The backing of ladies' rights on the grounds of political, social, and monetary fairness to men. All things considered, uh… beyond any doubt, I presume. Yet, you kinda need to comprehend that women's activists can go from great individuals who need simply equity for everybody to crazy, man-abhorring nazis who need females to be viewed as the ace race.
There are a lot of awesome individuals who are women's activists, for example, Jordan Yates or Client (Alter: I don't recall this' identity, however I figure obviously they were restricted… that is a disgrace). They're quite marvelous.
However, I've seen women's activists who fundamentally trust that all men are shocking attackers and ought to be eliminated.
I've seen women's activists who trust that guys can't be assaulted and that females are dependably casualties.
Women's activists who trust that a man who beats his better half is vile, yet a lady who beats her significant other is overcome and honorable.
So would feminists be able to be great? Obviously. There are numerous great women's activists. Would feminism be able to be terrible? Indeed, it can be that also. Everything truly relies upon the individual. Putting stock in break even with rights is normally called populism, yet in the event that somebody who has faith in parallel rights needs to call themselves a women's activist, that is okay.
Woman's rights isn't really great or awful. It's sort of like a religion — Christianity, for instance, is the religion of numerous individuals who genuinely love everybody and truly do think about affection and peace. It's additionally the religion that the Westboro Baptist Church — you know, that one church whose individuals circumvent singing "God loathes fags" and that sort of exasperatingly appalling stuff — jump at the chance to mark themselves as, much to the frighten of kindred Christians.