Welcome to Gaia! ::

The only choice is male dominance. The goal of feminism is to create an option for equality as an alternative to patriarchy.

Why not expand and stop being so monolithic (I'm sick of closed minded moderates)?

Why not also allow women to be dominant and do ANYTHING a man can do?

From what I have seen, feminists don't want women to have all the rights that men have, just the ones that are socially acceptable, because they are cowardly moderates that don't want to get in trouble.

Why can't a woman initiate affection? Why can't a woman take care of a man? Why can't a woman love another woman? Feminists attack women that want to do these things and claim that we are not real feminists.

Why won't mainline moderate feminists support equal selection? Because choosing between only patriarchy and equality is not equality, unless I have an equal right to choose matriarchy and be treated just the same as a man who chose patriarchy.

In my opinion, there is no equality without equal choices.

One of the forum members made a topic saying that I HAVE NO RIGHT TO ADVOCATE MATRIARCHY and that women should have no right to be dominant. She says she supports equality. If so, why doesn't she also attack those who advocate male dominance. I think she supports male dominance and denies it.

Why shouldn't matriarchy be an optional lifestyle?

I'm not sure where you're coming from with this, but here's my views, being feminist in the US:

It seems as though our society as a very hierarchical structure. If something/one has power, that means they/it are standing on the shoulders of someone/thing else to obtain that power. If women are gaining more power socially, there is an automatic assumption in many people's minds that that means women are gaining that power by oppressing men. (Because that is the only way to have power in the current structure.)

I don't quite know what you mean by "moderate" but it sounds like what I would term "liberal feminists." I don't really like liberal feminism, simply because there seems to be a big push within the movement to be *mainstream*. It seems like a liberal feminist will always make sure to include within her works, "I may be a feminist, but I'm still feminine! I still wear makeup! I still wear high heels! I still have a boyfriend and I LOVE MEN." There's this very...placating attitude that I dislike. And while I admire much of Jessica Valenti's work, I would still probably categorize her as a liberal feminist. I do not like Feministing, for example. That right there is liberal feminism.

On the other hand, it's not like liberal feminist's aren't doing this for a reason. They are attempting to work within the power structure that already exists to create change. The problem that I see with that is that it is that power structure that is the problem. Working within the power structure will do nothing but corrupt your movement and you will be reduced to begging for scraps.

I know that a lot of people don't see women like Mary Daly and Audre Lorde as "real" feminists, and I agree that a lot of their views had problems (Mary Daly straight up rejecting trans* people is a really good example, and something I don't agree with.) But I see those women as being really smart and really, really pissed off, and not afraid to show it. When you're making change, you don't demand the minimum and hope you get it. You demand more than you need, that way you might actually get something.