devilshour-blog1

[devilshour-blog1]

“What are you hoping to accomplish with this argument?”

Clarification, actually. But considering this post exists in the first place, there seems to be a lack of it :)

Firstly, you seem to not know what the term “feminist” means—so here’s a simple definition: An individual who advocates equal rights for both genders. And there’s an antonym to this, if you didn’t know! It’s “sexist.” So, when we say “that’s not a REAL feminist,” we probably mean “he/she is sexist”—or that “he/she is not a feminist,” or “he/she is a feminazi.” It isn’t used for no reason. :)

Secondly, we actually can determine who’s a feminist and who isn’t. It doesn’t mean that, if you call yourself one, you are one.

A woman can claim she is a “feminist” yet hit her boyfriend and degrade him—and we have every right to say that she is not a REAL feminist. Not one at all, actually. We do not tolerate nor do we support her actions & behaviour. What this woman is, despite her own account of herself, is sexist and abusive. Plain and simple. 

It’s like, if a person says they’re not racist for the hell of not being titled a ‘racist’, that wouldn’t mean they are what they say they are. They are still goddamn racist. 

How a person acts and what they say can give a clear indication of what they identify as and what they stand/don’t stand for, honey. You just need to be educated enough to figure it out. :)

Thirdly, it’s not our “massive ego” that we care about—nor do we want to “erase” the ‘not-a-REAL-feminist’ individual. In fact, we want to bring light to them, and show everyone how easily people can abuse the term and establish misinterpretation. 

And what we care about, in this case, is how ignorant people are shunning what we stand for because they see these alleged “““feminists””” and immediately conclude that that is what feminism is—that that is what a feminist looks like—when that is not the case. 

These ‘feminazis’ tend to be the representatives of what ‘feminism’ is to those not educated on the term, and this creates a big misunderstanding on what we stand for, and how we ought to behave. 

That’s why we use the argument, “That’s not REAL feminism.” So as to emphasize the obvious distinction (though, apparently, it’s not that obvious…) between wrongly-perceived feminism, and what the term—the “sorry excuse for an activist movement”—actually is. 

:)

"That's not REAL feminism"

I have heard this argument countless amount of times by feminists when presented with examples of bad feminists.

Let me ask you this, what are you hoping to accomplish with this argument?

Do you really think people are going to hear the comment and think “wow you’re right, I’ll never judge feminists again!”?

If someone calls them self a feminist and does something bad, you saying “That’s not a REAL feminist though” isn’t going to change anyone’s thoughts about that person.

Also, you don’t determine who’s a feminist and who isn’t. If a person calls them self a feminist, then he/she is a feminist. It doesn’t matter if he/she’s a bad feminist, they’re still be associated with feminism.

If you use this argument, you are just as bad as those “bad” feminists because you only care about your massive ego rather than other people. You don’t care about what those bad feminists do, you only care about erasing that person so you make yourself and your sorry excuse for an activist movement look better.

[devilshour-blog1]

The Warrior Princess: Princess Urduja

I think you guys should know about this Filipino princess right now…

So, I asked my dad if Philippines ever had a monarch, and he told me about a princess — Princess Urduja — who ruled a Philippine province known today as Pangasinan (known, back then, as “Tawalisi”) around the 14th century. 

According to some research sources, she was “young, beautiful, and well-educated.” But she was far more than that; she was also a warrior. She trained in the arts of war as a child, and also personally led her army into battle, typically on horseback. (And, as my dad added: “Her brother failed at fighting in battle, so she took his place.”) 

BUT HERE’S WHERE IT GETS BETTER!

Her ‘army’ consisted of other warrior women who were “skilled in arms, in riding horses” and had “well-built and well-developed bodies, prodigious strength, and ‘masculine’ physique.” (Because she believed that females could fight just as well as males.) They were called Kinalakian or Amazon. 

-

(Sound familiar? Hint: Where have you heard the term Amazonians? This Princess is literally starting to sound like Wonder Woman… but that’s just me…) 

-

ANYWAYS, HERE’S THE BEST PART!

She. Did. Not. Have. A. Love. Interest. 

Suitors came from all around, but she would not allow anyone to have her hand unless they beat her in a duel. 

A duel. And no one ever did.  

She supposedly said to a traveller once: “And you have heard, too, I’m sure, that I am still unmarried because I will marry no man except him who shall conquer me, and all the eligible suitors in this vicinity are afraid to try for fear of being beaten by a girl.” 

She wanted her husband to be “braver, stronger, and wiser than [her]” — but nobody qualified, thus she remained unmarried throughout her life. 

(And at this point, I’ve fallen in love.)

However, historians speculate that Princess Urduja is actually a hoax. 

This may be because there is only one account recorded of her: It was from a Moroccan traveller, Ibn Battuta, who’d supposedly stopped by Tawalisi on his voyage to China and wrote about his encounter with Princess Urduja. 

They claimed that Battuta’s “encounter” with this warrior Princess had been fake — made-up — and that she was simply a made-up story, as well. 

Despite their doubt, many Filipinos regard Princess Urduja more of a “myth” and “legend” rather than a fairytale ((connotation matters)); and some people — especially the Pangasinenses — even persist that she was real.

I believe she was. (Do you?)