're also the same people that would argue to close the wage gap for the people distributing the money shouldn't it be their money their choice or their company their choice. I don't think so, my point is there's an argument to be had and you shouldn't just dismiss people when you're claiming to be their champion. Now I do think it's terrible that there's a wage gap and a male dominated government but a recent study showed that 50% of the population has owned 100% of the vaginas since the beginning of time. Vaginas are basically the reason men invented currency. Honestly I find it kind of silly to believe that men got ahead strictly on some size advantage. I think it's whatever in our brains that lets us disconnect an idea from a person. I'm sure if I met with Benjamin Franklin we wouldn't see eye to eye but electricity is neat, I can think Bill Cosby is guilty AND funny (I don't think he's funny but I could). It's also probably the same thing that makes us more prone to racism and war. It's kind of why I think all prejudices are treated as a deep seeded hatred, prejudices aren't hatred they're just a lack of knowledge. You can like something and think it's inferior to you, I like cats but they don't have opposable thumbs or taco trucks. It's harmful to your argument to tell someone they hate women when they're only trying to look out for the best interest of their wife just as its harmful to tell a woman they're not on the side of women. Abortion is a subdivision of the women's rights argument, I just think maybe you should focus on the argument as a whole before getting into the intricate details. Feminism is a great idea, I just think it's suffering from some bad branding. Get the message out first sort out the details later. "But Zeke! The oppositions message is terrible, they don't give a shit about anyone! Why don't they have to fix their message?" because their message is already in place. New ideas have to prove themselves better than the old ones before they can get put into place not the other way around. I know a lot of this came off as ignorant. I've never claimed to be a smart person and this has to be entertaining to a degree but I'm asking that you separate these ideas from the person writing them, quit condescending to the people that are trying to help you and have a conversation with them.