Not my usual title style, but it seems appropriate since I'm responding to an article titled "I am a female and I am so over feminists." I read that post and was decidedly unimpressed with its contents and the 'strawman' it constructs of feminism as a movement. We're going to journey through this post bit by bit, I don't want to miss anything.

The subtitle for this article indicates that the author is a "strong woman who also believes in a strong man." Great! Be a strong woman! It is also entirely her prerogative to prefer 'masculine' men, that is a personal choice. However, just as society needs to accept strong women, we also have to accept 'weak' men. In fact, that very idea that a man who isn't masculine is 'weak' indicates a serious problem with societal expectations that needs to be addressed.

Beliefs are beliefs, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I’m all about girl power, but in today’s world, it’s getting shoved down our throats. Relax feminists, we’re OK.

I agree entirely with the first sentence, the author isn't without some valid points in the article but does seem to largely miss the point. Girl power = feminism? Not quite. That is only true in the sense of feminism promoting female autonomy in a culture that is still generally male-run. No, feminism as a movement isn't just looking out for women.

Feminism fights for the equal rights of everyone, regardless of gender (no matter where on the gender spectrum someone falls). Feminism fights against the imposition of gender roles. As far as getting shoved down anyone's throats, no more so than any social movement or position in an age where activists have so many means at their disposal to be vocal about their beliefs. Trump-hate is being shoved down our throats too, that is just the nature of media these days.

My inspiration actually came from a man (God forbid, a man has ideas these days). One afternoon my boyfriend was telling me about a discussion his class had regarding female sports and how TV stations air less female competitions than that of males. In a room where he and his other male classmate were completely outnumbered, he didn’t have much say in the discussion. Apparently, it was getting pretty heated in the room, and the women in the class were going on and on about how society is unfair to women in this aspect and that respect for the female population is diminishing quickly.

I understand being glib and throwing in some quick sarcasm about men having ideas, but it belies a larger misunderstanding of feminism. Again, the name of the game is equal treatment regardless of gender identity. Although there are misandrist feminists, those two are far from synonymous and should not be confused.

As far as the situation in the classroom, I'm not actually going to comment on that. I wasn't there and there aren't really enough details to speak intelligently of what happened, so I'm not going to try. It does seem to be that there were some unsupported statements made by the women in that class in terms of respect decreasing, but that's all I have.

Women have more rights in the United States than anywhere else in the world.

*cough* Sweden *cough* Finland *cough* Denmark *cough*

Whatever happened to chivalry? Why is it so “old fashioned” to allow a man to do the dirty work or pay for meals? Feminists claim that this is a sign of disrespect, yet when a man offers to pick up the check or help fix a flat tire (aka being a gentleman), they become offended. It seems like a bit of a double standard to me.

I would say it is "old fashioned" to expect a man to do the dirty work or pay for meals, just as it is "old fashioned" to expect a woman's priorities to be getting married and having children. The reason someone would be offended, by either of those expectations, is that they are just that: gender based expectations.

A man offers to pick up the bill or do manual labor? Okay, sure. If he would do it for another man in a similar circumstance, then we're good, feminist goal accomplished. So long as he does it because he's out with a woman or sees it is a woman who needs help, then it isn't chivalrous, it is disrespectful.

To use a hackneyed example: holding the door open. I hold the door open for anyone coming through behind me within a reasonable distance, regardless of gender. If someone looks like they will have trouble with the door due to their hands being full, I'll open it for them. I will not open a door only for women (or men, for that matter) because doing so is disrespecting their ability to do something we all should be capable of (barring physical disability).

Pro-tip on identifying if a behavior is sexist: If it would seem weird to switch the genders, then there is some sexism in play. If you're fine with anyone offering to pay the bill, then congrats, you aren't sexist in that way. If you think that men should always pay, even if only for some arbitrary number of encounters, then there is some sexism there. If you think everyone should hold a door for those behind them and those who can't open it themselves, then you're probably fine. If you think men should hold it for women but not other men, there is some sexism. If you would feel uncomfortable with a woman helping you with a flat tire (regardless of your gender) then, guess what, there is some sexism there.

