Do you think there are lesbians who aren't feminists or

Yes.

>>5707555
i'm sure there are lesbians with triple-digit IQ, so yes

>>5707591
How do I find them

>>5707601
Reactionary websites are your best bet.

>>5707555
Yeah, me for example.

>>5707555
>>5707601
try mtfg

>>5707600
Having an IQ of 100 or more and being a feminist are not mutually exclusive.

>>5707612
>>5707612
>>5707612

>>5707555

No.
There are many lesbians who don't want to accept trannies as women, and many people these days who say that they think "political correctness" has gone too far...

...but if you ask them about their actual opinions, it's always very feminist, really.

Only a majority of women "identifies" as feminist these days, but the majority still thinks and demands what feminists want.

Just ask them about specific policies such as abortion, rape laws, representation of women in media and politics, etc.

>>5708068
you can probably find some self-hating dyke desu, but they are few and far in between. Most of them hate themselves too much to even come out of the closet. To have them hate themselves enough to be anti-feminist, but not so much that they won't accept their own homosexuality is a pretty small window on the scale of self-hate.

>>5708100

Yes.

Or maybe you find lesbians that hate straight women and idolize men. That is more of a male TV fantasy (the kickass lesbian that is treated like an honorary man by the other cops or soldiers)...

...but shouldn't be THAT rare. But for a lesbian to be accepted as "one of the guys", and to be seen as an honorary man, that also requires a good deal of feminism.

>>5708113
That would work too. It requires a lack of self-awareness. She has to be "one of the guys" but so lacking in self-awareness and humility that she doesn't attribute her freedom to feminism and women's rights to wear pants and not be pregnant all the time.

I've actually dated someone like that. It wasn't too great. If I wanted a self-righteous egomaniac, I could just find a douche off the street.

>>5707974
You are wrong, my friend.

>>5709484
Do you have any evidence to back that up? It's a pretty outrageous claim that every single feminist has below average intelligence.

>>5707631
*tlg

>>5710068
Actually more lesbian transsexuals post in /mtfg/ than /tlg/.

>>5708100
Fuuugg stop talking about me.

>>5708113
How would trying to fit in with the guys require feminism? Did I read that wrong? I've always thought about it the other way around. The feminist girls I know are terrible at making friends with guys. But I don't think they want to anyway. But most of the girls I know in computing about this that and the other coworker and how she thinks he implied something sexist.

>>5707555
Yes. I'm not feminist. I don't believe in inequality. I'm a narcissist and I believe women are far superior to men and to even think we should want anything to do with them is unacceptable. Let them roll around in the dirt chasing after a handegg, let them have their sekrit h@ckerz club, let them have their stds and esportz11! Whatever it is they like to gloat about. I'm anti anything that tells me there should be more women in this or that because really, being in a workplace filled with boys sounds like the ultimate hell.

>>5710202
Computers are pretty cool. Sorry. Being in a workplace with other people who think computers are cool seems nice to me. Gender ain't no thang.

>>5710202
>I believe women are far superior to men and to even think we should want anything to do with them is unacceptable
You are a feminist

These are the lesbians I would like to avoid btw
>>5710202

File: Bait_fde29c_5515578.jpg (18KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x600px

>>5707555
Yes

One called Anita Starkston

>>5710171
Because without feminism she wouldn't be allowed to fraternise with the guys, have a job with the guys, dress like the guys, or have the same hobbies as the guys without everyone assuming she was somehow damaged, insane, or a slut

>>5707974
However having an IQ of 100 or more and being anti-feminist are mutually exclusive.

Sure, there are loads of women who take issue with western feminisms focus on wealthy white women and apathy to just about everyone else, and refuse to call themselves feminists for that reason. (See: white feminism)

Yes, and they're utter retards that can't define their terms correctly.

>>5713307
lol no

it was right the first time

>>5715197
>it was right the first time
See >>5710050

>>5713296
Eh not really. Having both genders in the work place was bound to happen anyway with over-population and requiring 2 incomes to pay for a house/children without the social influence of feminism if that's what you're talking about. Grace hopper was slaying "male fields" in the 50s. If you're talking about colleges and voting then sure feminism helped, but voting even was only allowed for the subset of people who pledge their allegiance to their country when necessary (the draft) and not working/going to college was pretty much a one way ticket to not being valued in society for a man and not getting married. Beyond that, women will succeed in fields that are deemed "masculine" and people will see this and the way of thinking will change. It's not necessary to force everyone to think or act differently. When the success of women becomes obvious...they will naturally. When half the women in college major in journalism/women's studies/ psychology/ education...this doesn't really happen as quickly. And it's not because of sexism.

>>5717172
This should say more than half. I'd guess around 80% desu.

>>5717172
>voting even was only allowed for the subset of people who pledge their allegiance to their country when necessary (the draft)
When was that changed though? I'm physically incapable of military service and no one's tried to tell me I can't vote.

>>5718767
It was changed when people started demanding the right to vote without being required to enter the draft. In Canada women who worked in the army as nurses and what not were given the right to vote. That's what voting is based around in a democratic society, being able to choose who you put into power and bearing the responsibility of what they decide to do when they're in power.