There is a distinct divide between both the mental and physical makeup of a male and female body. There is a reason for this. We are not equals. The male is made of more muscle mass, and the woman has a more efficient brain (I mean, I think that’s pretty freaking awesome). The male body is meant to endure more physically while the female is more delicate. So, quite frankly, at a certain point in life, there needs to be restrictions on integrating the two. For example, during that same class discussion that I mentioned before, one of the young ladies in the room complained about how the NFL does not allow female athletes. I mean, really? Can you imagine being tackled by a 220-pound linebacker? Of course not.Our bodies are different. It’s not “inequality,” it’s just science.
(Italics from the original)

Ummm.... okay... Yes, men are predisposed through the process of puberty to have a higher muscle to fat ratio than women, that much is true. Women having more efficient brains? I'd love to see a source on that because significant gender differences in neurological functioning are few and far between, much less something that global as "more efficient brains". That second statement, by the way, is an example of sexism. The application of a gender stereotype without scientific backing, positive or negative, is sexism.

Male body more durable, female body more delicate? Uh huh. I'm sorry, but there are women who I am quite confident could kick my almost 200 pound ass if they felt so inclined to, just as there are men who look like a strong breeze could break them. Here again we see a reliance on stereotypes instead of an understanding of the heterogeneity of the human population. Are men generally more 'durable' than women? Maybe, but the author here cites no sources indicating that this is true and, as such, is relying on unjustified stereotypes instead of real gender differences.

If a woman wants to join the NFL and can compete at that level in football, I see no reason she shouldn't be allowed. The author here points out that sports entertainment is a business and this is one case where that point comes back around: If it sports teams are out to make as much money as possible, they will want the best players on their teams, regardless of gender. Again, if you find the idea of a female football player as uncomfortable (as opposed to merely unlikely), there might be some sexism there.

Side note: When I say there is some sexism there, I'm not calling the author sexist. Our culture informs many of these casually sexist attitudes and it is entirely understandable to have them. However, that is what feminism is fighting against: casually sexist attitudes that we, for the most part, don't question.

We are still climbing the charts in 2016. Though there is still considered to be a glass ceiling for the working female, it’s being shattered by the perseverance and strong mentality of women everywhere. So, let’s stop blaming men and society about how we continue to “struggle” and praise the female gender for working hard to make a mark on today’s workforce. We’re doing a kick-ass job, let’s stop the complaining.

Just because a lot of progress has been made doesn't mean that those fighting for progress can simply stop and relax. Equality takes a lot of fighting for, just ask those still fighting for equal rights from a racial perspective.

Also, the author is right in that we should stop blaming men. However, we shouldn't stop blaming the culture in which we are all raised which places implicit expectations about men and women. We're talking about stereotypes that are so deeply ingrained in our culture that they aren't even questioned most of the time. So yeah, no resting on our laurels.

I consider myself to be a very strong and independent female. But that doesn’t mean that I feel the need to put down the opposite gender for every problem I endure. Not everything is a man’s fault. Let’s be realistic ladies, just as much as they are boneheads from time to time, we have the tendency to be a real pain in the tush. It’s a lot of give and take. We don’t have to pretend we don’t need our men every once in a while. It’s OK to be vulnerable. Men and women are meant to complement one another—not to be equal or to over-power. The genders are meant to balance each other out. There’s nothing wrong with it.

I agree, no one should put down the opposite gender for every problem. However, certain problems can be identified as systemic issues of society-wide sexism, just like certain problems can be identified as systematic issues of society-wide racism.

Men and women, in equal measure, can be "boneheads" or "a real pain in the tush."

It is okay to be vulnerable, for women and men.

Men and women are "meant" to complement each other? That verges on some really sticky philosophical territory that I'm going to stay away from and focus on what I like about this part of the passage: Men and women should be equal in power, that is the whole objective of feminism summed up as succinctly as possible. There's nothing wrong with that. Complement doesn't even enter into it, we are equals and should be treated as such, free of gender-based expectations (again, I'll make allowances for biological differences in sex).

However, I don’t believe that being a female entitles me to put down men and claim to be the “dominant” gender. There is no “dominant” gender. There’s just men and women. Women and men. We coincide with each other, that’s that. Time to embrace it.

With the caveat that gender isn't binary, I couldn't agree more.